2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Context: Religion and Human Rights 2.0 Empirical Project
The current paper is part of the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0 [
40]. The program provides an apt environment in which to test the effect of different religious measures on attitudes toward socio-economic human rights and on attitudes toward euthanasia and abortion, since this program included theoretical discussion of and measures to operationalise both constructs. The program focused on adolescence as an age-group formative for the international future.
Thus, in terms of attitudes toward socio-economic human rights, the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0 identified seven main areas and proposed two items to operationalise each area: the state’s obligation regarding the right to work, the state’s obligation regarding the right to social security, the state’s obligation regarding living wages, the state’s obligation regarding rest and leisure, the state’s obligation regarding the rights of children, the state’s obligation regarding the protection of women from discrimination, and the state’s obligation regarding the protection of homosexuals from discrimination [
40]. Testing the scaling properties of these 14 items on data provided by a sample of 987 students between the ages of 14 and 18 years in England and Wales, Francis, McKenna, and Sahin [
41] reported a high alpha coefficient of .89. At the same time they found that the scaling properties of the instrument could be improved by omitting the two items relating to homosexuals. Francis, McKenna, and Sahin [
41] employed this instrument to explore the association between attitudes toward socio-economic human rights and three dimensions of religion (religious practice, religiosity, and self-assigned religious affiliation), after taking into account personal factors (sex and age), and psychological factors (extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism).
Working within the same framework of the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0, Rogobete and Vitelar [
11] tested the scaling properties of a somewhat different set of 12 items related to socio-economic rights on data provided by a sample of 681 Romanian adolescents, reporting a high alpha coefficient of .88. Using this instrument, Rogobete and Vitelar [
11] enquired if religiosity has any influence on supporting socio-economic rights, as well as exploring the respondents’ perception of the role of the state in securing such rights. They were also interested in understanding the nature of the relationship between religiosity (including the perception of the functions of religion), family background, and the socio-psychological and political traits of the respondents, and their support for socio-economic rights.
In terms of attitude toward euthanasia and abortion, the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0 identified seven items relating to abortion. One item concerned total prohibition of abortion and six items concerned grounds on which abortion may be permitted: in the case of rape, in the case of incest, when there is a strong chance of serious defects to the baby, when the woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, when the woman cannot afford more children economically, and when the woman cannot afford more children psychologically. The program also identified three items relating to euthanasia. One item concerned total prohibition of euthanasia and two items concerned grounds on which euthanasia may be permitted: in the case of unbearable and irreversible suffering, and in the case of palliative care being exhausted. Testing the scaling properties of these ten items on data provided by 966 students between the ages of 14 and 18 years in England and Wales, Francis, McKenna, and Sahin [
42] reported a high alpha coefficient of .87. Francis, McKenna, and Sahin [
41] employed this instrument to explore the association between attitudes toward euthanasia and abortion and both religious practices (personal prayer and worship attendance) and self-assigned religious affiliation (Christian Protestant, Christian Catholic, Muslim, and religiously unaffiliated), after taking into account personal factors (age and sex), and psychological factors (extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism).
Working within the same framework of the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0 Breskaya, Botvar, Sjöborg and Rogobete [
43] employed the same instrument in an international comparative study assessing, among other aspects related to religion and human rights, the ways in which religious affiliation plays a role in generating various attitudes towards abortion amongst adolescents from four countries: Sweden, Norway, Belarus, and Romania.
2.2. Procedure and Participants
Within the context of the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0, students attending high schools from the capital cities of the Development Regions of Romania (Timisoara, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi, Constanta, Sibiu, Ploiesti, and Craiova) and from Romania’s capital (Bucharest) were invited during the period September to December 2015 to complete an online survey. The decision to be completed online rather than pen-and-pencil was to take advantage of the study population and the study setting, as well as significantly reducing the costs involved [
44]. Thus, the questionnaire, translated into Romanian (using forward and back translation, sector-specific knowledge, and mother tongue translators), was completed during regular participation in Information Technology classes, under the supervision of the class instructors. All students were given the option not to participate, thus participation in the research was voluntary, totally anonymous, and based on informed consent. A total of 681 students across 12 schools completed the survey. The analyses reported in this paper were conducted on the data provided by the 400 students who self-identified as members of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and who fully completed all the measures employed in the analysis. This group comprised 217 females and 183 males, 41 students aged 15 years, 108 aged 16 years, 141 aged 17 years, and 11 aged 18 years.
2.3. Ethics Statement
The research conducted in the present study is in full compliance with all standards of good scientific practice and ethical codes expressed in the documents of the German Science Foundation. Letters for Research Ethical Codes Compliance regarding the International Religion and Human Rights Research program were issued both by the Julius-Maximillian University of Wurzburg and by the West University of Timisoara (code 7/2015/CEDU-UVT) and are available upon request. The ethical guidelines maintain that the school operating in loco parentis is able to authorise participation of students within the survey conducted with educational intentions and with full confidentiality and anonymity afforded.
2.4. Measures
Attitude toward socio-economic human rights was assessed by a 12-item scale, drawn from the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0, designed to operationalise six specific issues: the state’s obligation regarding the right to work, the state’s obligation regarding the right to social security, the state’s obligation regarding living wages, the state’s obligation regarding rest and leisure, the state’s obligation regarding the rights of children, and the state’s obligation regarding protection of women from discrimination (see [
41]). Each of these six areas was operationalised by two items. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale: disagree strongly (1), disagree (2), not certain (3), agree (4), agree strongly (5).
Attitude toward euthanasia and abortion was assessed by a 10-item scale, drawn from the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0, comprising three items about euthanasia and seven items about abortion (see [
42]). Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale: disagree strongly (1), disagree (2), not certain (3), agree (4), and agree strongly (5).
Personal factors were assessed by two variables: sex, male (1) and female (2); and age, 15 years (1), 16 years (2), 17 years (3), and 18 years (4).
Frequency of worship attendance was assessed by the question “How often do you take part in religious services at a church or mosque or another place?” rated on a six-point scale: never (1), hardly ever (2), a few times a year (3), 1–3 times a month (4), once a week (5), and more than once a week (6).
Frequency of personal prayer was assessed by the question “How often do you pray?” rated on an eight-point scale: never (1), hardly ever (2), a few times a year (3), 1–3 times a month (4), once a week (5), more than once a week (6), once a day (7), and several times a day (8).
Religious saliency was assessed by the question “How often do you think about religious issues?”, rated on a five-point scale: never (1), rarely (2), occasionally (3), often (4), and very often (5).
Religious openness was assessed by the question, “How often do you reconsider certain aspects of your religious views?”, rated on a five-point scale: never (1), rarely (2), occasionally (3), often (4), and very often (5).
Religious belief was assessed by the question, “I believe that God is the foundation of everything that exists”, rated on a five-point scale: totally disagree (1), disagree (2), not sure (3), agree (4), and fully agree (5).
2.5. Analysis
The data were analysed by SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 24, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) using the frequency, reliability, correlation, and regression routines.
3. Results
The first step in data analysis examined the scale properties among Romanian Orthodox adolescents of the two scales drawn from the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0. The data presented in
Table 1 examines the 12-item Scale of Attitude towards Socio-economic Human Rights (SASHR) in terms of the correlations between the individual items and the sum of the other eleven items, and in terms of the item endorsements expressed as the sum of the agree and agree strongly responses. The correlations ranging from .24 to .76 demonstrate that the majority of the items worked well together to produce a homogeneous scale. The one weak item was “Employment without paid holiday leave should be forbidden” (
r = .24). The alpha coefficient [
45] demonstrated a high level of internal consistency reliability (α = .90, Mean = 48.6, SD = 7.0).
The data presented in
Table 2 examines the 10-item Scale of Attitude toward Euthanasia and Abortion (SAEA) in terms of the correlations between the individual items and the sum of the other nine items, and in terms of the item endorsement expressed as the sum of the agree and agree strongly responses. The correlations ranging from .32 to .67 demonstrate that the items worked well together to produce a homogeneous scale. The alpha coefficient [
45] demonstrated a high level of internal consistency reliability (α = .86, Mean = 32.6, SD = 8.3).
The second step in data analysis took an overview of the two items concerning religious practice and the three items concerning religiosity among Romanian Orthodox adolescents. These data are presented in
Table 3.
The third step in data analysis explored the bivariate correlations between the two attitudinal measures (concerning socio-economic human rights, and euthanasia and abortion), the two personal factors (sex and age), the two measures of religious practice (worship attendance and personal prayer) and the three measures of religiosity (religious saliency, religious openness, and religious belief). These data are presented in
Table 4. Three features of these bivariate correlations deserve comment. First, there are no significant age differences in respect of the two measures of attitude, the two measures of religious practice, and the three measures of religiosity. Second, there are significant sex differences. Females recorded higher scores affirming socio-economic rights (consistent with the findings of Francis, McKenna, and Sahin, [
43]), higher scores permitting euthanasia and abortion (not consistent with Francis, McKenna, and Sahin, [
42]), and higher scores on religious practice and religiosity (consistent with the general trends reported by Francis and Penny, [
46]). Third, there is a complex pattern of correlations between religiosity and religious practice that require further clarification through regression modelling.
The fourth step in data analysis constructs a series of regression models with attitude as the dependent variable (SASHR in
Table 5 and SAEA in
Table 6), and with the independent variables being added incrementally in three steps. Model one begins by introducing the personal factors (sex and age). Model two adds the religious practices (worship attendance and personal prayer), Then, model three adds the religious measures (saliency, openness, and belief). For completeness
Table 5 and
Table 6 also incorporate the relevant correlations from
Table 4 so that these can be read easily alongside the beta weights from the regression models.
Table 5 explores the effects of the independent variables on scores recorded on the Scale of Attitude toward Socio-economic Human Rights. Three features of these data deserve comment. First, the effect of sex remains constant across the three models. Females hold a more positive attitude toward socio-economic human rights, irrespective of the higher levels of religiosity and religious practice associated with being female. Second, in model 2 when religious practice is taken into account, there is a clear contrast between the effect of prayer and the effect of worship attendance. Higher levels of worship attendance (an indicator of extrinsic religiosity) are associated with lower endorsement of socio-economic human rights. Higher levels of personal prayer (as an indicator of intrinsic religiosity) are associated with higher endorsement of socio-economic human rights. Third, in model 3 when religiosity is taken into account, additional variance is accounted for by religious belief and religious saliency, two further indices that may be considered germane for intrinsic religiosity. When religious belief and religious saliency are in the model, the direct positive effect of personal prayer is now routed through these other two indices of intrinsic religiosity. The negative effect of worship attendance, however, remains consistent. This finding confirms the relative independence of the two streams of influence that we have characterised as indicators of intrinsic religiosity and of extrinsic religiosity.
Table 6 explores the effects of the independent variables on scores recorded on the Scale of Attitude toward Euthanasia and Abortion. Three features of these data deserve comment. First, the effect of sex remains constant across the models. Females are more in favour of permitting euthanasia and abortion. This sex difference holds true in spite of the findings that women tend to be more religious and that higher religiosity is associated with lower acceptance of euthanasia and abortion. Second, in model 2, when religious practice is taken into account, the effects of worship attendance and of personal prayer both work in the same direction. Higher frequency of worship attendance is associated with lower acceptance of euthanasia and abortion. Higher frequency of personal prayer is associated with lower acceptance of euthanasia and abortion. Moreover, the effects of worship attendance and personal prayer are cumulative in the sense that lowest acceptance of euthanasia and abortion is found among churchgoers who also pray. In other words, extrinsic religiosity and intrinsic religiosity are working in the same direction. Third, in model 3, when religiosity is taken into account, additional variance is accounted for by religious belief. When religious belief is in the model, the direct negative effect of personal prayer is now routed through religious belief. The negative effect of worship attendance, however, remains constant. This finding confirms the association between personal prayer and religious belief (as two indicators of intrinsic religiosity) functioning independently of worship attendance (as an indicator of extrinsic religiosity).
4. Conclusions
The present study set out to examine the complex connections linking religion, social attitudes, and attitude toward human rights among Romanian Orthodox adolescents. Within the specific social context of contemporary Romania and within the theological context of contemporary Orthodox Christianity, two contrasting sets of hypotheses were shaped to propose the connections between the two contrasting religious orientations (intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity) and two contrasting attitudinal areas (attitude toward socio-economic human rights and attitude toward euthanasia and abortion). In respect of attitude toward socio-economic human rights, it was hypothesised that high levels of church attendance (extrinsic religiosity) would be associated with lower endorsement of socio-economic human rights, while high levels of personal prayer (intrinsic religiosity) would be associated with higher endorsement of socio-economic human rights. In respect of attitudes toward euthanasia and abortion, it was hypothesised that high levels of church attendance (extrinsic religiosity) would be associated with lower endorsement of euthanasia and abortion, while high levels of personal prayer (intrinsic religiosity) would also be associated with lower endorsement of euthanasia and abortion. Moreover, it was further hypothesised that these two effects would be cumulative, so that low levels of endorsement of euthanasia and abortion would be associated with high frequency of church attendance coupled with high frequency of personal prayer. These two contrasting sets of hypotheses were tested on data provided by 400 Romanian Orthodox adolescents between the ages of 15 and 18 years who participated within the International Empirical Research Program Religion and Human Rights 2.0.
The first core finding from these data concerned the relative strength of extrinsic religiosity (as reflected in frequency of church attendance) and intrinsic religiosity (as reflected in frequency of personal prayer) among Romanian Orthodox adolescents. While all the adolescents included in these analyses self-identified as Orthodox Christians, the level of participation in religious services was relatively low: just 23% reported attending services at least once a month, of whom 11% reported attending services at least once a week. The level of engagement with personal prayer was much higher: 65% reported praying at least once a week, of whom 42% reported praying at least once a day. The findings related to church attendance are consistent with current nationally-representative research on Romanian youth [
47], whereas the figures on prayer are relatively higher in the present study (65% compared to 42% at national level).
In other words, the adolescents who identify with the majority Orthodox denomination and who attend well-established educational settings, differ from the general Romanian youth by deeper levels of prayer life, whereas in terms of church attendance, they are roughly at the same level. Using the intrinsic-extrinsic differentiation, we can perhaps conclude that church attendance is not necessarily seen as an indicator of deeper religiosity for Romanian adolescents, but rather mere conformity with common social practice and norms. One element that makes a difference based on this study is the intrinsic personal appropriation of faith reflected in a more engaged life of prayer. Attending church services might simply be interpreted, like for the adult population of Romania, a rather external, cultural matter with less relevance for daily life, social or bioethical issues. The intrinsic dimension of religiosity reflected in a more pious personal life of prayer seems to be the differentiating factor, as the other main finding of this study shows.
Thus, the second core finding from the current data supported the two contrasting sets of hypotheses, and in so doing offered novel insights into the ways in which the strong presence of the Orthodox Christian tradition is operating within the lives of Romanian adolescents. These novel insights emerge from the same distinction between intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity and from the distinction between socio-economic human rights and the field of euthanasia and abortion.
In terms of attitude toward socio-economic human rights, it is clear that the effects of extrinsic religiosity and intrinsic religiosity work in opposite directions. Romanian Orthodox adolescents who identify closely with the Church by frequent church attendance are less supportive of socio-economic human rights. This finding shows conformity with socially dominant perspectives at national level, being along the same lines with current data on Romanian adolescents. The study run at national level mentioned above finds, for example, that 62% of the respondents think that women have too many/enough rights, 70% think that ethnic minorities have too many/enough rights, and 57% think the same about LGBT minorities, while 75% do not trust the government [
47].
On the other hand, our study found that Romanian Orthodox adolescents who identify closely with the Christian tradition by frequent personal prayer are more supportive of socio-economic human rights. This finding is also in line with earlier studies which found that personal belief in God—another intrinsic dimension, alongside prayer—was a strong predictor of higher support for socio-economic rights amongst Romanian adolescents [
11]. Religious piety that takes faith as a goal in itself seems to lead to deeper respect for otherness and deeper care for the “neighbor”, as reflected in the responses to the various forms of socio-economic human rights assessed in this study. It is in fact a reflection of “loving thy neighbor”, one of the central tenets of the Orthodox Christian teachings and tradition.
In terms of attitudes toward euthanasia and abortion, it is clear that the effects of extrinsic religiosity and intrinsic religiosity work in the same direction. Romanian Orthodox adolescents who identify closely with the Church by frequent church attendance are less supportive of euthanasia and abortion. At the same time, Romanian Orthodox adolescents who identify closely with the Christian tradition by frequent personal prayer are also less supportive of euthanasia and abortion. As seen in this study, this is consistent both with the popular Orthodox teachings and the general social culture on bioethics, being in line with figures relevant at national level among Romanian adolescents. For instance, 36% consider abortion as “never justified” and the numbers go up to 49% in the case of those who attend church often/very often [
47].
Moreover, the effect is cumulative with the least support given for euthanasia and abortion being among adolescents who both attend public services frequently and engage in personal prayer frequently. This finding further strengthens the validity of the intrinsic-extrinsic assessment of religiosity, expressing stronger levels of conformity when applied both to the pious religious teachings, and to the dominant established social attitudes.
There are three main limitations with the present study. The first limitation concerns the relatively small sample size, limited to 400 participants, that did not permit contrasts to be made among different social settings. The findings are sufficiently intriguing, however, to warrant further replication and extension of the present study.
The second limitation concerns restricting the study to just two outcome measures, focusing on one aspect of human rights (socio-economic rights) and one aspect of social attitudes (euthanasia and abortion). Further developments from the present study would benefit from including a wider range of outcome measures.
The third limitation concerns restricting the measurement of intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity to proxy behavioural measures (frequency of public church attendance and frequency of personal prayer). Further developments from the present study would benefit from including richer measures of intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity, as operationalised, for example, by the New Indices of Religious Orientation [
39].