Religious Differences in the Value Systems of Meaningful (and Meaningless) LivesNick Stauner
Stauner, N., Selvam, T., Cheong, R., & Ozer, D. J. (2011). Religious differences in the value systems of meaningful (and meaningless) lives. Poster presented at the 2nd convention of the Association for Research in Personality, Riverside, CA.
Abstract:
Religiousness correlates positively with self-rated meaning in life. Baumeister (1991) claims that because religions provide value systems, people without religion suffer more meaninglessness due to a "value gap." Do people of different religions organize their values differently? Does meaning in life associate with the same values across religions? Meaning correlates with religious values most strongly and positively (Stauner & Ozer, 2010). Is this true among non-religious people? To address such questions, 149 Riverside undergraduates were administered the Meaning in Life Questionnaire and Values Q-Set. Religious participants reported more meaning in life than non-religious participants. Christians valued pleasure less than non-religious participants; otherwise only religious values differed in importance across religions. Meanwhile, differences among religions in the relationships between values and meaning proved more nuanced. Valuing religious observation was more positively related to meaning in life among Christians than non-religious participants, but no differences emerged regarding religious exploration. The negative correlation between meaning and the value of pleasure was also stronger among Christians. Exclusively among participants of other religions, valuing personal skill more and health less was related to higher meaning in life. These results may reflect hidden consequences for existential self-evaluation beneath the apparent invariance of values across religious affiliations.
Religious Differences in the Value Systems of Meaningful (and Meaningless) LivesNick Stauner
Stauner, N., Selvam, T., Cheong, R., & Ozer, D. J. (2011). Religious differences in the value systems of meaningful (and meaningless) lives. Poster presented at the 2nd convention of the Association for Research in Personality, Riverside, CA.
Abstract:
Religiousness correlates positively with self-rated meaning in life. Baumeister (1991) claims that because religions provide value systems, people without religion suffer more meaninglessness due to a "value gap." Do people of different religions organize their values differently? Does meaning in life associate with the same values across religions? Meaning correlates with religious values most strongly and positively (Stauner & Ozer, 2010). Is this true among non-religious people? To address such questions, 149 Riverside undergraduates were administered the Meaning in Life Questionnaire and Values Q-Set. Religious participants reported more meaning in life than non-religious participants. Christians valued pleasure less than non-religious participants; otherwise only religious values differed in importance across religions. Meanwhile, differences among religions in the relationships between values and meaning proved more nuanced. Valuing religious observation was more positively related to meaning in life among Christians than non-religious participants, but no differences emerged regarding religious exploration. The negative correlation between meaning and the value of pleasure was also stronger among Christians. Exclusively among participants of other religions, valuing personal skill more and health less was related to higher meaning in life. These results may reflect hidden consequences for existential self-evaluation beneath the apparent invariance of values across religious affiliations.
1. OBSERVATION RECORD FOR PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT
Learner Kieran Park
Award NCFE Equality and Diversity
Unit(s) Unit 1
Assessment criteria and / or outcomes (to which the activity provides evidence)
Unit 1 – 5.5 what is multiple discrimination
Detail of how the learner performed and the quality of their performance (refer
to the assessment criteria and / or outcomes)
The student was able to tale part in a discussion about the different type of
discrimination. They were then set the task of matching the definition to the
keywords and giving an example about that particular type of discrimination.
Multiple discrimination as a concept was explored through the use of the starter
and main activity. It was embedded in the lesson but has not been explicated
cited in the work that they have completed. I observe that they have covered the
material surrounding this concept. Learning about this involved covering
prejudice and discrimination in a broader and more specific way.
Assessor VShackley
Signature Date Feb/March 2012
Internal verifier L.Clarke
Signature L.Clarke IV signs sheet if present with assessor