A failed test of religosity as a social value (#148)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Steven Pirutinsky. A failed test of religosity as a social value. (2013, February 07). Retrieved 01:20, January 20, 2018 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTQ4

MLA Style

"A failed test of religosity as a social value" Steven Pirutinsky. 07 Feb 2013 19:22 20 Jan 2018, 01:20 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTQ4>

MHRA Style

'A failed test of religosity as a social value', Steven Pirutinsky, , 07 February 2013 19:22 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTQ4> [accessed 20 January 2018]

Chicago Style

"A failed test of religosity as a social value", Steven Pirutinsky, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTQ4 (accessed January 20, 2018)


A failed test of religosity as a social value [Internet]. Steven Pirutinsky; 2013 Feb 07, 19:22 [cited 2018 Jan 20]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTQ4

Reference to Original Report of Finding Gebauer, J., Sedikides, C., & Neberich, W. (2012). Religiosity, social self-esteem, and psychological adjustment: on the cross-cultural specificity of the psychological benefits of religiosity. Psychological Science, 23, 158-160.
Title A failed test of religosity as a social value
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result Results indicated that religiosity was more strongly related to social to psychological adjustment within countries with higher mean religiosity using a large sample of European registrants to an online dating site.
Type of Replication Attempted Conceptual Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Not Applicable
Number of Subjects 51
Number of Subjects in Original Study 187975
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2012
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Steven Pirutinsky
Detailed Description of Method/Results I attempted to replicate these findings using data from round four of the European Social Survey, which is a population-based survey of 26 countries (n = 51,142) and contains an item measuring religiosity ("Regardless of whether you belong to a particular religion, how religious would you say you are?") and three items relevant to psychological adjustment - life satisfaction ("All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?"), happiness ("Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?"), and subjective health ("How is your health in general?") - scored on 11-point likert scales.

A multi-level model (nlme in R; ML estimation, random intercept and coefficient for personal religiosity; Pinheiro, Bates, DebRoy, & Sarkar, 2012) for life satisfaction revealed a significant main effect for personal religiosity (b = 0.084, SE = 0.014, t(50635) = 6.08, p < .0001), an insignificant effect for country-level religiosity (b = 0.023, SE = 0.17, t(24) = 0.14, p = .89), and a significant interaction between personal and country-level religiosity (b = 0.054, SE = 0.014, t(50635) = 3.31, p < .001). However, addition of this interaction term only marginally improved model fit (Pesudo-R2 = .00001; ∆AIC = -5.50; ∆BIC = 12.20; ∆LogLik = 4.80, χ²(2)= 9.47, p < .01). Similar models for happiness and health revealed significant main effects for personal religiosity (b = 0.048, SE = 0.014, t(50635) = 3.38, p < .0001; b = .036, SE = .0056, t(50635) = 6.39, p < .0001), insignificant main effects for country-level religiosity (b = 0.031, SE = 0.012, t(24) = 0.25, p = 0.80; b = -0.074, SE = 0.06, t(24) = 1.23, p = .23), and no interaction (b = 0.017, SE = 0.014, t(50635) = 1.25, p = .21; b = 0.0049, SE = 0.0051, t(50635) = 0.94, p = .35).

Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
1) Replication attempt used different items to measure religiosity and psychological adjustment. 2) The original study used a convenience sample of registrants to an online dating site, which may have yielded a biased sample, as well as influenced response to measures. In contrast, this replication utilized nationally representative data that was collected in the context of a general social survey. 3) Original research reported only significance and no measures of model fit or effect. Given the large sample and high power, negligible improvements in model fit and effect were likely significant. Replication includes measures of model fit and effect size. 4) Replication includes a broader range of countries.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Data was obtained by the European Social Survey through nationally representative surveys. I analyzed the resulting data.
Location of Project26 countries in the greater European region
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Complex survey designed to yield nationally representative data.
Where did these subjects reside?Unspecified
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published