Religiosity and American Muslim Youth

8/10/2019 Religiosity and American Muslim Youth

1/21


2/21

Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 4:104123, 2009Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4908 print / 1556-5009 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564900903245642

Religiosity and Presence of Character Strengthsin American Muslim Youth

SAMEERA AHMEDThe Family and Youth Institute, Canton, Michigan

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Wayne State University,

Detroit, Michigan

This study explored religiosity and the presence of character strengthamong American Muslim youth and analyzed 174 Muslim andComparison youth. The results indicate that 75.5% of American

Muslim youth sampled were categorized as Highly Religious, signif-icantly more than their peers (p = .0001). Although Muslim youthwere identified as Highly Religious, only 33.7% of the sample had

previously explored their ideological beliefs and then made a com-mitment to Islam. Religiosity was significantly associated with a

greater number of character strengths (p = .0002), which servedas a protective factor. Finally, Highly Religious American Mus-

lim youth were associated with the following character strengths:kindness, equity, leadership, self-regulation, prudence, gratitude,hope/optimism, spirituality, and forgiveness.

Keywords Character strength, Muslim youth, religiosity

INTRODUCTION

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, there has been an increased interest in

understanding the estimated 58 million Muslims living in the United States(Bagby, Perl, & Froehle, 2001). It is estimated that almost 67% of Muslims liv-ing in America are under the age of 40 (Zogby, 2000). As such, researchersand policy makers alike are interested in gaining a better understandingof American Muslim youth and factors impacting their development. In anattempt to build greater scientific knowledge on this understudied popula-tion, this study explores religiosity and the presence of character strengths.

Address correspondence to Sameera Ahmed, PhD, Director, The Family and Youth Insti-

tute, 42015 Ford Road #169, Canton, MI 48187. E-mail: [email protected]

104


3/21

Religiosity of American Muslim Youth 105

The article begins by providing an introductory background on AmericanMuslim youth, then identifies protective factors that may positively impacttheir development (i.e., religiosity) and highlights methodological challengesin studying American Muslim youth. The implications of the results, as well

as the need to conduct additional research, are explored.

American Muslim Youth

American Muslim youth, who are developing within an ever-changing, com-plex environment, are faced with numerous challenges and opportunities.Like most young people, Muslim youth encounter predictable biological,psychological, and social developmental changes, which influence how theyexperience the world around them. In addition to the normative develop-mental changes, American Muslim youth have reported varying challenges,

including lack of support from their family and friends, problems in main-taining their faith, real or perceived discrimination, and issues related toidentity and acculturation (Ahmed & Akhter, 2006).

Lack of support from ones immediate context (i.e., family and peers)has been described as one of the greatest challenges experienced by Amer-ican Muslim youth. Muslim youth have stated that their parents often lackunderstanding of the American social context and normative youth culture.In addition, many youth believe their parents fear that they will acculturateinto society and lose their religious and cultural identity. This often promptsparents to prevent age-appropriate exploration and impose many restric-

tions on social activities, even on those that do not conflict with religiousvalues and beliefs (Ahmed & Akhter, 2006; Al-Mateen & Afzal, 2004). Inaddition, Muslim youth have reported experiencing peer pressure to engagein activities and behaviors that are contrary to their religious beliefs suchas dating, engaging in premarital sex, and consuming alcohol or drugs. Asa result, Muslim adolescents and young adults frequently find themselvescaught in a struggle between trying to maintain their religious and cultural

values while also finding a way to relate to their peers. These difficultiesare often compounded when parents, who may be unaware of the chal-

lenges experienced by the young person, fail to provide viable social andrecreational alternatives. The manner in which a young person respondsto these stressors depends on a number of differing factors, including butnot limited to: sources of support, personal and family beliefs, self-esteem,and available social and recreational alternatives. Some youth will engagein normative peer behaviors, risking being ostracized by their family andthe Muslim community. Other youth may engage in normative behaviors asexpected by their parents and Muslim community while potentially experi-encing feelings of alienation, loneliness, and lack of acceptance from theirpeers due to differences in life styles and beliefs (Ahmed & Akhter, 2006).

American Muslim youth have frequently indicated that the communi-ties they reside in are not supportive of their needs. When referring to the


4/21

106 S. Ahmed

American Muslim community, many youth have voiced frustration due tolack of culturally relevant (i.e., American), age-appropriate, religious, andsocial programs. They also have reported a lack of influence on the futuredirection of the community. With respect to their society, polls conducted by

Cornell University indicated that 44% of Americans polled believe that someform of restriction should be placed on American Muslims (Cornell, 2004)and 70% of American Muslim youth have reported experiencing negativereactions due to their religious beliefs and practices (Muslim Public AffairsCouncil [MPAC], 2005). Similarly, government actions, such as the issuanceof the USA PATRIOT Act, ethnic-based immigration interviews and profiling,and investigations of numerous high-profile charity groups, has led many

American Muslim youth to perceive themselves as misunderstood and asunwelcome citizens of their own country.

The lack of support in varying contexts, coupled with the real or per-

ceived experiences of discrimination and feelings of alienation during a cru-cial developmental period, may be challenging for American Muslim youth.These challenges may predispose many young people toward engaging inaggressive behaviors such as substance abuse, and antisocial behaviorssuch as truancy, criminal activity, and aggressiveness. Although research on

American Muslim youth is in its infancy, initial studies have reported pre-liminary evidence for American Muslim youth engaging in risky behaviors(Abu-Ras et al., 2009; Ahmed et al., 2009; Islam & Johnson, 2003; Rice etal., 2006). As such, understanding factors that may prevent American Muslim

youth from engaging in risky behaviors is of great interest.

Protective Factors and Character Strength

Psychological research has traditionally focused on pathological and mal-adaptive behaviors of an individual. However, a renewed interest in under-standing human strengths has evolved through positive psychology.Positive

psychology is the study of human strengths and virtues with the aim ofreducing maladaptive behavior and building strengths and virtues to help

individuals and communities not only endure and survive, but also flourish(Seligman, 2002). As mentioned above, American Muslim youth are exposedto numerous factors that may increase the likelihood of engaging in riskybehaviors. There is great interest in understanding protective factors, onesthat may serve to decrease the likelihood an individual will engage in riskybehavior or lead toward the promotion of positive youth development. Pro-tective factors promote development through a variety of mechanisms: Theymay prevent the initial occurrence of a risk factor altogether, interrupt thepathways through which risk factors function, or, at the very least, reducethe impact of risk factors.

Research has indicated that certain beliefs or values within ones charac-ter are associated with a decrease in the impact of negative stressors. These


5/21


character strengths are also associated with promoting positive youth devel-opment (Park, 2004). Thus, the presence of character strength that emergesbased on the classification of strengths and virtues across history and cultureshas been associated with being a protective factor (Park, 2004; Peterson &

Seligman, 2001).In addition to character strengths serving as protective factors, currentresearch in the field of youth development has suggested additional fac-tors that promote youth development, including: positive family interactions(Feldman et al., 1998; Jessor et al., 1998; Kotchick et al., 1999; Windle, 2000),positive peer group identification (Hogg & Abrams, 2003; Pombeni, Kirchler,& Palmonari, 1990; Tarrant et al., 2001), community support (Benson,Roehlkepartain, & Rude, 2003; Eccles & Gootman, 2002), positive experi-ences and bonding to conventional society (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller,1992), and greater religiosity (Regnerus, Smith, & Fritsch, 2003). However,

it is unknown if these factors also serve as protective factors for AmericanMuslim youth.

Religiosity as a Protective Factor?

Given the current geopolitical and social context, it is of particular in-terest to understand whether or not religiosity indeed serves as a pro-tective factor for American Muslim youth. At present, prior investigationon the protective nature of religiosity on American Muslim youth has notbeen conducted. However, previous research on non-Muslim populationshas theorized that religion serves as a protective factor for young peo-ple. It is believed that religion sets standards that are repeated by religiousand community leaders, and provides young people with clear and ex-plicit messages of socially appropriate behaviors during a period in theirlife that is often unclear (Erickson, 1965). Researchers have suggested thatreligious youth are less likely to engage in health-compromising behav-iors such as carrying weapons, engaging in fights, drinking and driving,and using illegal drugs (Wallace & Forman, 1998). In addition, religionappears to exert a significant to moderate deterrent effect on an individ-

uals criminal behavior (Baier & Wright, 2001) and sexual acting out (Don-ahue & Benson, 1995). Similarly, adolescent delinquency has been observedto negatively correlate with personal religiosity and the religiosity of theirpeers.

Religiosity may serve as a protective factor because of meaningful inter-personal connections through religious involvement. Religious organizationsand community groups often share goals and similar experiences that fostersupport and a stable sense of community and belongingness through ritualsand community interaction (Erickson, 1965). The presence of trusting andsupportive mentors, parents, and friends with similar beliefs and values and

who help to nurture positive characteristics has been observed to function


6/21

108 S. Ahmed

as a protective factor in the lives of young people (Busseri et al., 2006; Jessoret al., 1998). These interpersonal connections are also thought to help byconnecting young people to adults and established institutions, providingthem with meaning and a framework within which young people can work

to establish their place in society and to gain a sense of purpose for thefuture (Erikson, 1965, 1968). In addition, religious institutions are thought toassist young people in the development of self-regulatory abilities by provid-ing them with role models and opportunities to model prosocial behaviorsin structured settings, thereby protecting them from possible antisocial be-havior (Cook, 2000). Moreover, such trusting interactions within a religioussetting foster identity development, strengthen self-worth, and provide theadolescent with a set of convictions (Cook, 2000).

Religious organizations and institutions can serve to promote the devel-opment of character strengths and other protective factors because they often

engage youth in socially sanctioned activities, thereby providing alternativepeer group and prosocial opportunities and reducing the opportunity for an-tisocial involvement (Kress & Elias, 1997). Groups that offer special programsfor youth, such as mentoring programs, can foster resiliency in adolescentsthrough meeting their social and spiritual needs (Cook, 2000). Communitiesthat provide youth with a place to congregate and engage in activities thathelp build feelings of self-worth and self-confidence, as well as feel posi-tive about belonging to a group, may help to foster their sense of self andprovide them with a set of convictions, directions, and a community to be apart of (Cook, 2000; Erickson, 1965). However, many mosques provide onlyreligious instruction and do not offer social or recreational programs for ado-lescents and young adults. As such, a Comparison between the role of manychurches in the lives of Christian youth may not be analogous to the roleof many mosques in the lives of American Muslim youth. Researchers mayconsider alternatives such as community- and student-led groups to focus onmeeting the needs of American Muslim youth and provide an environmentpromoting positive youth development.

Contemporary research on the protective nature of religion on youngpeople has primarily focused its attention on religious groups that are dom-

inant in society. Specifically, a majority of the present literature on the pro-tective nature of religion has been conducted with Christian youth and theirrespective congregations. However, in Islam there is no religious hierarchystructure, and mosques are sometimes simple prayer halls which, therefore,may not meet the social needs of its membership. As a result, AmericanMuslim youth may consider a variety of religious organizations, not directlyaffiliated with their local mosque, in order to better meet their interpersonalneeds such as specialized youth groups, student organizations, national or-ganizations, or Internet communities. As such, how one defines the religiouscommunity of the young person will likely influence the degree of impact

that the religious community has on their life and, thus, should be considered


7/21


when studying American Muslim youth. Religious organizations that cater tothe needs of American Muslim youth are more likely to serve the role ofreligious institutions as described in the literature.

Few researchers have investigated religious commitment among reli-

gious minority youth. The phrase religious minority grouprefers to religiousgroups that clearly identify themselves as being distinct in their faith, rituals,and practice, and whose faith is not practiced by the majority of people intheir society (Markstrom-Adams, Hofstra, & Dougher, 1994). For religiousminority youth, such as American Muslim youth, religious commitment istheorized to have varying impact depending on the young persons en-

vironment. Individuals born into religious minority families are thought toreceive greater religious socialization from their family and religious commu-nity throughout their childhood in the hopes that the individual will maintaintheir religious beliefs and pass them on to the next generation (Markstrom-

Adams et al.). It is during young adulthood that many youth are expectedto display their loyalty to their religious group. An individuals identification

with their religious minority group is thought to be strengthened when theyexperience negative attitudes and treatment directed toward their religiousgroup (Markstrom-Adams et al., 1994). Another possibility is that religiousminority youth may instead choose to dissociate from their religious com-munity, and assimilate into mainstream society, in order to avoid potentialrejection due to their religious minority status. To date, there has been noresearch that has explored the influence of religious minority status on re-ligious commitment or the protective nature of religiosity among American

Muslim youth.

Measuring Religiosity

Although religiosity has been identified as a protective factor among Jew-ish and Christian youth, measurement issues raise concern about the ap-plicability of current measures with American Muslim youth. Researchershave often used adolescent and young adult church attendance as ameasure for religiosity, which may not be an accurate measure of reli-

gious commitment for religious minority youth (Markstrom-Adams, 1994);in particular, weekly mosque attendance is not required of all Mus-lims. While Muslim men are required to attend weekly Friday congrega-tional prayers, it is optional for women. Friday prayers can take placeanywhere as long as the requirement for congregational prayers is metand thus not required to be held at an established Mosque. Also, Fri-day congregational prayer cannot be used as a proxy for church at-tendance because attendance is not mandatory for Muslim women. Inaddition, measurement of church attendance does not adequately address theextent to which youth identify with religion, or the degree of internalization

of these beliefs into their everyday life and may be more related to parental


8/21

110 S. Ahmed

expectations than to an individuals beliefs and practice. As such, it wouldbe important to clarify whether a young persons religious commitmentis due to personal conviction, one that they have thought through andcommitted to, or a reflection of parental expectations. This is of particular

importance for American Muslim youth because it is theorized that they re-ceive greater religious socialization from their family and community. Hence,there is a need for researchers to assess the extent of an individuals religiousexploration and the degree of religious commitment.

Another methodological issue with many of the current measures ofreligiosity is that they were developed based on Judeo-Christian beliefs andpractices, and the meanings of the behaviors often have different significanceto Muslims. For example, if a Christian youth prays once a day, the impli-cation is likely that the individual is Highly Religious. However, if a Muslim

youth, who is required to pray five times a day, endorses the same measure

indicating that they pray once a day, the implication is that the individualmay not be Highly Religious because they are not fulfilling a basic tenet ofIslam. Although there has been an attempt to develop scales to better mea-sure religiosity in Muslims, the norms and scales are specific to Islam andMuslims and, therefore, not easily adaptable to non-Muslim populations (Al-Ghorani, 2008; Francis, Sahin, & Al-Failakawi, 2008). When studying Ameri-can Muslim youth, it is important to use measures that can adequately assesstheir religious commitment and allow for the comparability of the results withnon-Muslim peers in order to determine if religiosity significantly differs.

This study aims to explore the religious commitment of American Mus-

lim youth. Specifically, it looks at the religiosity of American Muslim youth,and whether there are any differences between them and their peers. Inaddition, the study investigates the degree of religious exploration and howthe findings compare with an individuals proclaimed religiosity. The studyalso attempts to determine whether religiosity in American Muslim youth isassociated with the development of character strengths that serve as protec-tive factors. Finally, if religiosity is indeed associated with protective factorsfor American Muslim youth, what are the specific character strengths that areassociated with greater religious commitment?

METHOD

Procedures

Participants were recruited from organizations serving the needs of youngpeople. Individuals attending activities of a community-based organization,the Muslim American Society Youth (MAS Youth), and a university-basedorganization, the Muslim Students Association (MSA), were invited to partic-ipate in the research study. Participants were informed that the study was

aimed at understanding young peoples values, beliefs, and behaviors. These


9/21


individuals were also asked to invite their peers (both Muslim and non-Muslim) to participate in the study, resulting in a snowball sampling. In ad-dition, Comparison youth were recruited through undergraduate psychologycourses at a nonreligiously affiliated private metropolitan university with a

diverse student body.Participation in the study was voluntary. Participants were informedboth verbally and in written format about their rights while participating inthe study, and asked to sign consent forms. They were then provided witha questionnaire packet. Upon completion of the questionnaire, participants

were given a debriefing form.

Participants

This study was comprised of 174 participants between the ages of 18 and

25 years. The sample included 97 Muslim youth and 77 Comparison youthfrom across the nation. Muslims comprised 56% of the participants (n =99), followed by Christians 29% (n = 51), as the main religious groupsrepresented. Other religious views were represented in smaller numbers(>2%), and included Jews, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, and those describingtheir beliefs as other.

Comparable numbers of male and female participants were included inthe study (96 women, 78 men). The Muslim population consisted of 43.3%men and 56.7% women while the Comparison sample consisted of 46.8%men and 53.2% women, as noted in Table 1.

Research participants were comparable with respect to similarity in age;American Muslim youth were slightly older than their peers. Participantswere raised mainly in North America, and there were no significant differ-ences between Muslim and Comparison youth in the number of years livedin North America. With respect to academic performance, as measured byself-reported grade point average (GPA), there was no significant differenceidentified between Muslim and Comparison youth. Although the study at-tempted to control for socioeconomic background of participants, based onparental income, insufficient data was collected.

Table 1 Demographic Comparison of Sample

Years inSubject (N) Age GPA U.S.

Total Male Female M SD M SD M SD

Muslim group 97 42 55 21.3 2.7 3.39 .4 15.6 7.2Comparison 77 36 41 20.1 2.3 3.27 .5 14.9 7.5

group

Note.GPA =grade point average.


10/21

112 S. Ahmed

Measures

DEMOGRAPHICQUESTIONNAIRE

Demographics included information regarding gender, age, and years lived

in the United States. In addition, the religion with which the participantidentified, their parental income, and GPA were also obtained.

MEASURE OFRELIGIOUS COMMITMENT

The Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10) consists of 10 items mea-suring an individuals religious commitment as defined by the degree to

which a person adheres to his or her religious values, beliefs, and practices,and employs them in their daily living (Worthington et al., 2003). The mea-sure uses a 5-point Likert scale and has previously been used to measure

religiosity among Muslim and non-Muslim populations (Schlosser, 2006). TheRCI-10 has been positively related to self-reported religious commitment, fre-quency of attendance at religious services, and intensity of ones spiritual life(Worthington et al., 2003). The internal consistency score was observed to be0.93, the testretest reliability coefficients was 0.87, and the construct valid-ity was compared to Rokeachs Value Survey as well as previous versions ofthe Religious Values Scale, which produced consistent results (Worthingtonet al., 2003).

According to its developers, the RCI-10 mean is 23.1 (SD= 10.2). Scoresof more than one standard deviation higher than the mean indicate that an

individual is considered Highly Religious. The developers have suggestedthat a cutoff score of 33 be used to minimize false negatives and labelsomeone as Highly Religious while a cutoff score of 38 be used to minimizefalse positives. For the purpose of this study, a cutoff score of 38 was utilizedin order to minimize false positives.

MEASURE OFRELIGIOUS EXPLORATION

The Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status-2 (EOM-EIS-2) wasused to measure the extent of religious exploration and commitment of an

individual. The EOM-EIS-2 measures identity status by assessing the degreeof exploration and commitment along varying ideological and interpersonaldomains: religious, occupation, politics, philosophical, friendship, dating, sexroles, and recreation.

The EOM-EIS-2 is validated for individuals between 13 and 30 years ofage and uses a 6-point Likert self-report scale. Internal consistency estimatesfor the EOM-EIS-2 domains, an indication of the degree to which the testitems intercorrelate with one another, range from 0.3 to 0.91, with a medianalpha of 0.66 (Adams, 1998). The correlations of stability for the EOM-EIS-2subscales, an estimate of how stable the results of the measure are over a

given time period, range from 0.59 to 0.82, with a median correlation of 0.76


11/21


(Grotevant & Adams, 1984; see Adams, 1998, for a review). The split-halfcorrelations of the subscales range from 0.10 to 0.68, with a total identitycorrelation subscale scores ranging from 0.37 to 0.64 (Adams, 1998). Finally,the split-half reliability score for the EOM-EIS-2, an indication of the degree

of correspondence between two halves of the test and an estimate of theextent the halves are equivalent to one another, range from .10 to .68 forsubscales (Grotevant & Adams, 1984).

For the purposes of this study, the ideological domain of religion wasused in order to measure the extent of religious exploration by young people(permission was obtained from the scales developer). Individuals who hadexplored their religious beliefs and then decided to commit to their religion

were categorized as Religiously Achieved. Young people that were groupedas Religiously Achieved indicated that they had gone through the process ofexploration and had come to a resolution regarding their religious beliefs.

Such a process results in the formation of a relatively firm religious com-mitment that is less likely to conform and be influenced by peer pressure(Adams, Ryan, Hoffman, Dobson, & Nielsen, 1984; Toder & Marcia, 1973).Participants who either did not explore their religious beliefs or did not makea commitment to a religion were categorized as individuals that had not de-

veloped a Religiously Achieved identity. The cutoff score for an individualto be categorized as Religiously Achieved was 10.

MEASURE OFCHARACTERSTRENGTH

The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths Scale (VIA-IS) utilizes a 5-pointLikert scale assessing an individuals character strength by asking participantsto endorse items that describe their attitudes, values, and behaviors (Peterson& Seligman, 2001).

Marlow-Crowne social desirability scores did not significantly correlatewith scale scores, with the exception of prudence (r =.44) and spirituality(r = .30). The issue of social desirability is often of concern when dealing

with the topic of religious commitment. However, Watson, Morris, Foster,and Hood (1986) found no consistent link between religiousness and social

desirability responses. In fact, there was evidence that religious people weremore likely to agree with items that reflect their normative belief system,which may appear to be viewed as a socially desirable answer. Construct va-lidity was investigated by comparing the measure to the NEO-PersonalityInventory: http://ww3.parinc.com/products/product.aspx?Productid=NEO-PI-R (NEO-PI). As expected, the correlations were found to be substantial:Openness correlated with awe (r = .65), curiosity (r = .73), and love oflearning (r = .58); agreeableness with teamwork (r = .42); and conscien-tiousness with industry (r =.73) and self-regulation (r =.55).

A total of 15 of 20 subscales from the VIA-IS were used (with permission

of the instruments developers). A detailed description of each character


12/21

T

able

2

VIA-ISCharacterStrengths

C

haracterstrengths

Description

M

SD

Cut-offscore

Judgment

So

rtsthroughinformationinanobjectivemannerandis

synonymouswithcriticalthinking.

4.0

0.48

4.48

P

erspective

Drawsuponexperiencestohelpsolveproblemsandgain

perspective.

3.8

0.52

4.32

V

alor

Standsupforintellectualoremotio

nalstancesthatare

unpopular,difficult,ordangerou

s.

3.7

0.58

4.28

Industry/perseverance

Ta

kesonandcompletesgiventask

s.

3.6

0.68

4.28

Integrity/honesty

Presentsoneselftoothersaswella

stotheselfinasincereand

truthfulmannerbywordsanddeeds.

4.0

0.46

4.46

K

indness/generosity

Re

latestoothersinamannerthatisintheotherpersonsgreatest

interest,evenifitisinconflictw

iththeirownwishesand

needs.

3.9

0.49

4.39

C

itizenship/teamwork

Workswellinagroup,valuesgrou

pgoalsandpurposes,and

workstowardthemevenifthey

differfromtheirpersonal

goals.

3.5

0.55

4.05

E

quity/fairness

Guidedbymoralprinciples,takesthewelfareofothersas

seriouslyastheirown,andcans

etasidepersonalprejudices.

3.9

0.48

4.38

L

eadership

Po

ssessesskillsneededinorderto

accomplishthegroupswork

andmaintaingoodrelationsamo

nggroupmembers.

3.7

0.54

4.24

S

elf-regulation

Holdsneedsandimpulsesincheckandmeetsthematan

appropriatetime.

3.3

0.65

3.95

P

rudence

Waitsuntilheorsheunderstandsthesituationbeforetakinga

courseofaction.

3.5

0.55

4.05

G

ratitude

Va

luesothersexcellenceinmoral

character.

3.9

0.59

4.49

H

ope/optimism

Ta

kesacognitive,emotional,andmotivationalstanceand

approachtowardthefuture,and

anticipateseventstooccur

afterappropriateeffort.

3.6

0.70

4.30

S

pirituality

Ar

ticulatesaphilosophyoflifethatlocateshimselforherselfin

theuniverseandforwhomlifeh

asmeaning.

3.3

0.89

4.19

F

orgiveness

Involvesnottakingrevengeforoth

ersactions,notholding

grudges,

forgivingilltreatment,a

ndbeingwillingtogive

someoneanotherchance.

3.6

0.65

4.25

N

ote.VIA-IS=

ValuesinActionInven

toryofStrengthsScale.

114


13/21


strength, the respective means, standard deviations, and cutoff scores areprovided in Table 2.

RESULTS

Religiosity

This study investigated the religiosity of American Muslim youth and theirpeers. Significance testing revealed that group assignment was related toRCI Full Scale scores, F(1, 174) = 125, p = .0001. American Muslim youthscored significantly higher on the RCI-10 compared to their peers. Chi-squareanalysis revealed that score differences were carried over to religious cate-gorization, which found that American Muslim youth were more likely to becategorized as Highly Religious compared to their counterparts, X2(1, n =

174)=

68.4,p=

.0001. Of those categorized as Highly Religious in the overallsample, 88.1% were Muslim and 11.9% were Comparison youth as indicatedin Table 3. Further analysis of the Muslim sample found approximately threequarters of the youth were considered Highly Religious (75.5%). Examina-tion of the categorization of the Comparison group revealed that 12.8% ofthe individuals were identified as Highly Religious (see Table 4).

Religious Exploration

Religious exploration was measured by analyzing the results of the EOM-

EIS-2 Religious Identity Status, which measures the extent of explorationand commitment of ones religious beliefs. Analysis revealed that there weresignificantly more Muslim youth categorized as Religiously Achieved thanComparison youth (X2(1, n =170) =8.02, p = .005). Of those who were cate-gorized as Religiously Achieved, 74.4% were Muslim and 25.6% were fromthe Comparison group. However, only 33.7% of the entire Muslim youthpopulation were identified as Religiously Achieved (Table 5), compared tothe 75.5% of Muslim youth identified as Highly Religious by the RCI-10 inthe previous analysis. Such a dramatic difference was not noted betweenthe Comparison youth scores for religiosity (RCI-10 =12.8%) and religious

exploration (EOM-EIS2 =14.7%).

Table 3 Comparison of RCI-10 Scores and Religious Categorization

RCI-10 score Difference% of Highly % of Not Highly

N M SD M p Religious Religious

Muslim group 98 40.4 7.4 15.5 .0001 88.1 26.1Comparison 78 25.0 10.9 12.0 73.9

group

Note.RCI-10 =Religious Commitment Inventory-10.


14/21

Table

4

ComparisonofRe

ligiousCategorizationandNumb

erofStrengths

HighlyReligious

NotHighlyReligious

Differe

nce

No.of

No.of

religiousb

etween

strengths

strengths

categorization

N

%

M

SD

N

%

M

SD

M

p

Muslimgroup

74

75.

5

4.6

3.8

24

24.

5

1

.

5

1.8

3.14

.

0002

Comparisongroup

10

12.

8

4.4

4.4

68

87.

2

2

.

3

2.9

2.1

.

05

Overall

84

47.

7

4.6

3.8

92

52.

3

2

.

1

2.7

2.5

.

0001

116


15/21


Table 5 Comparison of Religious Identity Achieved Status

Religiously Not Religiously Achieved Achieved

N % N %

Muslim 32 33.7 63 66.3Comparison 11 14.7 64 85.3Overall 43 25.3 127 74.7

Association Between Religiosity and Character Strength

The effect of religiosity measured by the RCI-10 on the presence of character

strength, defined as the total number of strengths obtained through the VIA-IS, was used to determine if religiosity was associated with being a protectivefactor for American Muslim youth. Individuals were categorized into dichoto-mous groups based on their RCI-10 scores, Highly Religious or not HighlyReligious. An analysis of variance revealed that religiosity was observed asbeing significantly related to the number of prosocial values and behaviors

within both Muslim, F(1, 96) = 15.4, p = .0002, and Comparison youth,F(1, 76) =3.8, p = .05, subgroups. Examination also revealed that Muslimyouth categorized as Highly Religious had approximately three more char-acter strengths than Muslim youth who had not been categorized as Highly

Religious. Similarly, Comparison youth that were categorized as Highly Re-ligious had approximately two more character strengths than Comparison

youth who had not been categorized as Highly Religious.Comparison between the Muslim youth and the Comparison youth

revealed that religiosity served as a protective factor for both groups,F(1, 172) =14.8, p = .0002. However, neither group assignment (i.e., Mus-lim or Comparison) nor its interaction with religiosity was observed to besignificant, as indicated in Table 4.

Character Strengths Associated With Highly Religious YouthGiven that religiosity appears to serve as a protective factor, it is impor-tant to understand which character strengths are associated with individualsidentified as Highly Religious. A correlation using Yules phi coefficient ofcorrelation (r) was conducted since both variables used were binary (Yule,1912). Highly Religious American Muslim youth were associated with thefollowing character strengths: kindness, equity, leadership, self-regulation,prudence, gratitude, hope/optimism, spirituality, and forgiveness. HighlyReligious Comparison youth were associated with the following character

strengths: gratitude and spirituality (Table 6).


16/21

118 S. Ahmed

Table 6 Yules phi Coefficient of Correlation (r) Between HighlyReligious Youth and Character Strengths

RCI-10

Character strength Muslim Comparison

Judgment 0.119 0.034Perspective 0.235 0.296

Valor 0.210 0.041Industry/perspective 0.333 0.185Honesty 0.333 0.326Kindness 0.559 0.153Citizenship/teamwork 0.292 0.125Equity 0.710 0.134Leadership 0.778 0.481Self-regulation 0.713 0.316Prudence 1.000 0.488Gratitude 0.814 0.636

Hope/optimism 0.537 0.125Spirituality 0.909 0.803Forgiveness 1.000 0.326

Note.RCI-10 =Religious Commitment Inventory-10.

DISCUSSION

This research provides a beginning glimpse of an understudied population,American Muslim youth. The study began by exploring their religiosity andfound American Muslim youth in this sample to be Highly Religious. The sig-nificantly greater percentage of individuals identified as Highly Religious canbe attributed to greater religious socialization often experienced by religiousminority youth, as suggested by Markstrom-Adams (1994). An alternativeexplanation could be related to notions of social identity theory that sug-gest certain context, events, and experiences can activate varying identities

which contribute to greater identification and affiliation with certain groups(Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987). Given that this data was collected within 1 yearof the September 11 tragedies, it is highly possible that the Muslim youth

participating in this study experienced their Muslim identity repeatedly beingactivated. The repeated activation may have caused a higher identificationwith their religious group than what might have been the case before 9/11. Inaddition, the Muslim sample was primarily collected from faith-based orga-nizations, whereas the sample for the Comparison group was gathered froma university psychology class. As such, the difference in religiosity betweenMuslim and Comparison youth could be attributed to religious minority sta-tus, chronological bias, or selection bias. Hence, further investigation needsto be done in order to validate the findings of this study.

Although a significantly large percentage of American Muslim youth

were identified as Highly Religious, the degree of religious exploration that


17/21


individuals engaged in and the strength of commitment to their religiousbeliefs are also important in understanding the potential influence of riskfactors. The results indicate that almost one third of the American Muslim

youth sampled in this study had explored their religious beliefs as well as

made a firm commitment to their religion. The greater percentage of Amer-ican Muslim youth categorized as Religiously Achieved compared to theirpeers could be explained by the constant reminders in their environmentthat they are a religious minority group. Their religious minority status con-tributes to the greater need to understand and evaluate their religious beliefsand values in the face of alternatives that are ever present. In addition, thefact that two thirds of the Muslim sample had not explored and made a firmcommitment highlights an area of potential risk. It is interesting to note that,although the vast majority of American Muslim youth sampled in this study

were categorized as Highly Religious, only one third of these individuals had

actually engaged in the process of religious exploration that culminated inthe their present religious commitment. The observed difference can be at-tributed to the likelihood of more intense religious socialization of religiousminority youth by family, religious community, and elders without adequateopportunities to explore their beliefs. In addition, there may be great ex-pectation by these socializing agents for the young person to maintain theirreligious beliefs. As such, these individuals may express higher rates of re-ligiosity, but this does not mean that they have explored why they havechosen to practice their beliefs. Hence, this accounts for the much smallerpercentage of individuals categorized as Religiously Achieved. It is equally

interesting to note that the difference in religiosity and religious explorationamong Comparison youth was not observed. Most likely, Comparison youthdo not experience the same level of pressures and expectations to main-tain ones religious values; hence, the lack of difference. However, theseassumptions need to be corroborated by further investigation.

This study also hypothesized that religion would serve as a protectivefactor for American Muslim youth, as had been previously been noted with

youth from other religious groups. The results indicate that religiosity wasassociated with greater character strength for American Muslim youth. It is

suggested that future studies investigate the mechanisms and relationshipsthat enable religiosity to function as a protective factor.Finally, this study attempted to identify character strengths associated

with Highly Religious American Muslim youth. The following characterstrengths were identified as being associated with Highly Religious AmericanMuslim youth: kindness, equity, leadership, self-regulation, prudence, grati-tude, hope/optimism, spirituality, and forgiveness. These character strengthsare highly valued among Muslims and may be a result of religious social-ization. The analysis conducted was correlational; hence, the nature of therelationship cannot be established. However, it would be of great inter-

est to further investigate the relationship between the character strengths


18/21

120 S. Ahmed

associated with Highly Religious American Muslim youth. Specifically, whywere these strengths associated with American Muslim youth, but not theirpeers? Are the character strengths related to the influence of family, peergroups, or religious organizations? What are the developmental pathways

and processes of these character strengths, and how can they be nurtured topromote positive youth development?Although this study begins to build our knowledge of American Muslim

youth, much is still unknown. The greater percentage of American Muslimyouth reporting high levels of religiosity is suggested to be related to theinteraction of their religious minority status. In order to strengthen theseresults, it is important to corroborate the findings by replicating this studyto rule out any possible chronological bias of September 11. The study alsoneeds to be repeated with samples coming from more comparable back-grounds (i.e., both Muslim and Comparison youth from faith-based groups)

in order to rule out selection bias as well as to replicate the study in differingsociocultural contexts. It would be informative to see if Muslim youth reportsuch high levels of religiosity in countries where Islam is the majority reli-gion. Also, it is important to replicate this study with other religious minority

youth in varying contexts, in order to determine whether religious minorityyouth, regardless of particular faith group association, would express highlevels of religiosity.

Furthermore, it is important for researchers to begin to understand theimpact of other factors that may influence the religiosity of religious mi-nority youth such as parental religiosity, parent-child relationship, parents

modeling of prosocial values and behavior, peer religiosity, type and qualityof relationship with peers, peer prosocial values and behaviors, ethnicity,political climate, and popular culture. Moreover, it is important to recog-nize which factors in the environment of Muslim youth play a greater rolein promoting the religious commitment of the individual, and why. Suchinformation would help provide meaning and understanding that couldguide the development of prevention programs for at-risk religious minority

youth.

REFERENCES

Abu-Ras, W., Ahmed, S., & Arfken, C. (2009). Alcohol use among Muslim youth:Protective and risk factors. Manuscript submitted.

Adams, G. R. (Ed.). (1998). Objective measure of ego identity status: A ref-erence manual. (Available from G. R. Adams at http://www.uoguelph.ca/gadams/OMETS Manual.pdf).

Adams, G. R., Ryan, J. H., Hoffman, J. J., Dobson, W. R., & Nielsen, E. C. (1984).Ego identity status, conformity and personality in late adolescence. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 10911104.


19/21


Ahmed, S., & Akhter, K. (2006, August). When multicultural worlds collide: Under-standing and working with Muslim youth. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

Ahmed, S., Sharrief, S., & Arfken, C. (2009). Juggling cultural identities: Challengesfor second generation African American Muslim youth. Presented at the 117th

Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, August 7, 2009,Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Al-Ghorani, M. A. (2008). Knowledge-Practice Measure of Islamic Religiosity(KPMIR): A case of high school Muslim students in the United States. Jour-nal of Muslim Mental Health, 3, 2536.

Al-Mateen, C. S., & Afzal, A. (2004). The Muslim child, adolescent, and family.Childand Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 183200.

Bagby, I., Perl, P. M., & Froehle, B. T. (2001). The mosque in America: A nationalportrait from the Mosque Study Project. Washington, DC: Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Baier, C. J., & Wright, B. R. (2001). If you love me, keep my commandments: Ameta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency, 38, 321.

Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Rude, S. P. (2003). Spiritual development inchildhood and adolescence: Toward a field of inquiry. Applied DevelopmentalScience, 7, 204212.

Busseri, M. A., Rose-Krasnor, L., Willoughby, T., & Chalmers, H. (2006). A longitudi-nal examination of the breadth and intensity of youth activity involvement andsuccessful development. Developmental Psychology, 42, 13131326.

Cook, K. V. (2000). You have to have somebody watching your back, and if thatsGod, then thats mighty big: The churchs role in resilience of inner city youth.

Adolescence, 35, 717730.Donahue, M. J., & Benson, P. L. (1995). Religion and the well-being of adolescents.

Journal of Social Issues, 51, 145160.Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (2002).Community programs to promote youth devel-

opment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Erickson, E. H. (1965). The challenge of youth. New York: W. W. Norton.Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.Francis, L. J., Sahin, A., & Al-Failakawi, F. (2008). Psychometric properties of two

Islamic measures among young adults in Kuwait: The Sahin-Francis Scale ofAttitude Toward Islam and the Sahin Index of Islamic Moral Values.Journal of

Muslim Mental Health, 3, 924.Feldman, S., Gowen, L., & Fisher, L. (1998). Family relationships and gender as

predictor of romantic intimacy in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal ofResearch on Adolescence, 8(2), 263286.

Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (1984). Development of an objective measure toassess ego identity in adolescence: Validation and replication. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 13, 419438.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective fac-tors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood:Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64105.


20/21

122 S. Ahmed

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (2003). Intergroup behavior and social identity. InM. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Psychology(pp. 407431). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Islam, S. M., & Johnson, C. A. (2003). Correlates of smoking behavior among MuslimArab American adolescents.Ethnicity and Health, 8, 319337.

Jessor, R. J., Turbin, M. S., & Costa, F. M. (1998). Risk and protection in successfuloutcomes among disadvantaged adolescents.Applied Developmental Science,2,194208.

Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F., & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protectivefactors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmentalchange. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923933.

Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (1997, January). Themes in Jewish educational action-research. In D. Yakobi (Chair), Meeting the needs of the Jewish adolescent.Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Jewish Educators Assembly, Rye,NY.

Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S., Miller, K. S., & Forehand, R. (1999). Adolescent sexualrisk-taking behavior in single-parent ethnic minority families. Journal of Family

Psychology, 13, 93102.Markstrom-Adams, C., Hofstra, G, & Dougher, K. (1994). The ego-virtue of fidelity:

A case for the study of religion and identity formation in adolescence.Journalof Youth and Adolescence, 23(4), 453469.

Muslim Public Affairs Council. (2005). Religion and identity of Muslim Americanyouth post-London attacks. Washington, DC.

Nisbet, E. C., & Shanahan, J. (2004).MSRG special report: Restriction on civil liberties,views of Islam, and Muslim Americans. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, TheMedia and Society Research Group.

Park, N. (2004). Character strengths and positive youth development.The Annals ofthe American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 4054.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). VIA Inventory of Strength(VIA-IS). Retrieved June 21, 2001, from http://psych.upenn.edu/seligman/

viastrengthsinventory.htmPombeni, M. L., Kirchler, E., & Palmonari, A. (1990). Identification with peers as

a strategy to muddle through the troubles of the adolescent years. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 351369.

Regnerus, M., Smith, C., & Fritsch, M. (2003). Religion in the lives of Americanadolescents: A review of the literature. Chapel Hill, NC: National Study of Youth

& Religion.Rice, V. H., Weglicki, L. S., Templin, T., Hammad, A., Jamil, H., & Kulwicki, A. (2006).

Predictors of Arab American adolescent tobacco use. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,52, 327342.

Schlosser, O. (2006).Humane orientation: A cross-cultural study in 26 countries. Un-published doctoral dissertation, Justus-Liebig-Universitat Gieen, Gieen, Ger-many.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.Tajfel, H. (1981).Human groups & social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.Tarrant, M., North, A., Edridge, M. D., Kirk, L. E., Smith, E. A., & Turner, R. E. (2001).

Social identity in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 597609.


21/21


Toder, N. L., & Marcia, J. E. (1973). Ego identity status and response to conformitypressure in college women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 26,287294.

Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wallace, J. M., Jr., & Forman, T. A. (1998). Religions role in promoting healthand reducing risk among American youth. Health Education and Behavior, 25,721741.

Wallace, J. M., Jr., & Williams, D. R. (1997). Religion and adolescent health-compromising behavior. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.),

Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 444468).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Watson, P. J, Morris, R. J., Foster, J. E., and Hood, R. W., Jr. (1986). Religiosity andsocial desirability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 25, 215232.

Windle, M. (2000). Parental, sibling, and peer influences on adolescent substance

use and alcohol problems. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 98110.Worthington, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L, Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry,

J. W., et al. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development,refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 50, 8496.

Yule, G. U. (1912). On the methods of measuring association between two attributes.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 75, 579652.

Zogby Poll for the American Muslim Council. (2000). Available at http://www.amcomline.org.

Religiosity and American Muslim Youth

Documents