Effects of religiosity and spirituality on gender roles and homonegativity in Croatia and Slovenia

1

Effects of religiosity and spirituality on gender roles and homonegativity in Croatia and Slovenia

Ivana Jugović and Branko Ančić Institute for Social Research, Zagreb, Croatia Introduction Social scientists are trying to re-conceptualise theories about religion´s presence in contemporary societies focusing on transformation of religions in Western societies in which processes of detachment from religions and quests for new answers on questions that raise both sacred and profane issues are occurring. The appearance of spirituality – or, more precisely, the appearance of people who identify themselves as being interested in spiritual search outside of the institutional religious field – challenges social scientists to explore the prevalence of spirituality in terms of social phenomena and to examine their influence on society. Therefore we wanted to explore whether religiosity and/or spirituality shape beliefs concerning gender roles and same-sex relations and to examine gender differences in people manifesting these beliefs in Croatia and Slovenia. The reasons these countries are chosen are twofold. Croatia and Slovenia share a common state history, in which the ideology of gender equality was nominally present and advocated, although not really actualised (Tomić Koludrović 1996). Both countries have a socio-historical background in Christianity, specifically one in which Catholicism has been dominant. In the former Yugoslav republic, Croatian and Slovenian societies had the highest levels of religiosity (Vrcan 1986), while already during the 80s and 90s of the last century religious revival and desecularisation emerged as trends in a quite opposite direction to the secularisation trends in Western societies that were occurring at the same time (Vrcan 1999; Roter 1988). In spite of the aforementioned similarities between Slovenia and Croatia, recent research shows that they differ in their socio-cultural conditions in terms of religiosity/spirituality and gender issues. For example, Slovenia could be described as one of the least religious countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Croatia as one of the most religious countries (Ančić 2011; Ančić and Zrinščak 2012; Toš 2005). Furthermore, Slovenian women and men seem to be less homonegative and more supportive of egalitarian roles than Croatians (Štulhofer and Rimac 2008; Frieze, Ferligoj, Kogovšek, Rener, Horvat, and Šarlija 2003), although it should be noted both that from the mid-eighties onwards a strong decline in gender-role conservatism is empirically evident in Croatia (Marinović Jerolimov 2000; Sekulić 2011)and that some analyses point to similar levels of gender discrimination in both countries (Rus and Toš 2005). Conceptualisation of religiosity and spirituality Modern societies are characterised by strong, deep social changes with religion also being affected by these changes. The religious transformations that are occurring are imposing on social scientists the requirement to think or re-think concepts which could be helpful in understanding these social changes. One of these is surely spirituality. Since the development of modern social sciences in western societies, it has been debated whether the influence of religion in societies is declining. But recent studies on spirituality are tending to lead in a different direction in terms of our understanding of the influence of religion on society, thus raising questions about boundaries of the secularisation debate. Specifically, various surveys are pointing towards the fact that many people like to refer to themselves as “spiritual” rather than “religious” (Heelas and Woodhead 2005). Charles Taylor sees it from a broader perspective in terms of a “massive subjective turn of modern culture” whereas some authors working in religious fields would claim that a “spiritual revolution” can be discerned (Taylor 1991; Luckmann 1967; Campbell 1999). There are authors like Bruce (2002), who oppose the spiritual revolution claim, dismissing it as a shallow interpretation of social and religious changes, while others (e.g. Thomson 1996) even claim that science is incapable of studying

2

spirituality. Regardless of the pros and cons of the spiritual revolution claim, we should not neglect the fact that some people describe themselves as spiritual and that spirituality as a notion is present in everyday life, either on an individual or on a societal level, making social scientists curious as to what this concept represents. What is spirituality? Is it one of the dimensions of religiosity? What is the difference between religiosity and spirituality? There is certainly no single definition of religiosity or spirituality on which we can rely. Eileen Barkers defines spirituality as a phenomenon that lies between conservative religion and secularism, and sketches five possible relations between religiosity and spirituality: a) they are overlapping; b) spirituality is one or more than one category of religiosity; c) religiosity is a terminus minor while spirituality is terminus maior; d) they are partially overlapping; e) religiosity and spirituality are two different and set-apart phenomena (Barker 2004, 30). Religiosity can be defined as a personal relation towards transcendence or the sacred manifested across dimensions such as beliefs, practice, knowledge, experiences and moral definitions (Furseth and Repstadt 2006; Marinović Bobinac 1999; Marinović Jerolimov 2005; Vernon 1968). This relation is mostly settled within institutional context or framework, which is a differentia specifica in defining spirituality. In a broad sense, spirituality could be seen in terms of personal, non-institutional, non-traditional forms of believing and practice which are oriented towards self, nature or transcendence (Ančić and Marinović Jerolimov 2011; Bender and McRoberts 2012). These two terms overlap in the sense that religiosity is a manifestation of religion on an individual level, while spirituality could be a transcendental relation outside of a religious context. In other words, religiosity needs religion, while religion is not necessarily a part of spirituality. As Wade Clark Roof would say, spirituality “may refer to the inner life that is bound up with, and embedded within, religious forms, or much more loosely (in keeping with humanistic psychology) as a search on the part of an individual for attaining – through some regimen of self-transformation – one´s greatest potential“ (Roof 2003, 138). Religiosity and Spirituality: What has gender got to do with it? Gender roles are shared societal expectations about the appropriate behaviours regarding gender (Spence and Helmreich 1978). Numerous studies conducted in the United States and different European countries, including Slovenia and Croatia, show that women hold more egalitarian attitudes about gender roles, the role of women and motherhood, and the male’s participation in housework and parenting, than men (Črpić 2010; Frieze et al. 2003; Aboim 2010; Crompton, Brockmann, and Lyonette 2005; Kamenov and Jugović 2011). Petersen and Hyde (2011, 157) argue that “gender differences in attitudes toward homosexuals is perhaps the most studied sexual attitude”. Homonegativity and homophobia are the terms most often used to describe social prejudice against Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) persons. They incorporate negative attitudes, values and beliefs held by the heterosexual majority towards homosexuality and homosexuals (Greene and Herek 1999, 48-49). Research conducted in the United States shows that heterosexual men display more negative affective reactions towards homosexuality than heterosexual women (Herek and Capitanio 1995, 1996, 1999) and that women generally have more positive attitudes toward gay people (e.g. they are more supportive of employment protection and adoption rights for gay people – Herek 2002). Differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians were also found. For example, meta-analyses by Kite and Whitley (1996) and by Petersen and Hyde (2010) show that men reported more negative attitudes toward gay men than women did, whereas there were no gender differences in attitudes toward lesbian women. Moreover, men’s attitudes toward gay men tend to be more negative than toward lesbian women, whereas women tend to have similar attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Herek 2002; Kite and Whitley 1996). Studies conducted on Croatian students similarly show that men are more homophobic than women. Some Croatian research show that both men and women hold less prejudice toward lesbians than towards gay men (Ćepulić and Tomić 2013), whereas other research

3

point out that only men hold less negative attitudes towards lesbians than towards gay men, whereas women do not differ in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Parmač 2005; Černeliet al 2013; Mušica et al 2013). In the field of religion and gender, studies have often focused on differences between women and men in their responsiveness to religion. Although some authors have criticised this binary approach, stressing that gender identity is one of many identities relevant in religious studies (Kimmel 2000; Woodhead 2003), others continue to maintain that men and women differ in their experiences of religion and spirituality (Ozorak 1996). The main difference is that women tend to be more religious than men in terms of being more religiously engaged. Women attend church more regularly, are more religiously committed and assert more interest in religion, especially within Christianity (Francis 1997; Francis and Wilcox 1998; Miller and Hoffmann 1995; Walter and Davie 1998). Some empirical evidence suggests that women and men experience God and faith differently: women try to nurture a close relationship with God and others in religious communities, while men accentuate God’s power and are more spiritually engaged (Ozorak 1996). In Croatia and Slovenia, gender differences can also be detected. Croatian women are more religious across dimensions like religious self-identification, church practice, religious beliefs, and trust in the church than men (Črpić and Zrinščak 2010). In Slovenia (although here a different methodological approach was taken) women are more prevalent in the group making up those who are church-going while men are more prevalent in the group of those who describe themselves as non-religious (Toš 2000; Toš 2005). Researches in the field of gender and spirituality tend to be mostly focused on women’s experiences and transformations of their spirituality. Most of the recent researches conducted within new religious movements (NRMs) relate especially to the various women’s spirituality movements. There are numerous women-centred groups that set out to empower women through celebration of female deities and rituals which are supporting women’s authority (Berger 1999; Jacobs 1991). There are two distinct strands of social science theory that set out to explain gender differences in responsiveness to religion. The first strand emphasises social or contextual factors, whereas the other group stresses psychological or individual factors that affect responsiveness to religion. One of the social factors is the process of gender-role socialisation. Socialisation theories, like Bandura’s social learning theory (1977), argue that women and men are socialised in a different manner. Women are taught to be less assertive and more obedient and nurturing than men, which are characteristics related to higher levels of religiosity (Miller and Hoffmann 1995). According to personality psychology, gender roles are manifested in psychological characteristics of femininity and masculinity (Deaux and Lafrance 1998). Masculinity and femininity are considered to be two orthogonal personality dimensions that can be present in both men and women but to different extents (Bem 1974; Spence, Helmreich and Strapp 1975). According to this perspective, femininity is associated with religiosity, and both men and women who are more feminine tend to be more religious. This means that being male or female is not essential for individual’s religiousness, but being feminine is (Thompson 1991), and that gender differences in religiosity could be explained by the greater number of women who are feminine compared to men (Miller and Hoffmann 1995). Since most of the empirical research about religion and gender was done in societies where Christianity is the prevailing religion, the religious tradition model is present as a frame of explanation. It emphasises the influence of Christian beliefs that generate fewer egalitarian attitudes about gender roles (the woman’s primary or natural role as a wife and a mother; the man’s primary and natural role as a provider) (Hauser, Heyns, and Mansbridge 1993; King 1993) thus contributing to the gender order of a society (Bourdieu 2001). The empirical evidence shows that religiosity is correlated with more conventional gender roles (Jensen and Jensen 1993; Sanchez and Hall 1999). For example, Catholic religiosity predicted more benevolently sexist attitudes in Spain (Glick, Lameiras, and Rodriguez Castro 2002), whereas a more frequent attendance of religious services predicted more sexist attitudes in Slovenia, Croatia and the United States (Frieze et al. 2003). In

4

addition, religiosity was also found to be an important determinant of homonegativity in South-East Europe (Brajdić Vuković and Štulhofer 2012). The religious tradition model claims that religion influences both religious and non-religious individuals since it has a strong impact on other social institutions and on the production of cultural meanings (Štulhofer and Rimac 2009). In contrast to numerous studies on the relations of religiosity and gender roles and homonegativity, empirical studies on the relation between spirituality and gender roles or homonegativity are lacking. The question that arises here is what role in the production of gender inequality and heterosexism, and therefore social inequality, has spirituality? If we accept the claim of the spiritual revolution discourse, then we could ask a question – does spirituality as a “search for new teachings and practices” (Roof 2003, 138) or as something which is “sometimes associated with progressive worldviews that are morally relativistic” (Wuthnow 2003) generate gender inequality or increase homonegativity, or does it reject traditional norms and values? In an attempt to find answers to the aforementioned questions, we would like to use Robert Wuthnow´s concepts, which distinguish between two identities – being religious and being spiritual. This ideal-type contraposition could be heuristically fertile in indicating transformation of religion. More religious individuals are, according to Wuthnow, called “dwellers”, where “dwelling” refers to an embracing of rituals and symbols in an attempt to discover order and meaning in everyday life. On the other “spiritual” side are “seekers” i.e. those who are “seeking partial knowledge and practical wisdom” (Wuthnow 1998, 3). According to Wuthnow, seeking is characterised by openness, rejection of predestined meanings and explanations and engagement in the search for new experiences and concepts. Wade Clark Roof created a typology based on Wuthnow´s general theoretical remarks (Roof 1999). The first type refers to individuals who say that they follow a religion and who consider themselves as spiritual persons interested in the sacred or supernatural. Using Wuthnow´s term, Roof refers to them as “dwellers”. The second type, whom Roofs labels as “dogmatists”, refers to those who follow a religion but do not consider themselves as spiritual persons interested in the sacred or the supernatural. The third group includes individuals who do not follow a religion but consider themselves to be spiritual persons interested in the sacred or supernatural. Paraphrasing Wuthnow, Roof calls them “spiritual seekers”. The last type, called “secularists”, are individuals who are not interested in the sacred or the supernatural nor follow a religion. Roof made a theoretical description of all four groups using empirical data collected on American populations and relying on theoretical presuppositions on the spiritual turn, which imposes a need for a deeper exploration of the characteristics of those four groups outside an American context. We were interested to explore the basic socio-demographic characteristics of those four types in Croatia and Slovenia using the same indicators as Roof. On the one hand we wanted to find out in the course of this research if the subjective turn – in the sense of self-identified spirituality – occurs in the two post-communist and transition countries of Slovenia and Croatia, while, on the other, we wanted to explore whether spirituality manifests in more “openness to a multiplicity of possibilities” (Roof 2003, 138). More specifically we decided to explore whether there are differences between people who claim to be religious, spiritual or secular in their attitudes towards gender roles and homonegativity, and whether religiosity, spirituality or secularity have different impacts on women’s and men’s beliefs. Goal, research problems and hypotheses The first goal of this research is to explore what are some of the characteristics of individuals who define themselves as (non)religious and/or (non)spiritual. The second goal was to examine whether individuals differ in their beliefs on gender roles and homonegativity according to gender and religiosity/spirituality. We also wanted to explore whether gender and religiosity/spirituality affected these beliefs in interaction i.e. whether religiosity/spirituality affected these beliefs in different ways in women and in men.

5

We have hypothesised that women would hold less traditional beliefs regarding gender roles and would be less homonegative than men. We have also hypothesised that those being only spiritual and not religious (“spiritual seekers”) would be significantly less connected with traditional forms of religiosity and would thus also hold less traditional beliefs regarding gender roles and be less homonegative than those who identified themselves as religious (either spiritual or not i.e. “dwellers” and “dogmatists”). Secular individuals (non-religious and non-spiritual) are expected to be the least characterised by traditional forms of religiosity and by traditional beliefs regarding gender roles and homosexuality. Given the lack of previous findings on the way religiosity/spirituality affect beliefs about gender roles and homosexuality of men and women, we did not specify a hypothesis about the interaction effect. Methods Participants Data were gathered on the national representative samples from Croatia and Slovenia from the International Social Survey Programme (module Religion 2008)1. A total of 1,201 individuals participated in the Croatian part of the study: 684 (57%) women and 517 (43%) men. Their ages ranged from 18 to 87 years of age, with average age M=45.71 (SD=17.562). The Slovenian sample consisted of 1,065 participants of which 582 (54.6%) were women and 483 (45.4%) were men. The age ranged from 18 to 94 years of age, with average age M=46.66 (SD=17.821). Variables and instruments Religiosity and spirituality The religiosity/spirituality of the respondents was assessed with the question “What best describes you”. One of four answers could be chosen: 1) “I follow a religion and consider myself to be a spiritual person interested in the sacred or the supernatural”; 2) I follow a religion but don't consider myself to be a spiritual person interested in the sacred or the supernatural”; 3) “I don't follow a religion, but consider myself to be a spiritual person interested in the sacred or the supernatural”; and 4) “I don't follow a religion and don't consider myself to be a spiritual person interested in the sacred or the supernatural”. The first category was considered in this research as “religious and spiritual”, the second as “religious and non-spiritual”, the third as “non-religious and spiritual” and the fourth as “non-religious and non-spiritual”.

1 ISSP research for Croatia was carried out by the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb, while for Slovenia it was done by the Public Opinion and Mass Communications Research Centre at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana.

6

Socio-demographic variables Information about the gender, age and education level of respondents was gathered in the questionnaire. Socio-religious variables Traditional and alternative religious beliefs. Participants were asked to indicate whether they believe in life after death, heaven, hell, religious miracles, reincarnation, Nirvana and/or supernatural powers of deceased ancestors on a four-point scale: 1) Yes, definitely; 2) Yes, probably; 3) No, probably not; and 4) No, definitely not. Exploratory factor analysis with oblimin rotation was performed on these seven items. Two factors were extracted from both Slovenian and Croatian samples. The first factor, labelled traditional religious beliefs, includes beliefs in life after death, heaven, hell and religious miracles2. The second factor, labelled alternative religious beliefs, consists of beliefs in reincarnation, Nirvana and the supernatural powers of deceased ancestors3. Church attendance. Respondents were asked how often they attend religious services. Answers comprised nine degrees, ranging from 1=”Never” to 9=”Several times a week”, that were recoded into five categories: 1) never; 2) rarely; 3) yearly; 4) monthly; 5) weekly. Praying. Respondents were asked how often they pray and could answer according to a similar scale as for church attendance but with two additional answers: “Once a day” and “Several times a day”. This variable was similarly recoded as church attendance with one new degree: 6) daily. Beliefs about God. The first variable assessed the beliefs that respondents have about God, where they were asked to choose which statement is the closest to what they believe: 1) I don't believe in God; 2) I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe there is any way to find out; 3) I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind; 4) I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others; 5) While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God; and 6) I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it. The other variable assessed a respondent´s own way of connecting with God on a 5 point Likert type scale from 1=”Strongly agree” to 5=”Strongly disagree”. Beliefs about gender roles and homonegativity Beliefs about gender roles were measured with a question on whether participants agree or disagree that “A husband's job is to earn money; a wife's job is to look after the home and family”. The answers were on a 5 point Likert type scale from 1=”Strongly agree” to 5=”Strongly disagree”. Beliefs about same-sex sexual relations were assessed with the following question on what do participants think “...about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex.” The answers to this question were: 1=”Always wrong”, 2=”Almost always wrong”, 3=”Wrong only sometimes”, and 4=”Not wrong at all”.

2 Cronbach α for Slovenia is 0.897 while for Croatia it is 0.910. 3 Cronbach α for Slovenia is 0.841 while for Croatia it is 0.910.

7

Results The results of the research are presented in accordance with the research goals. Findings on the effects of different socio-demographic and socio-religious variables on the religiosity/spirituality are presented first, and findings about the effects of gender, religiosity/spirituality and their interaction on the beliefs about gender roles and homonegativity are presented afterwards. Being religious and/or being spiritual in Croatia and Slovenia. What characterises these groups? Croatia and Slovenia are both Christian, predominantly Catholic countries, in which a religious revival occurred after the collapse of Communism (Vrcan 1986; Roter 1988; Tomka 1995). But the consequences of religious revival in the sense of individual religiosity, measured according to some of the indicators of religiosity such as religious self-identification, church attendance, frequency of praying, religious belonging and similar, did not have the same effect. In Croatia people express their religious belonging to a greater extent: they identify themselves as more religious, they go to church more often, pray more frequently and believe in God more than people in Slovenia (Ančić 2011). But in both countries, a majority of people declare their religious belonging and define themselves as religious to a certain extent (Ančić 2011; Črpić and Zrinščak 2010; Marinović Jerolimov 2005; Pollack 2003; Toš 2005; Toš 2000; Tomka and Zulehner 2008). What we do not know is to what extent people in these countries identify themselves as being religious and spiritual, only religious, only spiritual or neither religious nor spiritual. Nor do we know about socio-demographic and socio-religious differences among these four self-identified groups. Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of (non)religious / (non)spiritual participants Croatia Slovenia

1=RS 2=R 3=S 4=n-RS Total 1=RS 2=R 3=S 4=n-RS Total

Total 23.1% 42.9% 23.8% 10.1% 100% 19.7% 28.6% 26.6% 25.1% 100%

Gender Male 32.1% 42.8% 44.6% 66.9% 43.2% 41.7% 45.6% 41.1% 53.1% 45.5%

Female 67.9% 57.2% 55.4% 33.1% 56.8% 58.3% 54.4% 58.9% 46.9% 54.5%

χ2 41.881*** 8.674*

Education Primary level or less

28.6% 15.0% 17.4% 5.0% 17.7% 36.2% 32.1% 15.0% 13.9% 23.8%

Secondary level

51.4% 67.0% 65.6% 57.9% 62.1% 50.8% 53.5% 59.7% 59.1% 56.0%

Tertiary level

19.9% 18.0% 17.0% 37.2% 20.2% 13.0% 14.4% 25.3% 27.0% 20.2%

χ2 59.609*** 57.972***

Age M 48.03 44.84 44.82 45.97 45.69 52.88 46.92 43.74 45.47 46.88

SD 17.836 17.417 16.836 19.083 17.583 18.202 18.468 16.596 17.723 18.003

F 2.283 10.256***

Post-hoc tests

- 1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***

*** p<.001; * p<.05 RS=“religious and spiritual”; R=“religious and non-spiritual”; S=“non-religious and spiritual”; n-RS=“non-religious and non-spiritual”

When we compare data for both countries, we can notice that in Croatia those who consider themselves only religious (“dogmatists”) are the most numerous group (43%) while in Slovenia the percentage of religious individuals is only slightly higher than the percentage of spiritual individuals

8

(“spiritual seekers”) or those who do not define themselves as either religious or spiritual (“secularists”). Another interesting finding is that secular respondents are less prevalent in Croatia than in Slovenia. But in Croatia and Slovenia the percentage of those who identify themselves as spiritual and not interested in religion is around 25%. This suggests that we cannot ignore the fact that a significant number of people identify themselves as spiritual persons interested in the sacred or the supernatural but outside the auspices of a specific religion. Differences due to gender and the educational level of the four groups of respondents regarding religiosity/spirituality are statistically significant in Slovenia and Croatia. In both countries men are more numerous than women only in the “secularist” group. In the other three groups in Slovenia, percentages of men and women are similar to the gender distribution of the entire sample, while in Croatia a greater discrepancy can be observed in the group of “dwellers”, where a considerable predominance of women is observed. When comparing educational levels of the four groups regarding religiosity/spirituality, slightly differing results can be seen between Croatia and Slovenia. “Dogmatists” and “seekers” have similar educational levels in the Croatian sample: 17-18% of them have finished tertiary education and 15-17% only primary education. Croatian “secularists” comprise more individuals who finished tertiary education (37.2%) and fewer individuals who finished only primary education (5%), whereas in the group of “dwellers” the proportion of those with primary school or less (28.6%) is higher comparing to other groups. “Seekers” and “secularists” from the Slovenian sample have similar educational levels, with 25-27% who have finished tertiary education, whereas among Slovenian “dwellers” and “dogmatists” only 13-14% have college or university degree. Differences in religiosity/spirituality due to age are statistically significant only in the Slovenian sample with “dwellers” being the oldest group comparing to the other three groups. The socio-religious characteristics of those four groups are presented in Tables 2 and 3. More specifically, results according to basic socio-religious indicators, e.g. traditional and alternative religious beliefs and the frequency of church attendance and praying, are presented in Table 2. Acceptance of traditional beliefs seems to follow a similar pattern in Slovenia and Croatia. Religious and spiritual individuals (“dwellers”) believe in life after death, heaven, hell and religious miracles the most, followed by those being only religious, then spiritual and finally secular. When looking at the mean values, it can be noticed that “dwellers” and “dogmatists” in both countries say that they “probably” believe in traditional religious beliefs, that “spiritual seekers” in both countries, together with Slovenian “secularists”, “probably do not” believe, whereas Croatian “secularists” “definitely do not” believe in traditional beliefs. Beliefs in reincarnation, Nirvana and supernatural powers of deceased ancestors – i.e. alternative religious beliefs – do not follow the same pattern in Slovenia and Croatia. In general, alternative beliefs are more accepted in Slovenia than in Croatia, but in both countries mean values are showing a lean towards not accepting alternative beliefs. Croatian religious “dwellers” are expressing the highest level of acceptance of alternative beliefs compared to other three groups, while in Slovenia this is the case with “dwellers” and “spiritual seekers” who are more accepting of alternative religious beliefs than “dogmatists” and “secularists”. Croatian “spiritual seekers” accept alternative beliefs more than “secularists”, but do not differ from “dogmatists”. Slovenian “dogmatists” accept these beliefs more than “secularists”. Results on the frequency of attending religious services and praying reveal that on average Croatian and Slovenian respondents attend religious services yearly, that Slovenian respondents also pray yearly, whereas Croatian respondents pray monthly. “Dwellers” in both countries attend church monthly and pray weekly. “Dogmatists” are less engaged in both of those activities; they go to church yearly and pray monthly. Different patterns of behaviour were observed for Croatian and Slovenian “spiritual seekers”. Croatian “seekers” attend church and pray yearly, whereas Slovenian “seekers” only do that rarely. “Secularists” in both countries rarely go to church to attend religious services (although the value for Croatian respondents is between “never” and “rarely”) and almost never pray.

9

Table 2. Socio-religious characteristics of (non)religious / (non)spiritual (I) Croatia Slovenia

1=RS 2=R 3=S 4=n-RS Total 1=RS 2=R 3=S 4=n-RS Total

Traditional religious beliefs M 1.78 2.24 2.92 3.67 2.43 1.83 2.45 2.85 3.46 2.69

SD 0.802 0.888 0.986 0.615 1.041 0.678 0.740 0.740 0.616 0.900

F 148.345*** 181.240***

Post-hoc tests 1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-3***, 2-4***, 3-4*** 1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-3***, 2-4***, 3-4***

Alternative religious beliefs M 3.16 3.50 3.41 3.70 3.43 2.75 3.04 2.95 3.53 3.11

SD 0.892 0.668 0.758 0.540 0.746 0.908 0.752 0.791 0.603 0.807

F 14,087*** 34,510***

Post-hoc tests 1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***, 3-4*** 1-2***, 1-4***, 2-3***, 2-4***, 3-4***

Church attendance M 4.08 3.44 2.73 1.49 3.23 4.03 3.47 2.41 1.61 2.84

SD 1.054 1.007 1.250 0.822 1.297 1.091 1.081 1.146 .866 1.387

F 192.033*** 232.378***

Post-hoc tests 1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-3***, 2-4***, 3-4*** 1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-3***, 2-4***, 3-4***

Praying M 5.32 4.45 3.39 1.39 4.09 4.78 3.71 2.30 1.32 2.94

SD 0.989 1.428 1.875 0.850 1.808 1.266 1.470 1.450 0.769 1.803

F 249.484*** 306.534***

Post-hoc tests 1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-3***, 2-4***, 3-4*** 1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-3***, 2-4***, 3-4***

*** p<.001 RS=“religious and spiritual”; R=“religious and non-spiritual”; S=“non-religious and spiritual”; n-RS=“non-religious and non-spiritual” Response scale for Traditional and Alternative religious belief variables: 1=Yes, definitely; 2=Yes, probably; 3=No, probably not; and 4=No, definitely not. Response categories for church attendance are 1=never; 2=rarely; 3=yearly; 4=monthly; and 5=weekly. Praying has an additional category: 6=daily.

10

Table 3. Socio-religious characteristics of (non)religious / (non)spiritual (II)

Croatia Slovenia

1=RS 2=R 3=S 4=n-RS Total 1=RS 2=R 3=S 4=n-RS Total

Beliefs about God

I don't believe in God 0.0% 0.4% 4.6% 40.5% 5.4% 1.1% 0.7% 6.9% 47.2% 14.0%

Don't know whether there is a God, don't believe there is any way to find out 0.4% 1.4% 6.7% 18.2% 4.1% 0.0% 1.5% 6.5% 14.6% 5.8%

Don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind

1.8% 5.3% 16.5% 20.7% 8.7% 10.8% 23.6% 51.2% 25.3% 28.8%

I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others 0.0% 7.8% 14.1% 5.8% 7.3% 3.2% 14.0% 10.1% 6.9% 9.1%

While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God 6.1% 20.2% 18.7% 9.1% 15.5% 16.7% 26.6% 16.1% 4.7% 16.4%

I know God really exists and have no doubts about it 91.7% 65.0% 39.4% 5.8% 59.1% 68.3% 33.6% 9.3% 1.3% 26.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 658.908***, df=15 635.897***, df=15

I have my own way of connecting with God without churches or religious services

M 3.03 2.54 2.40 3.63 2.73 2.88 2.57 2.31 3.25 2.73

SD 1.313 1.147 1.105 1.520 1.274 1.214 1.086 1.038 1.517 1.264

F 35.272*** 24.848***

Post-hoc tests

1-2***, 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-4***, 3-4*** 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-4***, 3-4***

*** p<.001 Response scale for the belief about connecting with God range from 1=”Strongly agree” to 5=”Strongly disagree”.

11

A comparison of Croatian and Slovenian responses to the question about beliefs in God shows that while Croatian respondents are mostly sure of the existence of God and have no doubts about it (59.1%), in Slovenia the most numerous group consists of those who do not believe in a personal God but believe in a Higher Power of some kind (28.8%). When comparing religious/spiritual groups concerning their beliefs about God, it can be observed that among Croatian respondents in this group there is little doubt concerning the existence of God (91.7%) while in Slovenia that percentage is much lower (68.2%). Almost two thirds of religious respondents (“dogmatists”) from Croatia say that they know God really exists and have no doubts about it, whereas that is the case with only one third of “dogmatists” in Slovenia. Over 50% of spiritual persons (“seekers”) in Slovenia do not believe in a personal God but do believe in a Higher Power. In Croatia that is the case with only 16.5% while almost 40% have no doubts as to the existence of God. Secularists seem to have a similar pattern in both countries and, as expected, the majority of them (over 40%) are “hard” atheists. Finally, when asked whether they connect with God in their own way without the intercession of churches or religious services, “secularists” agreed with this statement the least comparing to other three groups in both countries (Croatian “secularists” disagreed and Slovenian “secularists” said they neither agree not disagree). “Dwellers” agreed with this statement less than “seekers” in both countries and less than “dogmatists” in Croatia. “Dwellers” and “dogmatists” neither agreed nor disagreed, whereas “seekers” in both countries agreed that they connect with God in their own way (although in Slovenia “dogmatists” also did not differ from “dwellers”). Effects of gender and religiosity/spirituality and their interaction effect on the beliefs about gender roles and sexual relations One of the research questions aimed to explore whether men and women differ in their beliefs about same-sex sexual relations and gender roles. Furthermore, we wanted to explore whether being religious and /or spiritual affects these beliefs. Finally, we wanted to explore whether religiosity and spirituality affects these beliefs for men and women in different ways. In order to answer these questions, two two-way analyses of variances for each country were performed with gender and religiosity/spirituality as independent variables and the aforementioned beliefs as dependent variables. The results of the analysis of variance that explores the effect of the aforementioned factors on beliefs about gender roles are shown in Table 4.

12

Table 4. Effects of gender, religiosity/spirituality and their interaction effect on the belief that a husband's job is to earn money and that a wife's job is to look after the home and family, for the Croatian and the Slovenian sample Croatia Slovenia

M SD M SD

Gender

Women 3.91 1.230 3.86 1.223 Men 3.50 1.323 3.59 1.224

Religiosity/spirituality

1=Religious & spiritual 3.54 1.320 3.40 1.315 2=Religious & non-spiritual 3.75 1.307 3.55 1.237 3=Non-religious & spiritual 3.73 1.265 3.85 1.177 4=Non-religious & non-spiritual 4.12 1.077 4.09 1.101

F gender 35.840*** 13.400*** F relig/spirit 9.975*** 15.377*** F interaction 0.929 0.238 Post-hoc tests relig/spirit 1-4***, 2-4**, 3-4** 1-3**, 1-4***, 2-3*, 2-4***

*** p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05 1=Strongly agree, 2=Agree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly disagree

The main effects of gender and religiosity/spirituality on the belief that a husband should earn the money while a wife’s job is to look after the family are statistically significant for both the Croatian and the Slovenian sample, whereas their interaction effects are not significant. As expected, women are less supportive of this statement than men in both countries. More precisely, Slovenian and Croatian men and women disagree with the statement that a husband's job is to earn money and that a wife's job is to look after the family but women disagree more than men (Table 4). In the Croatian sample, a post-hoc test for testing differences regarding religiosity/spirituality shows that individuals, who define themselves as non-religious and non-spiritual, more strongly disagree with the aforementioned statement than all other three groups. In the Slovenian sample, non-religious individuals who are either spiritual or non-spiritual disagree more strongly with the statement than the religious individuals who are either spiritual or non-spiritual. In order to explore the effects of gender and religiosity/spirituality and their interaction on beliefs concerning sexual relations between two adults of the same sex, two-way analyses of variance were conducted on the Croatian and Slovenian data. The results are shown in the Table 5.

13

Table 5. Effects of gender, religiosity/spirituality and their interaction effect on the belief that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex is wrong, for the Croatian and the Slovenian sample Croatia Slovenia

M SD M SD

Gender

Women 1.92 1.260 2.35 1.273 Men 1.62 1.103 1.92 1.213

Religiosity/spirituality

1=Religious & spiritual 1.40 0.781 1.56 0.906 2=Religious & non-spiritual 1.47 0.841 1.66 0.876 3=Non-religious & spiritual 1.60 0.926 1.92 0.971 4=Non-religious & non-spiritual 1.73 0.907 2.01 1.074

F gender 29.799*** 25.265*** F relig/spirit 18.624*** 19.007*** F interaction 2.817* 1.244 Post-hoc tests relig/spirit

1-3***, 1-4***, 2-3**, 2-4*** 1-2**, 1-3***, 1-4***, 2-3**, 2-4*

*** p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05 1=Strongly agree, 2=Agree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly disagree

The main effects of gender and religiosity/spirituality are statistically significant on both the Croatian and the Slovenian sample whereas their interaction effect is statistically significant only on the Croatian sample. Men are more homonegative compared to women in both Croatia and Slovenia, as shown in Table 5. Differences according to religiosity/spirituality were tested, with post hoc tests first carried out on the Slovenian data. Religiosity/spirituality affected beliefs about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex such that religious participants who are either spiritual or non-spiritual (“dwellers” and “dogmatists”) are more homonegative than non-religious participants, no matter if they are spiritual or non-spiritual (“seekers” and “secularists”). There were also statistically significant differences between religious spiritual and religious non-spiritual individuals, with the former being more homonegative than the latter. In order to examine the interaction effect on the Croatian sample, this sample was divided according to gender. The one-way analyses of variance for the effect of religiosity/spirituality on the belief about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex is statistically significant both for Croatian women (F=12.848, df=3/586, p<.001) and Croatian men (F=7.494, df=3/469, p<.001). This interaction effect is shown in Figure 1. Post-hoc tests on the sample of Croatian women show that non-religious non-spiritual women (“secularists”) are less homonegative than all other groups of women. In addition, non-religious spiritual women (“seekers”) are less homonegative than religious spiritual women (“dwellers”). When it came to Croatian men, post hoc tests showed that non-religious non-spiritual men are less homonegative than religious men (spiritual and non-spiritual). It was also shown that non-religious spiritual Croatian men (“seekers”) are less homonegative than religious non-spiritual men (“dogmatists”).

14

Belief about same-sex sexual relations for Croatian sample

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

1=Religious &

spiritual

2=Religious & non-

spiritual

3=Non-religious &

spiritual

4=Non-religious &

non-spiritual

Women

Men

Figure 1. Interaction effect of gender and religiosity/spirituality on beliefs concerning sexual relations between two adults of the same sex*, for the Croatian sample * Response scale: 1=Always wrong, 2=Almost always wrong, 3=Wrong only sometimes, 4=Not wrong at all

We have divided the Croatian sample according to the variable religiosity/spirituality into four groups and tested gender differences in the belief about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex. Gender differences were only statistically significant for two groups: for the religious non-spiritual individuals (“dogmatists”) (t=-4.576, df=459, p<.001) and for the non-religious non-spiritual individuals (“secularists”) (t=-3.323, df=104, p<.01). Men in both groups were more likely to say that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are wrong than women. In the group of “dogmatists”, men on average consider sexual relations between two adults of the same sex to be something that is “always wrong” whereas women consider them to be “almost always wrong”. In the group of “secularists”, men think that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are “almost always wrong” and women think that they are “wrong only sometimes”.

15

Discussion and concluding remarks The goals of this study were to explore whether gender and religiosity/spirituality affected beliefs about gender roles and same-sex relations, and also whether these two factors affected these beliefs in interaction in Slovenia and Croatia. The effect of gender on beliefs about gender roles and about same-sex sexual relations was statistically significant in both countries. As expected, women in Croatia and Slovenia were less likely to agree with the traditional belief that a husband's job is to earn money and that a wife's job is to look after the home and family. This is in accordance with the results of cross-cultural studies showing that women are more supportive of egalitarian gender roles than men (e.g. Frieze et al. 2003; Aboim 2010). Women hold more egalitarian beliefs on gender roles than men probably because they are more likely to want to see social change in the direction of gender equality, given that the traditional division of roles mostly privileges men in the public and private spheres (Kamenov and Jugović 2011; Galić 2011). For instance, the transition process in Slovenia was characterised by a revitalisation of sexism, compared to the more gender-equal society that was achieved during the socialist period. This change made women even more supportive of beliefs on gender equality compared to men because they were aware that gender equality can be jeopardised at any time (Jogan 1995). In addition, it was expected that women would be less homonegative than men given that previous studies show that men display more negative affective reactions towards homosexuality than women (Herek and Capitanio 1995, 1996, 1999), and that women generally have more positive attitudes toward gay people than men (Herek 2002). Our results have confirmed that women are less homonegative, or, more precisely, that they are less likely to agree that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are wrong. The reason that men are more homonegative could be because homosexual orientation is perceived as a violation of traditional gender norms (Kite and Deaux 1987) and because social pressure to conform to rigid gender roles is stronger for men than for women due to the tendency to associate male gender roles with male privilege in society (Kite and Whitley 1998). Therefore, men could experience pressure to exhibit homonegativity in order to affirm their masculinity (Nierman, Thompson, Bryan, and Mahaffey 2007). The religiosity/spirituality factor had a statistically significant effect on beliefs about gender roles and same-sex sexual relations in Croatia and Slovenia whereas the interaction effect of gender and religiosity/spirituality was only statistically significant for beliefs about same-sex sexual relations in the Croatian sample. In addition, results obtained from the Croatian and the Slovenian data show that gender did not moderate the effect of religiosity/spirituality on beliefs regarding gender roles, which implies that this belief was affected by religiosity/spirituality in the same way for men and women. A slightly different pattern of the ways in which religiosity/spirituality affected beliefs about gender roles can be discerned between the Slovenian and Croatian samples. Using Roof’s terminology, it can be noted that two groups have formed in the Slovenian sample. The first group consists of “spiritual seekers” and “secularists” who support egalitarian gender roles and in general “disagree” that a husband's job is to earn money and that a wife's job is to look after the family. The second group consists of “dwellers” and “dogmatists” who hold more traditional beliefs concerning gender roles and who fall between a neutral response (“neither agree nor disagree”) and a negative response (“disagree”). In Croatia, “secularists” hold more egalitarian beliefs about gender roles than the other three groups, which do not differ among themselves; but on average all groups disagree with the aforementioned statement. The average values for homonegativity in the Slovenian sample show that all four groups think that it is “almost always wrong” for two adults of the same sex to have sexual relations. Post-hoc tests have revealed three groups of respondents. The first group, composed by “dwellers” and “dogmatists”, holds the most homonegative belief; followed by the second group, “spiritual seekers”; whereas the third group, the “secularists”, hold the least homonegative beliefs. Croatian data show that gender moderates the way in which religiosity/spirituality affects homonegative beliefs. Secular women hold the least homonegative beliefs compared to the other three groups of women. Female “spiritual seekers” also hold less homonegative beliefs than female “dwellers”. When looking at men, secular

16

men hold less homonegative beliefs than “dogmatists” and “dwellers”, while “spiritual seekers” are less homonegative than “dogmatists”. All of the mentioned findings help us to shed a light on four groups of people, which align their identity in the relation towards the sacred or supernatural. The first group, which, using Roof´s and Wuthnow´s terminology, we referred to as “dwellers”, are interested in the sacred or supernatural within religion. According to the results derived from the Slovenian and Croatian samples, “dwellers” could be described as religiously traditional; they are the most accepting of traditional religious beliefs, attend church monthly and pray weekly. They judge sexual relations between two adults of the same sex as something that is wrong, and reject gender inequality to a certain point, but in comparison with Croatian “secularists” and Slovenian “seekers” and “secularists” they are more inclined towards traditional gender roles. “Dogmatists” resemble “dwellers” in mostly accepting traditional religious beliefs but do not practice their religion as frequently as “dwellers” and doubt in God´s existence more. Together with “secularists”, “seekers” are the most educated group in Slovenia, whereas in Croatia they have a similar educational level to “dogmatists” but lower than “secularists”. They reject traditional religious beliefs and have a lower level of involvement in religious practice than “dwellers” and “dogmatists”; something that is in accordance with Wuthnow’s (1998) notion on seeking as a rejection of predestined meanings and explanations and an engagement in a search for new experiences and concepts. Although it could be expected that they accept alternative religious beliefs, this research shows that they do not believe in reincarnation, Nirvana and the supernatural powers of deceased ancestors. The reason for this could be because these alternative religious beliefs are too narrowly operationalised in this research. It is also interesting to note that Croatian and Slovenian “seekers” differ in religious practice. For example, Croatian “seekers” pray and attend religious services yearly, while Slovenian “seekers” pray and attend religious services even more rarely (i.e. less than once a year). Moreover, around 40% of Croatian and only around 9% of Slovenian “seekers” have no doubts that God exist but around 51% of Slovenian and around 17% of Croatian “seekers” do not believe in a personal God but rather in a Higher Power of some kind. “Secularists” are the only group that have more males than females in both countries. In Croatia they are the most educated group, while in both countries they accept traditional religious beliefs and engage in religious practices the least. To sum up, our hypothesis that spiritual non-religious individual (“seekers”) will be less homophobic and more egalitarian than religious individuals (“dwellers” and “dogmatists”) was confirmed only in the Slovenian sample. Surprisingly, Croatian “seekers” did not differ in their belief on gender roles from Croatian “dwellers” and “dogmatists”. The hypothesis that “seekers” will be less homophobic compared to “dwellers” and “dogmatists” was only partially confirmed on the Croatian sample: female “seekers” did not differ from female “dogmatists” but were less homonegative than female “dwellers”, whereas the opposite pattern was observed for Croatian men. Can we therefore say that spirituality manifests in more “openness to multiplicity of possibilities” as Roof (2003, 138) argued? The Slovenian results imply that the answer is affirmative but the Croatian results support that notion only partially. It seems that Croatian “spiritual seekers” are to some extent similar to religious individuals in their beliefs, whereas Slovenian “seekers” are more in accordance with Roof’s (2003) assumptions. A question for future research is how spirituality is constructed in Slovenia and how is it constructed in Croatia. What does spirituality mean to Croatian women and men, and how do Slovenian women and men experience spirituality? We would also like to mention some limitations of this study. We have used single item indicators for beliefs about gender roles and homonegativity and religiosity/spirituality; therefore, in future research it would be advised to use scales or multiple indicator measures of these concepts. In order to measure homonegativity, we have used a variable that assesses if respondents think that it is wrong for two adults of the same sex to have sexual relations, which is only one aspect of

17

homonegativity (others could include differing beliefs about gay men and lesbians, social distance towards them etc.), whereas beliefs about gender roles in this paper encompass only beliefs about women’s domestic role and men’s provider role – gender roles could include other roles and issues (like professional, parental and partner roles of both men and women). And maybe the most important limitation lies in the self-identification indicator of religiosity/spirituality/secularism. It goes without saying that we are dealing here with multidimensional constructs (Bender and McRoberts 2012), where the dimensions of spirituality, in terms of a self-expressed concept and as a social phenomenon, represent an epistemological challenge to social scientists, since their exploration outside of an American perspective is in its infancy. Keeping that in mind, this research conducted on national representative samples from Croatia and Slovenia is a contribution to the empirical exploration of Roof’s typology (2003) in a different social context. What is more important is the analysis that shows that spirituality can have social implications, thus underlying a need for further interdisciplinary ventures and more in-depth explorations. References:

Aboim, Sofia. 2010. “Family and Gender Values in Contemporary Europe: The Attitudinal Gender Gap from a Cross-national Perspective.” Portuguese Journal of Social Science 9:33-58.

Ančić Branko and Zrinščak Siniša. 2012. “Religion in Central European Societies: Its Social Role and People´s Expectation.” Religion and Society in Central and Eastern Europe 5(1): 21-38.

Ančić, Branko. 2011. “What do we want from religion? Religiosity and Social Expectations in Central and Eastern Europe.” In Spaces and Borders. Current Research on Religion in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by A. Máté-Tóth and C. Rughinis, 151–167. Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.

Ančić, Branko and Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 2011. ““Dao Bog zdravlja”: o povezanosti religioznosti i zdravlja u Hrvatskoj.” Sociologija i prostor 49(1): 71-89.

Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Barker, Eileen. 2004: “The Church Without and the God Within: Religiosity and/or Spirituality?” In Religion and Patterns of Social Transformation, edited by Dinka Marinović Jerolimov, Siniša Zrinščak and Irena Borowik, 23-47. Zagreb: Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu.

Bem, Sandra L. 1974. “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42:165-172.

Bender Courtney and McRoberts, Omar. 2012. “Mapping a Field: Why and How to Study Spirituality.” Social Science Research Council (SSRC working paper).

Berger, Helen, A. 1999. A Community of Witches: Contemporary Neo-Paganism and Witchcraft in the United States. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Masculine Domination. Cambridge: Polity.

Brajdić Vuković, Marija and Aleksandar Štulhofer. 2012.“'The Whole Universe is Heterosexual!' Correlates of Homonegativity in seven South-East European Countries”, In The Aftermath of War: Experiences and Social Attitudes in the Western Balkans, edited by K. Ringdal and A. Simkus Abingdon, UK: Ashgate.

Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Oxford: Blackwell.

Campbell, Colin. 1999. “The Easternisation of the West”. In New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response, edited by Bryan Wilson and Jamie Cresswell, 35-48. London: Routledge.

Crompton, Rosemary, Michaela Brockmann, and Clare Lyonette. 2005. “Attitudes, Women's Employment and the Domestic Division of Labour: A Cross-National Analysis in Two Waves.” Work, Employment and Society 19:213-233.

18

Ćepulić, Dominik Borna and Ivan Tomić. 2013. “Uloga rodnih uloga, seksističkih stavova i desničarke autoritarnosti u stavovima prema gej i lezbijskoj populaciji“. (paper presented at the 21st Ramiro and Zoran Bujas' Days, Zagreb, Croatia, April, 11-13).

Černeli, Arijana, Ivana Bahun, Eva Feldman, and Aleksandra Huić. 2013. “Stavovi studenata pomagačkih usmjerenja o osobama homoseksualne orijentacije“. (paper presented at the 21st Ramiro and Zoran Bujas' Days, Zagreb, Croatia, April, 11-13).

Črpić, Gordan and Siniša Zrinščak. 2010. „Dinamičnost u stabilnosti: Religioznost u Hrvatskoj 1999. i 2008. godine.“ Društvena istraživanja 19(1-2): 3-27.

Črpić, Gordan. 2010. „Žene i muškarci: egalitarnost na egzistencijalnoj i kolizija na svjetonazorskoj ravni.“ Društvena istraživanja 19(1-2): 69-89.

Deaux, Kay and & Marriane Lafrance. 1998. “Gender”. In The handbook of social psychology, Vol 1, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Lindzey Gardner, 788-818. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Francis, Leslie John. 1997. “The Psychology of Gender Differences in Religion: A Review of Empirical Research.” Religion 27:81–96. doi:10.1006/reli.1996.0066

Francis, Leslie John, and Clyde Wilcox. 1998. “Religiosity and Femininity: Do Women Really Hold a More Positive Attitude toward Christianity?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37:462–469.

Frieze, Irene Hanson, Anuška Ferligoj, Tina Kogovšek, Tanja Rener, Jasna Horvat, and Nataša Šarlija. 2003. „Gender-Role Attitudes in University Students in the United States, Slovenia, and Croatia.“ Psychology of Women Quarterly 27:256–261.

Furseth, Inger and Pal Repstad. 2006. An Introduction to the Sociology of Religion: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Galić, Branka. 2011. „Percepcija, iskustvo i stavovi o rodnoj (ne)ravnopravnosti na poslu/tržištu rada. [Perception, experience and attitudes about gender (in)eqaulity at work/labour market].“ In Rodna ravnopravnost i diskriminacija u Hrvatskoj: Istraživanje „Percepcija, iskustva i stavovi o rodnoj diskriminaciji u Republici Hrvatskoj“, edited by Željka Kamenov, and Branka Galić, 165-184. Zagreb: Ured za ravnopravnost spolova Vlade RH.

Glick, Peter, Maria Lameiras, and Yolanda Rodriguez Castro. 2002. „Education and Catholic Religiosity as Predictors of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism toward Women and Men.” Sex Roles 47: 433-441.

Green, Beverly, and Gregory M. Herek. 1999. Psihologija ženske i muške homoseksualnosti. Zagreb: Naklada Jesenski i Turk, Hrvatsko sociološko društvo.

Hauser, Ewa, Heyns, Barbara, and Jane Mansbridge. 1993. „Feminism in the interstices of politics and culture: Poland in transitions.” In Gender politics and post-communism: Reflections from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, edited by Nanette Funk and Magda Mueller. New York: Routledge.

Heelas, Paul and Linda Woodhead. 2005. The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Herek, Gregory M. 2002. „Gender Gaps in Public Opinion about Lesbians and Gay Men.“ Public Opinion Quarterly Volume 66:40–66

Herek, Gregory M., and John P. Capitanio. 1995. „Black Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States.” Journal of Sex Research 32:95–105.

Herek, Gregory M., and John P. Capitanio. 1996. “‘Some of My Best Friends’: Intergroup Contact, Concealable Stigma, and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22:412–424.

Herek, Gregory M., and John P. Capitanio. 1999. “Sex Differences in How Heterosexuals Think about Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Survey Context Effects.” Journal of Sex Research 36:348–360.

19

Jacobs, Janet L. 1991. “Gender and power in new religious movements. A feminist discourse on the scientific study of religion.” Religion 21(4): 345–356.

Jensen, Larry C., and Janet Jensen. 1993. „Family Values, Religiosity, and Gender.” Psychological Reports 73:429-430.

Jogan, Maca. 2005. “The Stubbornness of Sexism in the Second part of the Twentieth Century in Slovenia.” In Political Faces of Slovenia. Political Orientations and Values at the End of the Century, edited by Niko Toš and Karl H. Mueller, 385–418. Wien: Edition Echoraum.

Kamenov, Željka, and Ivana Jugović. 2011. „Percepcija, iskustvo i stavovi o rodnoj (ne)ravnopravnosti u obitelji. [Perception, experience and attitudes about gender (in)eqaulity in the family].“ In Rodna ravnopravnost i diskriminacija u Hrvatskoj: Istraživanje „Percepcija, iskustva i stavovi o rodnoj diskriminaciji u Republici Hrvatskoj“, edited by Željka Kamenov, and Branka Galić, 120-142. Zagreb: Ured za ravnopravnost spolova Vlade RH.

Kimmel, Michael S. 2000. The Gendered Society. New York: Oxford University Press.

King Ursula, 1993. Women and Spirituality. Voices of Protest and Promise. London: Macmillan.

Kite, Mary E., and Kay Deaux. 1987. „Gender Beliefs Systems: Homosexuality and Implicit Inversion Theory.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 11:83–96.

Kite, Mary E., and Bernard E. Whitley. 1996. “Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Homosexual Persons, Behaviors, and Civil Rights: A Meta-Analysis.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22:336–353.

Kite, Mary E., and Bernard E. Whitley. 1998. “Do Heterosexual Men and Women Differ in Their Attitudes toward Homosexuality? A Conceptual and Methodological Analysis.” In Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, edited by Gregory M. Herek, 39–61. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Luckmann, Thomas. 1967. The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society. New York: Macmillan.

Marinović Bobinac, Ankica. 1999. „Necrkvena religioznost u Hrvatskoj: primjer pentekostalnih zajednica.” PhD diss., Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Filozofski fakultet.

Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 2005. „Tradicionalna religioznost u Hrvatskoj 2004: između kolektivnog i individualnog”. Sociologija sela 43(2), 289-302.

Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 2000. „Komparativna analiza društvenih obilježja religioznosti i nereligioznosti.” PhD diss., Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Filozofski fakultet .

Miller, Alan S., and John P. Hoffmann. 1995. “Risk and Religion: An Explanation Gender Differences in Religiosity.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34:63–75.

Mušica, Tihana Tea, Marta Dumančić, Lara Radoš, Nikolina Davidović, Maja Parmač Kovačić, and Željka Kamenov. 2013. “Jesu li se u posljednjih 10 godina promijenili stavovi hrvatskih studenata o osobama homoseksualne orijentacije?“ (paper presented at the 21st Ramiro and Zoran Bujas' Days, Zagreb, Croatia, April, 11-13).

Nierman, Angela J., Suzanne C. Thompson, Angela Bryan, and Amanda L. Mahaffey. 2007. “Gender Role Beliefs and Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men in Chile and the U.S.” Sex Role 57:61-67.

Ozorak, Elizabeth W. 1996. “The Power, but Not the Glory: How Women Empower Themselves Through Religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35(1): 17-29. doi:10.2307/1386392

Parmač, Maja. 2005. Stavovi studenata prema osobama homoseksualne orijentacije. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, Odsjek za psihologiju.

Petersen, Jennifer L., and Janet Shibley Hyde. 2011. “Gender Differences in Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors: A Review of Meta-Analytic Results and Large Datasets.” Journal of Sex Research 48:149–165.

20

Pollack, Detlef. 2003. “Religiousness Inside and Outside the Church in Selected Post-Communist Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.” Social Compass 50(3): 321-334.

Roof, Wade Clark. 2003. “Religion and Spirituality: Toward and Integrated Analysis.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, edited by Michele Dillon, 137-150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roof, Wade Clark. 1999. Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American Religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Roter, Zdenko. 1988. „Revitalizacija religije i desekularizacija društva u Sloveniji.“ Sociologija 2-3:403-428.

Rus, Veljko and Niko Toš. 2005. Vrednote Slovence vin Evropejcev: Analiza vrednotnih orientacij Slovencev ob koncu stoletja. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Sanchez, Laura, and Carla S. Hall. 1999. “Traditional Values and Democratic Impulses: The Gender Division of Labor in Contemporary Spain.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 30:659-685.

Sekulić, Duško. 2011. „Vrijednosno-ideološke orijentacije kao predznak i posljedica društvenih promjena.“ Politička misao 48(3): 35-64

Spence, Janet T., and Robert L. Helmreich. 1978. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Spence, Janet T., Robert L. Helmreich, and Joy Stapp. 1975. “Ratings of self and peers on the sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32:29-39.

Štulhofer, Aleksandar, and Rimac, Ivan. 2009. “Determinants of Homonegativity in Europe.” Journal of Sex Research 46:24–32.

Taylor, Charles. 1991. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Thompson, Edward H. 1991. “Beneath the Status Characteristic: Gender Variations in Religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30:381–394.

Thomson, Keith S. 1996. “The revival of experiments in prayer.” American Scientist 84: 532–534.

Tomić Koludrović, Inga. 1996. „Konstrukcija spolnosti i tolerancija.” Društvena istraživanja 5:331-343.

Tomka, Miklos. 1995. „The Changing Social Role of Religion in Eastern and Central Europe: Religious Revival and its Contradictions.” Social Compass 42(1): 17–26.

Tomka, Miklos and Paul Zulehner. 2008. Religionen und Kirchen in Ost(Mittel) Europa. Entwicklungen seit der Wende. Aufbruch 2007. Wien-Budapest: GFK Wien.

Toš, Niko. 2005. “Comparative Analysis of Religiosity - in Slovenia and Central and Eastern European Countries.” In Political Faces of Slovenia. Political Orientations and Values at the End of the Century, edited by Niko Toš and Karl H. Mueller, 295–310. Wien: Edition Echoraum.

Toš, Niko. 2000. “Primerjalna analiza religioznosti : v Sloveniji in državah Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope.” Teor. praksa 37(2): 197-228.

Vernon, Glenn M. 1968. Sociology of Religion. New York: Anchor Books.

Vrcan, Srđan. 1986. “Omladina osamdesetih godina, religija i crkva” In Položaj, svest i ponašanje mlade generacije Jugoslavije, edited by Furio Radin. Zagreb, Beograd: CIDID i Institut za društvena istraživanja Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.

Vrcan, Srđan. 1999. “Novi izazovi za suvremenu sociologiju religije. Politizacija religije i religizacija politike u postkomunizmu.” Revija za sociologiju 1-2: 45-64.

Walter, Tony and Grace Davie. 1998. “The religiosity of women in the modern West.” British Journal of Sociology 49(4): 640–660. doi:10.2307/591293

21

Woodhead, Linda. 2003. “Feminism and the Sociology of Religion: From Gender-Blindness to Gender Difference.” In The Blackwell Companion to Sociology of Religion, edited by Richard K. Fenn, 67-84. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1998. After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wuthnow, Robert. 2003. “Spirituality and Spiritual Practice”. In The Blackwell Companion to Sociology of Religion, edited by Richard K. Fenn, 306-320. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.