Editing Religiosity (section)

==Components==
The measurement of religiosity is hampered by the difficulties involved in defining what is meant by the term and what components it includes. Numerous studies have explored the different components of religiosity, with most finding some distinction between religious beliefs/doctrine, religious practice, and [[spirituality]]. When religiosity is measured, it is important to specify which aspects of religiosity are being discussed.<ref name="what is religiosity">{{cite journal|last1=Holdcroft|first1=Barbara|title=What is Religiosity?|journal=Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice|date=September 2006|volume=10|issue=1|pages=89–103}}</ref>

Numerous studies have explored the different components of human religiosity.<ref>Brink, T.L. 1993. Religiosity: measurement. in Survey of Social Science: Psychology, Frank N. Magill, Ed., Pasadena, CA: Salem Press, 1993, pp.&nbsp;2096–2102.</ref><ref>Hill, Peter C. and Hood, Ralph W. Jr. 1999. Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham, [[Alabama]]: Religious Education Press. {{ISBN|0-89135-106-X}}</ref> What most have found (often using [[factor analysis]]) is that there are multiple dimensions. For instance, Marie Cornwall and colleagues identify six dimensions of religiosity based on the understanding that there are at least three components to religious behavior: knowing (cognition in the mind), feeling (effect to the spirit), and doing (behavior of the body).<ref name="cornwall-et-al">{{cite journal | last1 = Cornwall | first1 = Marie | last2 = Albrecht | first2 = S.L. | last3 = Cunningham | first3 = P.H. | last4 = Pitcher | first4 = B.L. | year = 1986 | title = The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual model with an empirical test | journal = Review of Religious Research | volume = 27 | issue = 3 | pages = 226–244 | doi = 10.2307/3511418 | jstor = 3511418 }}</ref> For each of these components of religiosity, there were two cross classifications, resulting in the six dimensions:<ref name="cornwall-et-al"/>
*Cognition
**traditional [[orthodoxy]]
**particularistic orthodoxy
*Affect
**Palpable
**Tangible
*Behavior
**religious behavior
**religious participation

Sociologists have differed over the exact number of components of religiosity. [[Charles Y. Glock|Charles Glock]]'s five-dimensional approach (Glock, 1972: 39) was among the first of its kind in the field of [[sociology of religion]].<ref>Glock, C. Y. (1972). "On the Study of Religious Commitment" in J. E. Faulkner (ed.) ''Religion's Influence in Contemporary Society: Readings in the Sociology of Religion'', Ohio: Charles E. Merril: 38–56.</ref> Other sociologists adapted Glock's list to include additional components (see for example, a  [[Mervin F. Verbit#The Twenty Four-Dimensional Religiosity Measure|six component measure]] by [[Mervin F. Verbit]]).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Verbit | first1 = M. F. | year = 1970 | title = The components and dimensions of religious behavior: Toward a reconceptualization of religiosity | journal = American Mosaic | volume = 24 | page = 39 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Küçükcan|first1=T|year=2005|title=Multidimensional Approach to Religion: a way of looking at religious phenomena|journal=Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies|volume=4|issue=10|pages=60–70}}</ref><ref>Küçükcan, Talip. 2000. [http://www.eskieserler.com/dosyalar/mpdf%20(1135).pdf Can Religiosity Be Measured? Dimensions of Religious Commitment: Theories Revisited].</ref> Other researchers have found different dimensions, generally ranging from four to twelve components.

What most measures of religiosity find is that there is at least some distinction between religious doctrine, religious practice, and spirituality. Most dimensions of religiosity are correlated, meaning people who often attend church services (practice dimension) are also likely to score highly on the belief and spirituality dimensions. Nonetheless, an individual's scores on a measure of religiosity can vary between dimensions; they may not score high on all dimensions or low on all dimensions.

For example{{original research inline|date=February 2011}}, an individual could accept truthfulness of the [[Bible]] (belief dimension), but never attend a church or even belong to an organized religion (practice dimension). Another example is an individual who did not accept orthodox [[Christian doctrine]]s (belief dimension) but did attend a [[Charismatic Movement|charismatic]] [[worship]] service (practice dimension) in order to develop his/her sense of oneness with the divine (spirituality dimension). A different individual might disavow all doctrines associated with organized religions (belief dimension), not affiliate with an organized religion or attend religious services (practice dimension), and at the same time be strongly committed to a higher power and feel that the connection with that higher power is ultimately relevant (spirituality dimension). These are explanatory examples of the broadest dimensions of religiosity and may not be reflected in specific religiosity measures.

Demographic studies often show a wide diversity of religious beliefs, belonging, and practices in both religious and non-religious populations. For instance, among Americans who are not religious and not seeking religion, 68% believe in God, 12% are atheists, 17% are agnostics. Also, 18%{{who|date=June 2024|reason=This appears to still be referring to Americans, but which group of Americans, or all?}} self-identify as religious, 37% self-identify as spiritual but not religious, and 42% self-identify as neither spiritual nor religious. Furthermore, 21%{{who|date=June 2024|reason=This appears to still be referring to Americans, but which group of Americans, or all?}} pray every day and 24% pray once a month.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/NONES_08.pdf|title=American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population|year=2008|publisher=American Religious Identification Survey|access-date=2014-01-30}}</ref><ref name="Pew 2012 breakdown">{{cite web |url=http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-religion/ |title=Religion and the Unaffiliated |work="Nones" on the Rise |date=October 9, 2012 |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]: Religion & Public Life }}</ref><ref name="Most Nones Believe God">{{cite web|title=Most of the Religiously Unaffiliated Still Keep Belief in God|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/most-of-the-religiously-unaffiliated-still-keep-belief-in-god/|website=Pew Research Center|date=November 15, 2012}}</ref> Global studies on religion also show diversity.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Global Religious Landscape|url=http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/|website=Pew Research Center|date=2012-12-18}}</ref>

Decades of anthropological, sociological, and psychological research have established that the common assumption of "religious congruence" is rarely accurate. "Religious congruence" is the view that religious beliefs and values are tightly integrated in an individual's mind, or that religious practices and behaviors follow directly from religious beliefs, or that religious beliefs are chronologically linear and stable across different contexts. People's religious ideas are fragmented, loosely connected, and context-dependent, like their ideas in all other domains of culture and life. The beliefs, affiliations, and behaviors of any individual are complex activities that have many sources including culture. Mark Chaves gives the following examples of religious incongruence: "Observant Jews may not believe what they say in their Sabbath prayers. Christian ministers may not believe in God. And people who regularly dance for rain don't do it in the dry season."<ref name="chaves">{{cite journal|last1=Chaves|first1=Mark|title=SSSR Presidential Address Rain Dances in the Dry Season: Overcoming the Religious Congruence Fallacy|journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion|date=March 2010|volume=49|issue=1|pages=1–14|doi=10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01489.x}}</ref>