PDA

View Full Version : Church-goers are less likely to shoplift, take drugs and download music illegally



Aristotle
01-14-2014, 10:01 PM
People who regularly visit a place of worship are less likely to get involved in low level crime and delinquency, according to new research.

A survey from Manchester University found a direct correlation between higher visits to religious places and lower crime figures, especially in relation to shoplifting, drug use and music piracy.
Researchers believe this is because religion not only teaches people about 'moral and behavioural norms', but also spending time with like-minded people makes it less likely they'll get mixed up with the 'wrong crowd'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2539100/How-religion-cuts-crime-Attending-church-makes-likely-shoplift-drugs-download-music-illegally.html#ixzz2qRLqgAMd

Igor
01-15-2014, 11:34 AM
As the altar boys steal the wine!

Barry Morris
01-16-2014, 10:34 PM
I dunno Igor, communion wine?? VERY powerful, not so tasty!!

Igor
01-17-2014, 06:01 PM
I dunno Igor, communion wine?? VERY powerful, not so tasty!!

I don't know Barry Morris?? Boys don't really care. It's alcohol and it's against the rules. That makes it exciting. :) :) :)

Barry Morris
01-17-2014, 06:06 PM
I don't know Barry Morris?? Boys don't really care. It's alcohol and it's against the rules. That makes it exciting. :) :) :)

Good thing many churches don't use it!!

Aristotle
01-17-2014, 06:33 PM
Good thing many churches don't use it!!

Well ,other than the churches that belong to the largest Christian denomination.

Barry Morris
01-17-2014, 06:58 PM
Well ,other than the churches that belong to the largest Christian denomination.

oh.

well.

yes, that's important

Aristotle
01-17-2014, 07:07 PM
oh.

well.

yes, that's important

A little bit.

1.1 billion people, or 1/6th of the earth, are not easy to overlook.

Barry Morris
01-17-2014, 07:43 PM
sure

Aristotle
01-17-2014, 10:42 PM
sure

Actually, Speed Stick

Barry Morris
01-17-2014, 11:37 PM
Actually, Speed Stick

Well, try the one for men next time.

Aristotle
01-18-2014, 10:13 AM
Well, try the one for men next time.

That's a swell idea, because for now I...

...hey...what the...

DOH!!

Barry pulled a fast one on me, everybody!! http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RF1DhCq2Frk/TlbMWzk3lWI/AAAAAAAAFTA/DlA6xdiLI-s/s1600/embarrassed-emoticon-71.png

Anna Noyance
01-18-2014, 10:22 AM
I dunno Igor, communion wine?? VERY powerful, not so tasty!!

My brothers didn't care! Maybe that's why my brothers hate wine!

Barry Morris
01-18-2014, 12:20 PM
My brothers didn't care! Maybe that's why my brothers hate wine!

Ha ha!!! Probably is the reason!!

The Left Sock
01-18-2014, 12:44 PM
After reading the article carefully, two aspects of this 'study' are troubling, from a scientific and statistical perspective.

First, it appears that the only people surveyed were people of 'faith', as the study was conducted across 'all faiths', and the frequency of church visits was one of the key variables. As such, they missed an opportunity to look at the contrast between those of faith, and those with no religious affiliation at all. Seems like a glaring mistake, from a theoretical perspective.

Second, the data they gathered was based only on admission by those studied, who were asked what kinds of crime they were involved in. Thus, it was a voluntary response study, which depends upon the honesty of the person being interviewed. The study found that those who go to church more often, reported less criminal activity. Well, is stands to reason that a regular church-going kid would have more reason to conceal criminal activity if it was taking place, because it would have more impact on their world if it was discovered and exposed.

In order to have done this study properly, they should have just asked people out in the street how involved in religious life they are, then look up their criminal records. That would have given a clear picture if there was a correlation between church-goers and crime.

As it stands, this study amounts to little more than a 'feel good' project, that got the results they were hoping for. Surprised that a Ph.D mentor would approve the parameters of such research. Manchester is renowned as a strong academic institution.

Barry Morris
01-18-2014, 01:08 PM
Good points!!

Barry Morris
01-18-2014, 04:13 PM
Well ,other than the churches that belong to the largest Christian denomination.

Interesting that the headquarters of the largest religion is in the same country as the mafia.

BFLPE
01-18-2014, 11:13 PM
After reading the article carefully, two aspects of this 'study' are troubling, from a scientific and statistical perspective.As usual, in his rush to hear what he wants to hear, sockie misses the real picture.


First, it appears that the only people surveyed were people of 'faith', as the study was conducted across 'all faiths', and the frequency of church visits was one of the key variables. As such, they missed an opportunity to look at the contrast between those of faith, and those with no religious affiliation at all. Seems like a glaring mistake, from a theoretical perspective.Yes, it was people of faith, a subset of a larger study, that he chose to use. Sorry you disagree with his goal in the study but the group chosen was what he was studying.


Second, the data they gathered was based only on admission by those studied, who were asked what kinds of crime they were involved in. Thus, it was a voluntary response study, which depends upon the honesty of the person being interviewed. The study found that those who go to church more often, reported less criminal activity. Well, is stands to reason that a regular church-going kid would have more reason to conceal criminal activity if it was taking place, because it would have more impact on their world if it was discovered and exposed.A person of faith who regularly attends church is more likely to lie in an anonymous survey than a person of faith who doesn't attend church regularly? OK.


In order to have done this study properly, they should have just asked people out in the street how involved in religious life they are, then look up their criminal records. That would have given a clear picture if there was a correlation between church-goers and crime.Good point, after all if someone's criminal record doesn't show they skipped school or pirated music then they obviously haven't.


As it stands, this study amounts to little more than a 'feel good' project, that got the results they were hoping for. Surprised that a Ph.D mentor would approve the parameters of such research. Manchester is renowned as a strong academic institution.That's the case with a lot of 'projects' like this. It's just too bad you don't understand the results.

"He concluded that it was not necessarily the acts of worship themselves were making people good, but contact with people who espouse “pro-social” – altruistic or socially beneficial – ideas.

“This research implies that the act of visiting a place of worship may trigger a significant reduction in the likelihood of involvement in certain types of criminal and delinquent behaviour,” he said...

But he emphasised that the research did not rule suggest that atheists are less likely to act in an altruistic or moral way.

“I don’t think the findings suggest that there is something uniquely special about religion,” he said.

“There is something special about meeting people and hanging around with people who are pro-social and religious groups tend to have pro-social views.

“It could possibly be found just as much in sports team.”"

dancingqueen
01-19-2014, 12:01 AM
As usual, in his rush to hear what he wants to hear, sockie misses the real picture.
I would be curious to know what the "real picture" actually is


Yes, it was people of faith, a subset of a larger study, that he chose to use. Sorry you disagree with his goal in the study but the group chosen was what he was studying.
What Soc is pointing out is that there is a lack of a legitimate control group, These are incredibly important in conducting any kind of valid study


A person of faith who regularly attends church is more likely to lie in an anonymous survey than a person of faith who doesn't attend church regularly? OK.
Voluntary response studies are incredibly inaccurate on their own, especially when done on issues of morality. A survey may be anonymous but few people treat them as such. cognitive dissonance plays a significant role here. Using self reporting in this particular case is really quite "shady" especially when much more legitimate methods are available such as methods that can have a specific parameter measured about them ie. the method Soc suggested, there would be no debate on what qualified as "minor crime" examples are well and good, but should never be the method of defining a parameter.


Good point, after all if someone's criminal record doesn't show they skipped school or pirated music then they obviously haven't.
It's better than self reporting in that the info wouldn't lie, self justification (ya I stole a loaf of bread, but my brother had no food so I won't count that) or simply lying to satisfy aforementioned cognitive dissonance to justify one's own morality.


That's the case with a lot of 'projects' like this. It's just too bad you don't understand the results.
The purpose of any legitimate study is not about feeling good, they are made to have concrete information about a given subject. I agree with Soc that it is surprising any scientific body would approve of this study based off of the parameters itself. Studies are supposed to be used in developing laws, gov't programs, services, and policies just to name a few things. This "study" does nothing to establish any of this due to the glaring false positives made within the study, to establish it's theory.

dancingqueen
01-19-2014, 12:04 AM
"He concluded that it was not necessarily the acts of worship themselves were making people good, but contact with people who espouse “pro-social” – altruistic or socially beneficial – ideas.

“This research implies that the act of visiting a place of worship may trigger a significant reduction in the likelihood of involvement in certain types of criminal and delinquent behaviour,” he said...

But he emphasised that the research did not rule suggest that atheists are less likely to act in an altruistic or moral way.

“I don’t think the findings suggest that there is something uniquely special about religion,” he said.

“There is something special about meeting people and hanging around with people who are pro-social and religious groups tend to have pro-social views.

“It could possibly be found just as much in sports team.”"

Just to add, this quote actually outlines exactly why the study is misleading, basically it is saying
"Church-goers are less likely to shoplift, take drugs and download music illegally, or maybe it has nothing to do with Church.... or religion, or anything this study focuses on"

BFLPE
01-19-2014, 12:37 AM
Using self reporting in this particular case is really quite "shady" especially when much more legitimate methods are available such as methods that can have a specific parameter measured about them ie. the method Soc suggested, there would be no debate on what qualified as "minor crime" examples are well and good, but should never be the method of defining a parameter.You lost me there. They asked people if hey were guilty of 8 specific 'minor crimes'. I don't see any debate about what a minor crime is, just a list of the specific minor crimes they asked about. Obviously they didn't cover all 'minor crimes'.

As for checking their criminal records I don't see how that's feasible. Now I don't know the laws in the UK but that doesn't seems realistic. Obviously it wouldn't work with an anonymous group. Since people with records would be less likely to participate unless forced I don't see how you could get a representative sampling. I don't think they can force people to provide that type of info. But it's the UK, could be wrong. I know it wouldn't work here.

dancingqueen
01-19-2014, 12:41 AM
You lost me there. They asked people if hey were guilty of 8 specific 'minor crimes'. I don't see any debate about what a minor crime is, just a list of the specific minor crimes they asked about. Obviously they didn't cover all 'minor crimes'.

As for checking their criminal records I don't see how that's feasible. Now I don't know the laws in the UK but that doesn't seems realistic. Obviously it wouldn't work with an anonymous group. Since people with records would be less likely to participate unless forced I don't see how you could get a representative sampling. I don't think they can force people to provide that type of info. But it's the UK, could be wrong. I know it wouldn't work here.

For research purposes you are able to get the info, there would simply be no names associated. I'm not sure who, likely a JOP but you would provide a list of said people under the parameters of "religious" and you could get back a number of how many have been arrested or charged with a list of said crimes. I have seen similar cases successfully done

BFLPE
01-19-2014, 12:44 AM
So you can get people to give you their names without them knowing you will be accessing their criminal records?

dancingqueen
01-19-2014, 01:26 AM
So you can get people to give you their names without them knowing you will be accessing their criminal records?

No, that's just it, you don't get their names, nor any other identifying info

BFLPE
01-19-2014, 01:54 AM
No, that's just it, you don't get their names, nor any other identifying infoOK, I must be really naive. It's been a long time since I've been to church but I didn't realize they kept records of who attends and how often they attend. Furthermore, I find it pretty far fetched that if that information is kept that it would be provided for the purposes of cross referencing with criminal records. I guess big brother is watching more than I realized.

I wonder why they chose to do the study the way they did. If they can easily determine differences in criminal activity between people of faith who regularly interact with fellow believers in a place of worship and those of faith who don't they sure did go about it the hard way.

dancingqueen
01-19-2014, 08:53 AM
OK, I must be really naive. It's been a long time since I've been to church but I didn't realize they kept records of who attends and how often they attend. Furthermore, I find it pretty far fetched that if that information is kept that it would be provided for the purposes of cross referencing with criminal records. I guess big brother is watching more than I realized.

I wonder why they chose to do the study the way they did. If they can easily determine differences in criminal activity between people of faith who regularly interact with fellow believers in a place of worship and those of faith who don't they sure did go about it the hard way.

No, churches do not keep records. The amount of time spent at church would have to be self responses, there really isn't any way around that that I can see. I was referring to the criminal records.
As to why they didn't use this method
could be time constraints, lack of resources, or researcher bias I suppose.

BFLPE
01-19-2014, 11:01 AM
No, that's just it, you don't get their names, nor any other identifying info


No, churches do not keep records. The amount of time spent at church would have to be self responses, there really isn't any way around that that I can see. I was referring to the criminal records. So with no identifying info there would be a way to match their self responses with their criminal records?

Tutones
01-20-2014, 12:01 AM
In order to have done this study properly, they should have just asked people out in the street how involved in religious life they are, then look up their criminal records. That would have given a clear picture if there was a correlation between church-goers and crime.



Or better yet, they could simply poll only law-breakers and see what percentage are 'people of faith', conduct a similar poll using only non-law breakers in general population - and compare the results.

dancingqueen
01-20-2014, 12:51 AM
So with no identifying info there would be a way to match their self responses with their criminal records?

The people preforming the study would have a list of people who are defined as "Church-goers" by their parameters, the people would then take this list of "church-goers" to the (I assume JP) and after a series of procedures (I'm not certain what exactly is entailed) the JP would then be able to provide the people preforming the study with a number of people that where found to have partaken in defined minor crimes.

dancingqueen
01-20-2014, 12:54 AM
Or better yet, they could simply poll only law-breakers and see what percentage are 'people of faith', conduct a similar poll using only non-law breakers in general population - and compare the results.

Under these circumstances you would be unable to determine cause or effect, rendering the study useless.
ie. did getting caught in a minor crime cause them to become religious, or did the religious beliefs cause them to become involved in minor criminal activity?

BFLPE
01-20-2014, 01:49 AM
No, that's just it, you don't get their names, nor any other identifying info


The people preforming the study would have a list of people who are defined as "Church-goers" by their parameters, the people would then take this list of "church-goers" to the (I assume JP) and after a series of procedures (I'm not certain what exactly is entailed) the JP would then be able to provide the people preforming the study with a number of people that where found to have partaken in defined minor crimes.
So with no names or identifying info they could somehow determine whether the ones listed as Church-goers have partaken in the defined minor crimes. Doesn't seem possible to me.

Nonetheless, you're still relying on those surveyed to provide accurate information.

dancingqueen
01-20-2014, 09:07 AM
So with no names or identifying info they could somehow determine whether the ones listed as Church-goers have partaken in the defined minor crimes. Doesn't seem possible to me.

Nonetheless, you're still relying on those surveyed to provide accurate information.

People would be identified in the "church goers" list, but not in the "committed minor crimes" list So you would be able to distinguish the church goers that have and have not committed minor crimes. The way you made arguments with Soc's piece I assumed you had a background in understanding scientific research methodologies, this is a really simple and standard method for anyone with even a most rudimentary understanding of scientific research methodologies (me = rudimentary understanding of said methodologies)

yes, you are still relying on self reports, but people are less likely to lie about the frequency they go to church, than they are about having committed (all be it) minor crimes.

BFLPE
01-20-2014, 09:32 AM
Ok, call me stupid. Just how in the heck does the JP determine who in this list of anonymous people listed as church goers has a criminal record? I really don't get how they can determine if a person had committed a crime if they don't have any personally identifying info. It's not possible.

Hans
01-20-2014, 12:25 PM
I did not know downloading music is still considered illegal. I thought they gave up on that.

dancingqueen
01-20-2014, 08:51 PM
Ok, call me stupid.
I will not.


Just how in the heck does the JP determine who in this list of anonymous people listed as church goers has a criminal record? I really don't get how they can determine if a person had committed a crime if they don't have any personally identifying info. It's not possible.
the list of Church goers is not anonymous. The amount of people that go to Church and have committed minor crimes is.

The Left Sock
01-20-2014, 08:57 PM
The process would be quite simple.

The surveyor simply asks a person for their name and age, and how often they attend church. This could even be done at a shopping mall.

Then, once enough samples are collected, they are submitted to a police service, to search records. Before handing them back to the study group, the police simply have to assign codes to each person instead of names, so that their police record and church activity would stay connected, but the people doing the study won't know the actual persons connected to each record.

This way, the group gets the data they are looking for, and the criminal activity of each person surveyed remains confidential. Nice and neat, scientifically and ethically sound.

The Berean
01-20-2014, 08:58 PM
I will not.
the list of Church goers is not anonymous. The amount of people that go to Church and have committed minor crimes is.

With this study, you also have the problem of people coming into the church and having their lives changed. Commited the crimes, sure, but not any more.

BFLPE
01-21-2014, 11:53 PM
I will not.


the list of Church goers is not anonymous. The amount of people that go to Church and have committed minor crimes is.If you say so. A couple of articles referred to the study as being based on an anonymous survey which I took to mean the list was anonymous. For the sake of argument let's say I assumed wrong. Certainly not the first time and not likely the last.

You say that not verifying criminal records skews the results a certain way because "people are less likely to lie about the frequency they go to church, than they are about having committed (all be it) minor crimes". I figure people who lie about committing crimes in a survey like this are pretending to be better than they are and could just as easily say they attend Church often when they really don't. These are just opinions though and as long as you are relying on their word about attending Church the reliability is in question. There's no way around that.

But let's say they are all perfectly honest about their Church attendance and you can check on their criminal history. Does that really apply to this study? Look at some of the qoutes from the guy who did the study...

He concluded that it was not necessarily the acts of worship themselves were making people good, but contact with people who espouse “pro-social” – altruistic or socially beneficial – ideas.

“The important thing is exposure to people who encourage pro-social behaviours, and can provide sanctions for their breach.”

“There is something special about meeting people and hanging around with people who are pro-social and religious groups tend to have pro-social views.

Now think about the 'minor crimes' they are asking people about. Skipping school or work. I'm not sure what records they access to see if subject A called in sick for work when she really wasn't. We don't know what other questions they asked but they don't seem to be looking for the criminals who live a life of crime. Instead they seem to be looking to see if people do the 'right thing', or 'practice what they preach' so to speak.

I don't see how a criminal record check would answer that question, especially when you're relying on the subject's self reporting of spending time at their place of worship or with friends and family who espouse the same values as they do. That self reporting could skew the results in either direction.

I don't doubt the results though, it seems quite likely to me that people who frequent their place of worship often are less likely to stray from their ideals.

Whether that is because spending their time in those situations reaffirms their commitment to do the right thing or because their commitment to do the right thing leads to them being in those situations I don't know.

BFLPE
01-22-2014, 03:34 PM
Lead researcher Mark Littler said: "The existing literature suggests religious belief has no impact on criminality.

"But this shows the important thing is religious practice.

"The way religion exerts its influence is much more complicated than turning up at your place of worship every week."

The study also found those church goers are less likely to pretend to be sick to get a day off at work, skip homework or dodge fares on public transport.

Mr Littler said the positive influence of church is not necessarily through a religion's beliefs but thanks to building a community among parishioners...

"But this research implies that the act of visiting a place of worship may trigger a significant reduction in the likelihood of involvement in certain types of criminal and delinquent behaviour."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453867/People-who-go-to-church-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-and-are-a-good-influence-says-study

Some things just aren't going to be verified by checking criminal records.

dancingqueen
01-22-2014, 03:53 PM
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453867/People-who-go-to-church-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-and-are-a-good-influence-says-study

Some things just aren't going to be verified by checking criminal records.

Very true. Isn't this a different study though?

dancingqueen
01-22-2014, 03:56 PM
If you say so. A couple of articles referred to the study as being based on an anonymous survey which I took to mean the list was anonymous. For the sake of argument let's say I assumed wrong. Certainly not the first time and not likely the last.

You say that not verifying criminal records skews the results a certain way because "people are less likely to lie about the frequency they go to church, than they are about having committed (all be it) minor crimes". I figure people who lie about committing crimes in a survey like this are pretending to be better than they are and could just as easily say they attend Church often when they really don't. These are just opinions though and as long as you are relying on their word about attending Church the reliability is in question. There's no way around that.

But let's say they are all perfectly honest about their Church attendance and you can check on their criminal history. Does that really apply to this study? Look at some of the qoutes from the guy who did the study...

He concluded that it was not necessarily the acts of worship themselves were making people good, but contact with people who espouse “pro-social” – altruistic or socially beneficial – ideas.

“The important thing is exposure to people who encourage pro-social behaviours, and can provide sanctions for their breach.”

“There is something special about meeting people and hanging around with people who are pro-social and religious groups tend to have pro-social views.

Now think about the 'minor crimes' they are asking people about. Skipping school or work. I'm not sure what records they access to see if subject A called in sick for work when she really wasn't. We don't know what other questions they asked but they don't seem to be looking for the criminals who live a life of crime. Instead they seem to be looking to see if people do the 'right thing', or 'practice what they preach' so to speak.

I don't see how a criminal record check would answer that question, especially when you're relying on the subject's self reporting of spending time at their place of worship or with friends and family who espouse the same values as they do. That self reporting could skew the results in either direction.

I don't doubt the results though, it seems quite likely to me that people who frequent their place of worship often are less likely to stray from their ideals.

Whether that is because spending their time in those situations reaffirms their commitment to do the right thing or because their commitment to do the right thing leads to them being in those situations I don't know.

That was part of the problems with this study. The conclusions made, and the implications of the title are completely separate in what they relate to, and what the study is trying to prove or disprove. The title talks about church goers and morality being the driving factor of minor criminal acts, but the conclusion indicates pro-social environments being the contributing factor.

BFLPE
01-22-2014, 04:54 PM
Very true. Isn't this a different study though?No, it's not.

BFLPE
01-22-2014, 04:56 PM
That was part of the problems with this study. The conclusions made, and the implications of the title are completely separate in what they relate to, and what the study is trying to prove or disprove. The title talks about church goers and morality being the driving factor of minor criminal acts, but the conclusion indicates pro-social environments being the contributing factor.The title the dailymail put on their coverage doesn't match the conclusion of those doing the study, nothing new there.

dancingqueen
01-22-2014, 05:18 PM
The title the dailymail put on their coverage doesn't match the conclusion of those doing the study, nothing new there.

But it is the title of the study.

BFLPE
01-22-2014, 05:26 PM
But it is the title of the study.Didn't realize that. Haven't been able to find the actual study. I guess I overlooked where the title of it is stated.

What exactly is the title of the study?

dancingqueen
01-22-2014, 07:23 PM
Didn't realize that. Haven't been able to find the actual study. I guess I overlooked where the title of it is stated.

What exactly is the title of the study?

You Sir, are correct, I have been recklessly mindless of the fact that this was not a research report, but just a study. The implications made by (many) news reports are the ones misleading this information. I do stand corrected on that front. Although I will stand by my opinion that self reporting on a measure that could be better determined through third parties on moral issues is less effective, but this study is not as bad as I read into. Thank you for pointing this out (patiently) I do need to get my nose back into the books.... Sheesh....

Bluesky
01-25-2014, 03:27 PM
I am presently reading a book which indicates that there are numerous studies in the US that draw the same conclusions as the OP shows. More to come..

Bluesky
01-25-2014, 03:53 PM
Robin Perrin present his students with their returned exams, each of which had purposely been incorrectly scored. Each student had been awarded an extra point. Then he presented the students with the right answers and asked each of the students to review and compere their answers to the right answers he had given them. They were asked to notify him whether their exam had been correctly graded. One third of the students honestly reported that they had incorrectly been given an extra point. Two-thirds claimed that they were owed a point or that their exam had been correctly graded, knowing full well that they had really been given an extra point.

Earlier in the term, students had filled out a questionnaire including questions of religious adherence and level of practice. It was thus possible to make correlations.

Results: 45% of those attending religious services regularly were honest. Only 13% of those with no little or no faith commitment were honest.
Study by Perrin - http://seaver.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/member.htm?facid=robin_perrin

BFLPE
01-26-2014, 08:27 PM
...I will stand by my opinion that self reporting on a measure that could be better determined through third parties on moral issues is less effective, but this study is not as bad as I read into. Thank you for pointing this out (patiently) I do need to get my nose back into the books.... Sheesh....I read a couple of things that make it clear I was wrong about what anonymous meant. I still don't see a good way to verify things like littering or skipping work but self reporting is always suspect. Lies could skew the results in either direction I figure. Speaking of noses, mine has no business in the Religious section.