View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Hindrance or a Help? The Chapel Experience and Student Religiosity at a Christian University

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Hindrance or a Help? The Chapel Experience and Student Religiosity at a Christian University
Language: English
Authors: Daniel M. Allen (ORCID 0000-0002-5955-4767), Perry L. Glanzer (ORCID 0000-0002-3649-2516), Kevin D. Dougherty (ORCID 0000-0002-4925-3311)
Source: Christian Higher Education. 2025 24(1):3-21.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Christianity, Religious Colleges, Student Experience, Religious Factors, Role of Religion, Beliefs, Educational Environment, Student Attitudes, Learning Experience, Educational Benefits, Barriers, Churches, Church Role, School Space, Educational Facilities, College Students, Journal Articles, Space Utilization, Change Strategies
DOI: 10.1080/15363759.2024.2361256
ISSN: 1536-3759
1539-4107
Abstract: Chapel is one of the oldest traditions of American higher education and continues to hold a distinctive place among many faith-based institutions today. Although a significant contingent of religiously committed students resonate with an educational environment that incorporates faith and learning, emerging adults today are less affiliated with organized religion than ever before. Anecdotes about the value of chapel abound, but there is little current empirical research dealing with the chapel experience in relation to student religiosity. Using survey data from one Christian university, this study asks: What types of students indicate that the chapel experience has a positive or negative impact on their religious beliefs? We find that religious belief, religious behavior, and religious identity are not related to the perception that chapel strengthened religious beliefs. However, these same measures reduce the odds of someone saying that chapel weakened their religious beliefs. Implications for Christian higher education are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1456676
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwETp2MruwKhR5wVK_UZCiLjAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBtPZdzR_pJDzYkf1wIBEICBmxsMbZflDQ68FJOUyJ0InZDCS2RRb5NfyCA5GPuiNoBJnKSvMosp35SqOUQB-b-SunC9kIOHOTmkuAfOxdcqacPNR3DdhbieqIdqDPQBsRBy8a3l97ugt44Ak4VRWmNZtZW6vre1Jm94qk__NJQqvY7kPODp01PhReP27peTfn5uh8SLdqpfBV7Y39BtlGSgW0vuGAtO2-kKlNrl
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182122344;j2401jan.25;2025Jan10.02:46;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182122344-1">A Hindrance or a Help? The Chapel Experience and Student Religiosity at a Christian University </title> <p>Chapel is one of the oldest traditions of American higher education and continues to hold a distinctive place among many faith-based institutions today. Although a significant contingent of religiously committed students resonate with an educational environment that incorporates faith and learning, emerging adults today are less affiliated with organized religion than ever before. Anecdotes about the value of chapel abound, but there is little current empirical research dealing with the chapel experience in relation to student religiosity. Using survey data from one Christian university, this study asks: What types of students indicate that the chapel experience has a positive or negative impact on their religious beliefs? We find that religious belief, religious behavior, and religious identity are not related to the perception that chapel strengthened religious beliefs. However, these same measures reduce the odds of someone saying that chapel weakened their religious beliefs. Implications for Christian higher education are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Chapel; religion; spirituality; student development; spiritual formation</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-2">Introduction</hd> <p>This study considers faith formation at Christian institutions in America by examining the chapel experience of undergraduates. Although chapel was an embedded ritual within a number of private higher education institutions from their inception, the practice waned in influence or vanished entirely from many institutions by the early twentieth century (Marsden, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref1">30</reflink>]; Ringenberg, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref2">37</reflink>]). However, among institutions actively seeking to maintain a commitment to their Christian tradition, chapel often continued as a defining feature and a practical way these institutions could maintain their spiritual distinctiveness (Benne, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]; Burtchaell, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]). Today, the chapel experience takes on many different forms based on context (Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]). For example, elements of a worship service may occur, or chapel may function primarily as a gathering or assembly of the academic community. Even in an era of experimentation with virtual forms, chapel retains a central place in the mission of many Christian colleges and universities (Adams, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>In recent years, Christian institutions have thrived in part because they appeal to more religious students (Davignon, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]). Although the primary trend for young people in the last decade has been to move away from religion, there is a simultaneous trend in which a small contingent of emerging adults are doubling down on religiosity as a central feature of their lives (Denton & Flory, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]). This latter demographic may desire a distinctive focus on morality and faith at Christian institutions (Davignon, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]; Glanzer & Ream, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]). As the overall higher education student pool likely faces a significant decline in the late 2020s due in part to declining birthrates in the Great Recession years (Grawe, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref11">23</reflink>]), Christian colleges and universities may struggle to continue to actively market these aspects of their educational experience to this target demographic (Adams, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given these realities, an important question for Christian colleges and universities is whether the chapel experience today is contributing to faith formation at their institutions. Is chapel positively associated with the religiosity and spirituality of students? This study addresses this question as well as two related questions: What types of Christian college students are more likely to indicate a positive (or negative) influence of chapel on their religious or spiritual beliefs? Does the Christian institution succeed in utilizing chapel as a means of spiritual growth for the prototypical (more religious) type of Christian college student? This study contributes to an area of Christian higher education lacking in empirical research and seeks to encourage Christian institutions to evaluate the chapel experience in their given context.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182122344-4">Chapel and Faith Formation</hd> <p>Chapel is one of the oldest traditions in American higher education. However, its influence largely waned or was rejected approximately a century ago by many institutions that sought freedom from ecclesiological restraints and denominational ties (Burtchaell, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]; Marsden, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref14">30</reflink>]). Among those invested in maintaining their distinctly Christian identity, debates over the purpose and form of chapel ensued. Scholars and administrators sought to frame the purpose of chapel and codify various forms and procedures. Two clear purposes—which could be at odds with each other—emerged. Chapel could be seen as the pulse of the institution's spirituality, or it could be seen as primarily providing an institutional sense of unity. In the former framework, advocates believed chapel should take on a sense of reverence and resemble something akin to a worship service. One college president wrote plainly, "Worship is the vital element in college chapel" (Gage, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>], p. 187). Others commented on the reverent atmosphere needed, enabling chapel to be a powerful tool for the spiritual development of students (Brewer, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; Micou, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref17">34</reflink>]). The alternate theme emphasized a more Durkheimian sense of the purpose of chapel as a religious ritual promoting group solidarity (Durkheim, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]). The term "assembly" rose to the fore, in which chapel was seen as a communal experience that unified an institution (Aspinwall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>]; Denny, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Forms of chapel were also debated. The "chapel hour" could vary by length (typically between 15 and 50 minutes on average) and might include things like prayer, silence, Scripture readings, a sermon, music, skits, announcements, variety shows, and/or topical or political forums; most Christian college administrators believed chapel needed good planning, good music, student participation, and a variety of programs (Aspinwall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]; Gage, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>]; Micou, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>]). The controversial topic of compulsory chapel attendance was also a common theme. Detractors pointed out that worship is by nature spontaneous (Denny, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>]; Ferré, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref25">18</reflink>]) and that "Protestantism has always resisted compulsion" (Aspinwall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>], p. 42). The paradox, as Thomas ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref27">39</reflink>]) pointed out, is that the institutions that were often the most sympathetic toward religion tended to be the ones that believed it necessary to conduct compulsory chapel.</p> <p>Though institutional context allowed for diversity in the purposes and forms of chapel, most Christian institutions agreed that chapel provided a space in which to incorporate religion in the life of the university. Chapel could give cohesion and save the college from fragmentation and siloing (Gage, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]). Having chapel made the institution distinctive: it was the means by which an institution bore witness to its aspiration to be Christian (Denny, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]). Chapel could fuse knowledge and purpose, giving meaning and incentive to the entire process of education (Ferré, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref30">18</reflink>]). And chapel contributed positively to the spiritual growth of most students (Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref31">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-5">Modern Chapel Forms and Approaches</hd> <p>In recent years, the purposes and forms surrounding chapel at Christian institutions have continued to vary. Some persist in their stance that worship—with elements of singing, prayer, and Bible reading—is at the heart of the chapel experience. Others focus on the idea that chapel brings the entire campus together in a spiritually enriching hour or see chapel as an opportunity to hear from a special speaker or guest. Chapel requirements can vary greatly by institution, but for those where chapel credit is mandatory, it is typical that students are either required to attend a certain number (or percentage) of chapel services and/or participate in a variety of other spiritual-life related offerings (such as service-oriented opportunities, faith-based discussion forums, affinity groups, Bible studies, etc.).</p> <p>Unfortunately, little research has examined the different formats of chapel services or Mass at Christian colleges and universities or students' perceptions of how attendance helps or hinders their spiritual growth. There is one study of Christian higher education in the United States and Canada (Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]) that examined chapel requirements as one of the markers of institutions that operationalize their Christian identity. Examining the data set from this study, the authors found that across all Christian institutions in the United States and Canada that operationalize at least one aspect of Christian identity (<emph>n</emph> = 562), 6.2% of institutions did not have a chapel program or Mass services, or they had a multifaith worship service. The majority, 58.4%, provided a voluntary—and explicitly Christian—chapel or Mass, and 35.4% required students to attend chapel or Mass services (Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]). Looking only at U.S. Protestant institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 366), those numbers shift to 9.6% without a chapel service or with a multifaith worship, 39% that have a voluntary chapel, and 51.4% that require it. On the other hand, all but two Catholic institutions offer a voluntary Mass (<emph>n</emph> = 177), with the remaining two institutions requiring it, and the single Orthodox university requires attendance at Orthodox liturgical services. This data set, at the very least, demonstrates that the vast majority of Christian institutions still offer a distinctively Christian chapel program with a general tendency toward voluntary chapel as a whole; however, when breaking apart requirements by tradition, the trends in requirements noticeably shift. However, such data does not provide insight into whether or not students experience chapel as a source of spiritual growth.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-6">Student Religiosity and Spirituality</hd> <p>A publicly endorsed, well-resourced, and well-attended chapel program remains one of the key marks of Christian identity in higher education (Benne, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]). But what is the demand today for such an education? Are students interested in a higher education experience that incorporates religiosity? The latter part of the twentieth century produced general agreement that participation in higher education—even Christian higher education—correlated with less inclination toward religiosity (Caplovitz & Sherrow, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>]; Hunter, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]; Wuthnow, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref37">41</reflink>]). However, in the last two decades, further research has nuanced the idea that educated young people in America are not interested in religion. One national study showed emerging adults who do attend college are more likely to be religious than those who do not (Uecker et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref38">40</reflink>]). In general, college students are less religious today, but there is an important contingent for whom religion remains important. Institutional context also plays a key role (Hill, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref39">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Much has been made of the "spiritual but not religious" phenomenon among emerging adults. That is, researchers discerned renewed interest in spirituality among students in the early 2000s, but not necessarily within the traditional confines of religion (e.g., Dalton et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]; Kuh & Gonyea, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref41">29</reflink>]). Typologies were developed, sometimes distinguishing between "religious seekers" and "secular seekers." Perhaps the best evidence for this movement comes from Astin et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref42">4</reflink>]) landmark study on religion and spirituality in the lives of thousands of undergraduates that, in short, found that there is declining religiosity among college students, but not declining spirituality. Indeed, the authors make a forceful case that spirituality remains fundamental in the lives of college students (Astin et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>], 1).</p> <p>The "spiritual but not religious" movement has been nuanced in the last several years. One storyline highlights increased secularization among emerging adults today, often shown by less religious <emph>behavior</emph> or religious <emph>affiliation</emph>. For example, in 2014 approximately 36% of U.S. adults aged 18–29 identified as religiously unaffiliated (Pew Research Center, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]). In the fourth wave of the National Study of Youth and Religion (NYSR), Denton and Flory ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]) measured beliefs, behavior, affiliation, and the salience of religion to emerging adults. They found that although there have been overall increases in those identifying as not religious, religiously disaffiliated, or marginally religious, another storyline is that <emph>those who are religious are very religious</emph> (Denton & Flory, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>], emphasis added). This religiously committed group still sees faith as a vital element in their daily lives (Denton & Flory, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The national findings on student religiosity must be further situated based on a student's religious orientation prior to coming to college and on one's specific institutional context. Christian students may consider faith-based institutions in part because these settings offer a holistic educational experience that focuses on moral development (Glanzer & Ream, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]). Increased education actually correlates with increased religiosity for a subset of the religious: evangelical Protestants, Black Protestants, and Catholics (McFarland et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>]). High levels of religiosity prior to coming to campus can also be one of the strongest predictors of in-college religiosity (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref50">31</reflink>]), and students attending religiously affiliated colleges are more likely than those at secular institutions to be religiously engaged (Kuh & Gonyea, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>]; Mayrl & Oeur, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]). Astin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]) showed that students at Protestant institutions came in with higher religious engagement and showed less decline in religious attendance (compared to public university students). In a survey of over 3,000 undergraduates at 16 faith-based institutions, Davignon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref54">13</reflink>]) found that although the significance of denominational identity is decreasing in importance, students generally have no negative views toward, and tend to hold similar beliefs to, their institution's denomination. Indeed, students who choose Christian colleges and universities—especially those who have strong religious beliefs and affiliation—base their choice in part on the Christian identity of such institutions (Davignon, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-7">Research Question</hd> <p>To summarize at this point: chapel, with its various purposes and forms, has historically been at the heart of faith formation in Christian higher education. Although undergraduates today are less religious on the whole than in past decades, faith formation remains an important component of the higher education experience for a certain religiously committed contingent of students. That is, many students are likely not interested in faith formation, but some are. At this point then, it is fair to ask—from a market standpoint—whether such institutions can appeal to both the religiously committed and the less religious at the same time. An organized religious component of university life such as chapel (especially if it is compulsory) further complicates the issue. As Davignon ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>]) has stated:</p> <p>it may be challenging to foster faith on campus as students may have differing preferences and expectations regarding their college's or university's Christian ethos. Some may expect strict behavioral standards, whereas others may prefer an environment that allows for more freedom and personal exploration during college. (p. 79)</p> <p>The question this study asks is whether chapel—historically one of the distinctives of faith formation on the Christian campus—is acting as a catalyst for greater religiosity among students. More specifically, among Christian college students, what types of religious characteristics correlate with indicating chapel strengthened or weakened one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs? We argue that this question is of fundamental importance to Christian institutions today, as they must navigate marketing their own institutional distinctiveness in strategic ways (Rine et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref57">36</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-8">Methodology</hd> <p>Based on the previous discussion of the importance of nuancing secularization effects among emerging adults today, we posit five sets of hypotheses. The first three sets concern the religiously committed and work from the assumption that religion remains important for a certain segment of emerging adults, some of whom are very interested in pursuing studies at faith-based institutions, in part because of their emphasis on faith (Davignon, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref58">12</reflink>]; Denton & Flory, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]). We theorize that religious beliefs, religious behavior, and the salience of religious identity will all be positively (<emph>and</emph> not negatively) related to the chapel experience:</p> <p>H1a: More orthodox Christian views are associated with a higher likelihood of saying chapel had a positive effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>H1b: More orthodox Christian views are associated with a lower likelihood of saying chapel had a negative effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>H2a: More engagement with religion (i.e., religious service attendance, participation in religious meetings, and Bible reading) is associated with a higher likelihood of saying chapel had a positive effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>H2b: More engagement with religion (i.e., religious service attendance, participation in religious meetings, and Bible reading) is associated with a lower likelihood of saying chapel had a negative effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>H3a: Placing high value on one's religious identity is associated with a higher likelihood of saying chapel had a positive effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>H3b: Placing high value on one's religious identity is associated with a lower likelihood of saying chapel had a negative effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>At the same time that some students are "doubling down" on religion, the overall trends for emerging adults today are toward less (traditional) religiosity and/or a greater likelihood of identifying as religiously unaffiliated (Astin et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref60">4</reflink>], Davignon et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref61">13</reflink>], Denton & Flory, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>]; Pew Research Center, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref63">35</reflink>]). Therefore, we put forward two additional sets of hypotheses pertaining to student religious affiliation and the chapel experience. We believe that those identifying with the institution's religious heritage will be more likely to see chapel in a positive (<emph>and</emph> not a negative) light, while the religiously unaffiliated—in part because of the compulsory nature of chapel—will be more likely to indicate a negative (<emph>and</emph> not a positive) view.</p> <p>H4a: Identifying with the university's sponsoring denomination is associated with a higher likelihood of saying chapel had a positive effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>H4b: Identifying with the university's sponsoring denomination is associated with a lower likelihood of saying chapel had a negative effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>H5a: Identifying as religiously unaffiliated is associated with a lower likelihood of saying chapel had a positive effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <p>H5b: Identifying as religiously unaffiliated is associated with a higher likelihood of saying chapel had a negative effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-9">Sample</hd> <p>This study draws on data from a large, private, not-for-profit Christian university in the south (hereafter "Southern Christian University" or "SCU"). SCU was founded as a Baptist liberal arts college and has grown into a large Christian research university. Faculty must be practicing Christians or Jews to be employed at the university. There is no faith statement required of students, but about 90% of undergraduate students identify with a religious tradition, and over 50% attend religious services on at least a weekly basis (Dougherty et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>]). SCU requires undergraduate students to attend chapel for two semesters and take two religion courses. Students typically fulfill the chapel requirement in their first year. At the time of data collection, chapel services were conducted in a large auditorium twice a week. The services were 50 minutes in length, featuring a range of Christian speakers and musical performers. Students had to attend at least 75% of the chapel services in a semester to earn chapel credit. Students recorded their attendance by swiping their university ID card at the conclusion of each service.</p> <p>In this study, we use a survey of seniors at SCU that collected information about religious affiliation, religious beliefs, religious practices, and aspects of the college experience, including chapel. The senior survey is part of a larger ongoing research project that aims to examine the impact of SCU on students' faith formation and character development. The web-based senior survey was administered in March and April 2020 by the Office of Institutional Research and Testing. The survey link was emailed to 4,781 undergraduate students classified as seniors by credit hours; 884 participated, for an 18% response rate. Comparing the sample of 884 to all 4,781 seniors, racial percentages match closely, but there is a discrepancy by gender. In the full population of seniors, 67% were White, 14% Hispanic, 9% Asian, 4% Black, and 6% other. The sample was 65% White, 15% Hispanic, 9% Asian, 6% Black, and 5% other. Women were overrepresented in the sample at 68% compared to 60% of all seniors.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-10">Design</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182122344-11">Dependent Variables</hd> <p>The dependent variables for this study are from the one question in the survey pertaining to chapel. Students were asked to "Please explain what ways the following experiences have changed your religious and/or spiritual beliefs: chapel." Other items in this question-set included "relationship with my roommate," "involvement with a campus Christian group," "required religion courses," "living on campus," "relationships with faculty," and "involvement with church or place of worship." Answer options were "Not Applicable" = 1, "Weakened" = 2, "No Change" = 3, and "Strengthened" = 4. For the purposes of this study, two separate binary variables were created from this variable: one for those indicating chapel strengthened their religious and/or spiritual beliefs (coded as 1, with all other valid responses coded as 0) and another for those indicating chapel weakened their religious and/or spiritual beliefs (coded as 1, with all other valid responses coded as 0).</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-12">Independent Variables</hd> <p>We utilize four different aspects of student religiosity as the main independent variables in this study: religious beliefs, religious behaviors, salience of religious identity, and religious tradition. For religious beliefs, we use the six-item Christian Orthodoxy Scale, a validated scale often used to measure Protestant religious beliefs (Fullerton & Hunsberger, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]; Hunsberger, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref66">26</reflink>]; Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref67">28</reflink>]). Students were asked, "Please mark your opinion on each statement, according to the amount of your agreement or disagreement" from "Strongly Disagree" = 1 to "Strongly Agree" = 7. The statements were (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) "Jesus was the divine Son of God"; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>) "The Bible may be an important book of moral teachings, but it was no more inspired by God than were many other such books in human history" (reverse coded); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>) "The concept of God is an old superstition that is no longer needed to explain things in the modern era" (reverse coded); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>) "Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, God provided a way for the forgiveness of people's sins"; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>) "Despite what many people believe, there is no such thing as a God who is aware of our actions" (reverse coded); and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref73">6</reflink>) "Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried but on the third day He arose from the dead." Cronbach's alpha for these six items is 0.94.</p> <p>To measure religious behavior, we construct a scale that includes three items: religious service attendance (from "Never" = 0 to "Several times a week" = 8), participation in other spiritual meetings such as Bible studies and para-church events (from "Never" = 0 to "Several times a week" = 8), and frequency of reading the Bible (from "Never" = 0 to "Daily" = 7). Due to the slightly different response choices among these three items, we standardize the religious behavior scale, which has a Cronbach's alpha of 0.87. Next, we use a single survey item to measure the salience of religion to one's sense of identity. Students were instructed to "Rank your religious identity in the order of importance to you" from a list that ranges from "Least important to identity" = 1 to "Most important to identity" = 7. Lastly, we measure the effect of religious tradition on perception of chapel. Students were asked, "With what religious family, if any, do you most closely identify?" Two of the answer options are "Baptist" and "No religion." We construct separate binary variables for each, one where "Baptist"—the university's denominational affiliation—is coded as 1 and all else = 0 and another where "No religion" (or "None") is coded as 1 and all else = 0.</p> <p>We control for several other sociodemographic variables, including gender (male = 0 and female = 1), race/ethnicity (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other, with White treated as the reference category), political orientation (binary variable where conservative = 1 and other = 0), and full-time employment while attending SCU (binary variable where yes = 1 and no = 0). In the survey, students were also asked to "Please rate the quality of your relationships with ["faculty members," "administrative personnel and other offices," and "other students"], with answer options ranging from "extremely negative" = 1 to "extremely positive" = 7. Because ties with faculty, staff, and peers have been shown to significantly impact student religiosity and spirituality (Astin et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]), we also include these variables as controls in our models. Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive statistics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variables</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>Mean or %</td><td>SD</td><td>Range</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Chapel strengthened religious and/or spiritual beliefs</td><td char=".">699</td><td char=".">0.19</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td>Chapel weakened religious and/or spiritual beliefs</td><td char=".">699</td><td char=".">0.27</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Controls</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">884</td><td char=".">0.68</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td>Race/ethnicity</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Black or African American</td><td char=".">884</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td> Asian</td><td char=".">884</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td char=".">884</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td char=".">884</td><td char=".">0.67</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td char=".">884</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td>Politically conservative</td><td char=".">817</td><td char=".">0.45</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td>Worked full-time while at university</td><td char=".">884</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with peers</td><td char=".">658</td><td char=".">5.87</td><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with staff</td><td char=".">680</td><td char=".">4.95</td><td char=".">1.40</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with faculty</td><td char=".">677</td><td char=".">5.64</td><td char=".">1.12</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Religious beliefs – Christian Orthodoxy Scale</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Jesus was the divine Son of God</td><td char=".">753</td><td char=".">6.28</td><td char=".">1.55</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Bible was inspired by God</td><td char=".">750</td><td char=".">2.68</td><td char=".">2.06</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Concept of God is superstition</td><td char=".">751</td><td char=".">1.84</td><td char=".">1.55</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Life, death, and resurrection of Jesus provides forgiveness of sin</td><td char=".">752</td><td char=".">6.18</td><td char=".">1.60</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td>God is aware of our actions</td><td char=".">752</td><td char=".">1.73</td><td char=".">1.49</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Jesus was crucified, died, buried, and rose from the dead</td><td char=".">752</td><td char=".">6.17</td><td char=".">1.65</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Religious behavior scale</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Religious service attendance</td><td char=".">728</td><td char=".">5.03</td><td char=".">2.34</td><td char=".">0–8</td></tr><tr><td>Religious meetings attendance (e.g., Bible studies, para-church events)</td><td char=".">728</td><td char=".">3.39</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">0–8</td></tr><tr><td>Bible reading</td><td char=".">727</td><td char=".">3.59</td><td char=".">2.67</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Religious salience</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Importance of religious identity</td><td char=".">806</td><td char=".">5.47</td><td char=".">1.98</td><td char=".">1–7</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Religious tradition</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Baptist</td><td char=".">758</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td char=".">758</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0–1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0182122344-13">Analysis</hd> <p>We estimate logistic regression models using <emph>Stata 17</emph> to present odds ratios regarding respondents' views of chapel. Two separate sets of models are run, one showing odds ratios expressing the likelihood of indicating that chapel <emph>strengthened</emph> one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs and the other expressing the likelihood of indicating that chapel <emph>weakened</emph> one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>] For each chapel variable, seven total models are run. Model 1 includes only control variables. Models 2–6 then proceed to add each religious independent variable of interest separately (religious beliefs, religious behavior, religious identity, and religious tradition—first, "Baptists," then, "No religion/None"). This allows for the measurement of the independent effects of each variable on the dependent variable(s). Lastly, Model 7 includes all variables of interest.</p> <p>The original logistic regression models exhibited some missing data, as shown in Table 2. Only 79% of respondents answered the dependent variable question, and only 64% of all observations in these data contained complete information on all variables of interest. Therefore, we conducted multiple imputation (using <emph>Stata</emph>'s "mvn" command) to create 15 imputed data sets. The full logistic regression models using this method of multiple imputation (<emph>n</emph> = 884) are presented in the next section.</p> <p>Table 2. Missing variables (<emph>n</emph> = 884).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Missing</td><td>% Missing</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Chapel</td><td char=".">185</td><td char=".">20.93</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Politically conservative</td><td char=".">67</td><td char=".">7.58</td></tr><tr><td>Worked full-time while at university</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with peers</td><td char=".">226</td><td char=".">25.57</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with staff</td><td char=".">204</td><td char=".">23.08</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with faculty</td><td char=".">207</td><td char=".">23.42</td></tr><tr><td>Orthodox Christian beliefs</td><td char=".">131</td><td char=".">14.82</td></tr><tr><td>Religious behavior</td><td char=".">157</td><td char=".">17.76</td></tr><tr><td>Religious identity</td><td char=".">78</td><td char=".">8.82</td></tr><tr><td>Baptist</td><td char=".">126</td><td char=".">14.25</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td char=".">126</td><td char=".">14.25</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0182122344-14">Results</hd> <p>Figure 1 shows the original distribution of the dependent variable. Over one in four students in the study indicated that chapel weakened their religious and/or spiritual beliefs. A little over half of the students indicated no change in their beliefs due to their chapel experience. About one in five students indicated that chapel strengthened their beliefs. Results predicting what types of students indicate that chapel <emph>strengthened</emph> or <emph>weakened</emph> their religious and/or spiritual beliefs are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. How chapel changed religious and/or spiritual beliefs (n = 699).</p> <p>Table 3. Logistic regression predicting students saying chapel strengthened their religious or spiritual beliefs (multiple imputation model, <emph>n</emph> = 884).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Model 1</td><td>Model 2</td><td>Model 3</td><td>Model 4</td><td>Model 5</td><td>Model 6</td><td>Model 7</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">1.06</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">1.05</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.17)</td></tr><tr><td>Black or African American</td><td char=".">1.69</td><td char=".">1.68</td><td char=".">1.68</td><td char=".">1.69</td><td char=".">1.69</td><td char=".">1.65</td><td char=".">1.63</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.61)</td><td>(0.61)</td><td>(0.61)</td><td>(0.61)</td><td>(0.61)</td><td>(0.60)</td><td>(0.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td char=".">1.98**</td><td char=".">1.99**</td><td char=".">1.98**</td><td char=".">1.97**</td><td char=".">1.98**</td><td char=".">1.98**</td><td char=".">1.94**</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.5)</td><td>(0.5)</td><td>(0.5)</td><td>(0.5)</td><td>(0.5)</td><td>(0.5)</td><td>(0.49)</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td char=".">1.27</td><td char=".">1.28</td><td char=".">1.27</td><td char=".">1.27</td><td char=".">1.27</td><td char=".">1.27</td><td char=".">1.25</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.27)</td><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.26)</td></tr><tr><td>Other race/ethnicity</td><td char=".">1.90*</td><td char=".">1.91*</td><td char=".">1.90*</td><td char=".">1.90*</td><td char=".">1.90*</td><td char=".">1.93*</td><td char=".">1.93*</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.59)</td><td>(0.59)</td><td>(0.59)</td><td>(0.59)</td><td>(0.59)</td><td>(0.60)</td><td>(0.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Politically conservative</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">1.04</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">0.98</td><td char=".">1.03</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.18)</td><td>(0.18)</td><td>(0.18)</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.18)</td></tr><tr><td>Worked full-time while at university</td><td char=".">0.59</td><td char=".">0.6</td><td char=".">0.59</td><td char=".">0.59</td><td char=".">0.59</td><td char=".">0.6</td><td char=".">0.59</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.19)</td><td>(0.19)</td><td>(0.19)</td><td>(0.19)</td><td>(0.19)</td><td>(0.19)</td><td>(0.19)</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with peers</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">0.95</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with staff</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.12</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.12</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with faculty</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.12</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">1.11</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthodox Christian beliefs</td><td /><td char=".">1.01</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">1.01</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>(0.06)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Religious behavior</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.98</td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.99</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.09)</td><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Religious identity</td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.98</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.96</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.04)</td><td /><td /><td>(0.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Baptist</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.99</td><td /><td char=".">0.99</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.18)</td><td /><td>(0.19)</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.79</td><td char=".">0.7</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.24)</td><td>(0.29)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">0.20**</td><td char=".">0.19**</td><td char=".">0.20**</td><td char=".">0.22**</td><td char=".">0.21**</td><td char=".">0.22**</td><td char=".">0.26</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>(0.22)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Standard errors in parentheses.</p> <p>2 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</p> <p>Table 4. Logistic regression predicting students saying chapel weakened their religious or spiritual beliefs (multiple imputation model, <emph>n</emph> = 884).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Model 1</td><td>Model 2</td><td>Model 3</td><td>Model 4</td><td>Model 5</td><td>Model 6</td><td>Model 7</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">0.69<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">0.81</td><td char=".">0.70<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">0.69<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">0.74<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">0.80</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.10)</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.10)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Black or African American</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">0.82</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">0.78</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">0.80</td><td char=".">0.82</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.28)</td><td>(0.32)</td><td>(0.28)</td><td>(0.30)</td><td>(0.28)</td><td>(0.31)</td><td>(0.32)</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td char=".">1.15</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">1.13</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">1.12</td><td char=".">1.16</td><td char=".">1.02</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.28)</td><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.27)</td><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.30)</td><td>(0.27)</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td char=".">1.25</td><td char=".">1.21</td><td char=".">1.18</td><td char=".">1.17</td><td char=".">1.22</td><td char=".">1.25</td><td char=".">1.21</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.25)</td><td>(0.24)</td><td>(0.25)</td><td>(0.25)</td><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.26)</td></tr><tr><td>Other race/ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.92</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">0.92</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">0.89</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.28)</td><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.28)</td><td>(0.29)</td></tr><tr><td>Politically conservative</td><td char=".">1.04</td><td char=".">1.45<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">1.22</td><td char=".">1.49<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">1.06</td><td char=".">1.18</td><td char=".">1.54<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.17)</td><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.21)</td><td>(0.27)</td><td>(0.18)</td><td>(0.20)</td><td>(0.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Worked full-time while at university</td><td char=".">1.36</td><td char=".">1.25</td><td char=".">1.31</td><td char=".">1.29</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">1.34</td><td char=".">1.26</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.39)</td><td>(0.36)</td><td>(0.38)</td><td>(0.38)</td><td>(0.39)</td><td>(0.39)</td><td>(0.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with peers</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.88</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with staff</td><td char=".">0.80<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">0.81<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">0.81<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">0.82<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">0.80<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">0.81<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">0.82<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.06)</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of relationships with faculty</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">0.99</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthodox Christian beliefs</td><td /><td char=".">0.76<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.83</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>(0.05)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>Religious behavior</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.78<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">1.18</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.07)</td><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Religious identity</td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.80<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.82<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.03)</td><td /><td /><td>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Baptist</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.86</td><td /><td char=".">1.04</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.16)</td><td /><td>(0.20)</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">2.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">0.79</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.66)</td><td>(0.34)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">5.61<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">19.10<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">4.42<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">13.64<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">6.01<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">4.24<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td char=".">35.45<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td /><td>(2.98)</td><td>(11.36)</td><td>(2.41)</td><td>(7.90)</td><td>(3.19)</td><td>(2.34)</td><td>(30.61)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Standard errors in parentheses.</item> <item>4 ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> </ulist> <p>The models in Table 3 fail to show statistically significant effects for any of the main religious characteristics in question. Put more plainly, those with more orthodox Christian beliefs, more engagement with religion (frequency of religious service attendance, participation in religious meetings, and frequency of Bible reading), higher salience of religious identity, and those identifying with the denomination of the university are no more likely than their counterparts to indicate that chapel <emph>strengthened</emph> their religious and/or spiritual beliefs. In addition, the religiously unaffiliated are not less likely to say chapel strengthened their religious and/or spiritual beliefs. Only two variables are statistically significant in the models: identifying as Asian and identifying as another race or ethnicity. The models show that, compared to White students, Asian students have between 94% and 99% higher odds of saying chapel strengthened their religious or spiritual beliefs (<emph>p</emph> <.01), net of all other variables. Similarly, compared to White participants, those indicating a race or ethnicity other than White, Black, Asian, or Hispanic have between 90% and 93% higher odds of saying chapel strengthened their religious or spiritual beliefs (<emph>p</emph> <.05), net of other variables.</p> <p>Table 4 predicts which types of students are likely to say chapel <emph>weakened</emph> their religious or spiritual beliefs. In Model 1, being female and having positive relationships with university staff are associated with a lower likelihood of expressing a negative influence of chapel on one's beliefs. In other words, the odds of saying chapel weakened one's religious or spiritual beliefs are 31% lower for females than for males (<emph>p</emph> <.05), net of other variables in the model. Similarly, the odds of saying chapel weakened one's religious or spiritual beliefs decrease by 20% with each one-level increase in indicating positive relationships with university staff (<emph>p</emph> <.01), net of other effects. No other control variables are significant in Model 1. Female is significant in some of the subsequent models, and the effect of quality relationships with staff holds steady in all models. Identifying as politically conservative is the only other significant control variable in (some of) the remaining models. It correlates with a higher likelihood of indicating chapel weakened one's religious or spiritual beliefs in Models 2, 4, and 7, such that a political conservative has between 45% and 54% higher odds of indicating a negative effect of chapel on beliefs compared to non-conservatives (<emph>p</emph> <.05), net of other controls.</p> <p>Models 2–4 show that the more religious are less likely to indicate chapel weakened their religious or spiritual beliefs. Model 2 provides results for the first religious characteristic of interest: religious beliefs. Christian orthodoxy is associated with a less negative perception of chapel on one's beliefs. That is, net of other effects, the odds of saying chapel weakened one's religious or spiritual beliefs decrease by 24% with a one-level increase on the Christian Orthodoxy Scale (<emph>p</emph> <.001). Models 2 and 3 display similar effects for religious behaviors and religious identity, respectively. The odds of saying chapel weakened one's religious or spiritual beliefs decrease by 22% with a one-level increase in religious behaviors (<emph>p</emph> <.01). Likewise, the odds of saying chapel weakened one's religious or spiritual beliefs decrease by 20% with a one-level increase in the salience of religion to one's identity (<emph>p</emph> <.001).</p> <p>Models 5 and 6 include the two binary religious tradition variables. In Model 5, there is no significant effect for being Baptist—that is, identifying with the denomination of the university—and chapel's influence on beliefs. In contrast, Model 6 shows a strong correlation between indicating no religious affiliation ("None") and one's views on chapel. Those who do not affiliate themselves with any religion, compared to those who do, have 123% higher odds of saying chapel weakened their religious or spiritual beliefs (<emph>p</emph> <.01), net of other effects.</p> <p>As with Table 3, the final model in Table 4 puts all the religious characteristics alongside each other along with demographic and control variables. The items that retain significance <emph>net of all other effects</emph> are being politically conservative, positive relationships with university staff, and the salience of religion to one's identity. Being politically conservative correlates with a higher likelihood of indicating chapel weakened one's beliefs (odds ratio of 1.54, <emph>p</emph> <.05), while positive relationships with staff and scoring higher on salience of religious identity both show a lesser likelihood of indicating chapel weakened one's beliefs (both have odds ratios of.82, at <emph>p</emph> <.05 and <emph>p</emph> <.01, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this study is to identify what types of students indicated chapel had a positive or negative effect on their religious beliefs. On the whole, we find that greater religiosity—in the form of beliefs, behavior, and salience of religious identity—did not correlate with the perception that chapel had a positive effect on (strengthened) one's beliefs. This finding may be explained in part by the high expectations of the highly religious. That is, such students are likely to come into chapel with more orthodox beliefs and are likely accustomed to attending worship services more regularly. They may consider a generic Christian chapel program with a "one size fits all" model—such as SCU's at the time of data collection—as a poor catalyst for their spiritual growth. On the other hand, we also found the more religious (i.e., those with stronger religious beliefs, behaviors, or identity) were less likely than their counterparts to say that chapel had a negative effect on (weakened) their beliefs. Once again, perhaps the nature of more religious students comes into play, as they may not view chapel as a means of spiritual growth for themselves but may see it as something that builds up the faith of others. Or, they may be less likely than their counterparts to criticize institutional forms of religion—like chapel—because institutional religion is more likely a part of their own lives. Lastly, we find the religiously unaffiliated were more likely to indicate chapel had a negative effect on (weakened) their beliefs. This minority group at SCU (9% of the sample) may feel like the chapel program further marginalizes them. Perhaps they consider themselves spiritual but not religious and therefore are disenchanted with the mandatory nature of the chapel program. Or, perhaps they are uninterested religiously <emph>and</emph> spiritually but value other parts of the SCU experience (e.g., the education, career preparation, an athletic program, etc.) enough to tolerate the chapel program.</p> <p>This study put forward three hypotheses: that more orthodox Christian views (H1a), more religious behaviors (H2a), and placing a high value on one's religious identity (H3a) would all be associated with a higher likelihood of saying chapel had a positive effect on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs. Statistically speaking, these three hypotheses were not supported. The study revealed instead that the more religious students (identified in terms of religious beliefs, religious behaviors, and salience of religious identity) were less likely than the comparison groups to view the effects of chapel on their religious and/or spiritual beliefs in a negative light (supporting H1b, H2b, and H3b). Again, this finding could suggest that the more religious were less likely to criticize the chapel experience in part because of their inherent positive disposition toward organized forms of religious expression.</p> <p>With regard to religious affiliation, we posited that identifying with the university's sponsoring denomination would be associated with a higher likelihood of saying chapel had a positive effect (H4a) and a lower likelihood of saying chapel had a negative effect (H4b) on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs. Neither of these relationships were supported by these data. Instead, religious ferventness was more predictive a variable than denominational identity, which can likely be explained by the fact that not all Baptists are the same. The last hypothesis stated that identifying as religiously unaffiliated would be associated with a lesser likelihood of saying chapel had a positive effect (H5a) and a higher likelihood of saying chapel had a negative effect (H5b) on one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs. Contrary to H5a, the religiously unaffiliated were just as likely to indicate that chapel strengthened their beliefs as the religiously affiliated. However, the unaffiliated were more likely to say that chapel had a negative effect on their beliefs, supporting H5b.</p> <p>Taken as a whole, these findings suggest two things. First, chapel at SCU for the more religious was not a primary means of religious or spiritual growth. Although the more religious may be less inclined to see chapel as weakening their faith, there was a noticeable absence of correlation between being more religious and saying chapel strengthens one's faith. The two semesters of required chapel at SCU seemed to have little influence on the beliefs of highly religious students. Even those who identified with the denominational affiliation of SCU were no more likely than those who did not to say chapel strengthened their religious and/or spiritual beliefs, although others have already indicated the waning salience of denominational affiliation among students at Christian institutions (Davignon et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]). In light of our findings, chapel was not fulfilling its intended purpose at SCU. Thus, it is not surprising that SCU changed its chapel format soon after our study. Today, SCU has forty-six different breakout chapels instead of one large chapel required for most everyone. As a result, SCU is better able to target the variety of students' needs, and students are able to choose a chapel that meets their perceived needs. The more religious students at SCU may now find chapel options that are structured more specifically for them.</p> <p>Second, the findings suggest that chapel at SCU was not succeeding at appealing to the opposite group: the less religious (or religiously unaffiliated). There was a significant positive correlation between identifying as religiously unaffiliated and saying chapel weakened one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs, a finding which may be partially explained by the mandatory nature of SCU's chapel attendance policy. Compulsory chapel requirements have historically been onerous to a portion of students, religious or not (e.g., Aspinwall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref77">3</reflink>]; Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>]). This study indicated that chapel at this institution was an unlikely arena in which to "woo" the non-religious to faith. In fact, after our research, SCU began offering an alternative chapel for nonbelievers and skeptics that is more interactive and provides a forum for discussing questions about the Christian faith.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-16">Limitations</hd> <p>As is the case with any research endeavor, this study has limitations. Data came from one institution, limiting the generalizability of the findings. As other studies on chapel have pointed out, context is key (Cragun et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>]; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref80">31</reflink>]). In considering the replication of this study, others should thoroughly reflect on their own context, with the relevant (and likely unique) purposes, forms, and requirements of chapel at their institutions. Another limitation of this study relates to the timing of the survey. The low overall response rate (18%) was likely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). During the time the survey was open, the university closed campus and moved all instruction online. A sample comprised only of seniors presents another limitation. As noted, students at SCU typically take the two required semesters of chapel during their first year. Thus, there could be an element of retrospective bias. That is, students may have had experiences in the interim period that influenced their perceptions of chapel.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-17">Suggestions for Future Research</hd> <p>Overall, we would suggest that other Christian institutions should undertake similar assessments of their chapel programming to determine if their current format is meeting the institution's intended goals. In the case of SCU, our research uncovered that it was not. In response, the institution made changes to the structure and format of chapel to better meet their intended goals. Regardless of varying student religiosity levels or diverse forms of spiritual life programming at particular institutions, all students today are living in a broader cultural setting of distrust in organized religion (Hill, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>]; Saad, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref82">38</reflink>]), potentially making them increasingly wary of institutionalized religious forms like chapel. As more Christian colleges and universities develop assessments of their spiritual life programs, such assessments can indirectly aid other institutions.</p> <p>Qualitative data would also complement these quantitative findings, shedding light on any other possible indicators that relate to students perceiving a positive or negative effect of chapel on their beliefs. For example, in our study it is possible for a non-religiously affiliated student to say chapel weakened their religious and/or spiritual beliefs. That is, the student could be indicating that chapel caused them to question their atheistic or agnostic beliefs. In such a case, "weakening one's religious and/or spiritual beliefs" would not necessarily be classified as something negative (from the perspective of SCU). Such a possibility highlights the fact that quantitative findings from a study like this would benefit from integration with qualitative data.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-18">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>Various implications arise from this research for Christian colleges and universities with a vested interest in maintaining chapel as a distinctive of the religious and spiritual nature of their institutions. First, this study highlights the need for contextual research on the part of Christian institutions that systematically assesses whether and how chapel contributes to the religious and spiritual lives of their students. For universities that have faith formation as part of their mission, it is important to ask whether or not (and for whom) chapel is acting as a catalyst for faith formation. Another important contextual consideration is whether or not an institution requires a faith statement (or community lifestyle commitment) of students and/or faculty. In the case of SCU, a faith statement is not required of students, but faculty are required to be practicing Christians or Jews. Other institutions might look different. In any case, it is increasingly important to find ways of effectively measuring the religious and spiritual makeup of the student body at individual institutions.</p> <p>Managing student expectations regarding the purpose of chapel also becomes increasingly significant. If—as the literature shows—young people are less trusting of organized religion on the whole, it will be important for colleges and universities that make chapel (or chapel options) mandatory to provide a clear rationale to prospective and current students. At SCU, the chaplain's office stated the purpose of chapel as either <emph>introducing</emph> students to the Christian faith or <emph>deepening</emph> their Christian faith (B. Burleson, personal communication, February 26, 2021). To stay true to this purpose, SCU changed its chapel format, as the former "one size fits all" chapel service program was not succeeding at simultaneously introducing students to faith and deepening student faith.</p> <p>The findings here concur also with those of Rine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref83">36</reflink>]) that faith-based institutions need not abandon their religious distinctives, but that leaders should have clarity on the market implications of those distinctives, particularly as student populations become more heterogeneous. While we found that denominational affiliation is not as important as other religiosity indicators, college and university leaders will likely want to ensure that chapel forms cohere with the particular emphases of their institution's religious tradition. In addition, as Christian institutions consider increased diversity in their student populations, they will need to be mindful that ethnic diversity may mean not only racial diversity but also religious diversity (Cole & Ahmadi, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref84">9</reflink>]). What are the chapel implications of an institutional policy that allows for a more religiously diverse student body? Some institutions with campus-wide chapel services in large auditoriums may choose to leave chapel as is, but this research indicates such a policy may run the risk of alienating skeptics and/or the religiously unaffiliated. Chapel exemptions for such individuals is another option, but this course may jeopardize the very purpose of chapel if introducing the less religious to the Christian faith is an institutional goal. Offering chapel options to nonbelievers and skeptics is a third way. Such an option still affords exposure to the Christian faith and adheres to the idea of whole-person formation as an educational emphasis at Christian institutions. This alternative could potentially accomplish these things without adding to the marginalization of the non-Christian student population.</p> <p>In short, these findings speak to the need for Christian institutions to evaluate the forms of chapel in relation to their institutional purposes. Today's young people are inclined to customize religion (Denton & Flory, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref85">15</reflink>]), and chapel—in its more traditional forms—tends to resemble the area where young people exhibit the least religiosity: participation in organized religious activities. Is the campus-wide chapel service approach in need of revision? This study points in that direction, but such an assertion must be mindful of context. More research will be needed to comprehensively address this question, particularly as Christian institutions increasingly experiment with online chapel and other chapel options.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>Since the time of data collection for this study and in light of this study's findings, SCU has moved to offering multiple different types of chapel formats, including prayer services, worship services, discipline-specific study groups, forums built around historical Christian thought and practice, and asynchronous online chapel videos. Such ideas could provide a <emph>via media</emph> between seeing chapel as an integral, required part of student life and the incorporation of chapel forms that align with the current trend toward religious customization. In addition, they could appeal to increasingly diverse student populations at Christian colleges and universities. Each institution must address these types of issues contextually, and empirical, comparative research will aid in moving the entire enterprise forward. Critical evaluation of a long-standing tradition such as chapel need not be disconnected from sympathy to the mission of Christian higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0182122344-20">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0182122344-21"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The binary differentiation of the dependent variable (between those who say chapel <emph>strengthened</emph> or <emph>weakened</emph> their beliefs and everyone else) assumes that there is not much of a difference between those who indicated "no change" and who indicated "strengthened"/"weakened." And yet, these answer responses are nominal, and there is, in theory, a qualitative difference between saying chapel "strengthened" or "weakened" one's beliefs when one has the option of simply indicating no net effect. That is, the strong verbiage in the survey question assumes that those who indicated chapel "strengthened" or "weakened" their beliefs took on a more active (positive or negative) attitude toward chapel. Indicating "no change" in beliefs, by contrast, seems to connote an ambivalent or perhaps passive stance towards the chapel experience. Consequently, we conducted an additional analysis in which we ran the models using multinomial logistic regression. However, the results indicated no significant differences from the binary logistic models in regard to the independent variables of interest. We chose to portray the binary logistic regression models.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0182122344-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adams, L. (2020a). Christian colleges get creative with chapel requirements. Christianity Today. https://<ulink href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/april/christian-colleges-chapel-online-covid19-coronavirus.html">www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/april/christian-colleges-chapel-online-covid19-coronavirus.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref12" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, L. (2020b). Christian colleges are changing to survive. Is it working? Christianity Today. https://<ulink href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/september/enrollment-crisis-christian-college-cccu-evangelical-humani.html">www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/september/enrollment-crisis-christian-college-cccu-evangelical-humani.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aspinwall, L. E. (1935). Status of chapel services in forty-eight colleges. Christian Education, 19 (1), 37 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref42" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students' inner lives. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Benne, R. (2001). Quality with soul: How six premier colleges and universities kept faith with their religious traditions. Eerdmans.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref16" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brewer, R. R. (1935). The college chapel service. Christian Education, 18 (5), 288 – 293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burtchaell, J. T. (1998). The dying of the light: The disengagement of colleges and universities from their Christian churches. Eerdmans.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref35" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Caplovitz, D., & Sherrow, F. (1977). The religious drop-outs: Apostasy among college graduates. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref84" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2010). Reconsidering campus diversity: An examination of Muslim students' experiences. Journal of Higher Education, 81 (2), 121 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cragun, R. T., Henry, P., Mann, M., & Krebs, S. R. (2014). Chapel use on college and university campuses. Journal of College & Character, 15 (2), 103 – 117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dalton, J. C., Eberhardt, D., Bracken, J., & Echols, K. (2006). Inward journeys: Forms and patterns of college student spirituality. Journal of College & Character, 12 (8), 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davignon, P. (2016). Factors influencing college choice and satisfaction among students at Christian colleges and universities. Religion & Education, 43 (1), 77 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2015.1090811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davignon, P., Glanzer, P. L., & Rine, P. J. (2013). Assessing the denominational identity of American Evangelical colleges and universities, part III: The student experience. Christian Higher Education, 12 (5), 315 – 330. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2013.825127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denny, W. B. (1931). Religious services in the college. Christian Education, 14 (8), 777 – 783.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denton, M. L., & Flory, R. W. (2020). Back-pocket God: Religion and spirituality in the lives of emerging adults. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dougherty, K. D., Glanzer, P. L., Robinson, J. A., Ratchford, J. L., & Schnitker, S. A. (2022). Baylor faith and character study: Methods and preliminary findings. Christian Higher Education, 21 (3), 168 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2021.1929564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durkheim, E. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life (K. E. Fields., Trans.). The Free Press. (Original work published 1912).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferré, N. F. S. (1967). The place of the chapel in a Christian college: Fusing faith and knowledge. Journal of Higher Education, 38 (4), 177 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1967.11774701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21 (4), 317 – 326. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385521</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gage, H. M. (1923). Vitalizing college chapel. Christian Education, 6 (4), 187 – 195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., & Ream, T. C. (2009). Christianity and moral identity in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., Cockle, T. F., & Martin, J. (2023). Christian higher education: An empirical guide. Abilene University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grawe, N. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, J. P. (2009). Higher education as moral community: Institutional influences on religious participation during college. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48 (3), 515 – 534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01463.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, J. P. (2011). Faith and understanding: Specifying the impact of higher education on religious belief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50 (3), 533 – 551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01587.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunsberger, B. (1989). A short version of the Christian Orthodoxy Scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28 (3), 360 – 365. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunter, J. D. (1983). American Evangelicalism: Conservative religion and the quandary of modernity. Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, R. W., George, D. T., & Saine, K. C. (1993). The Christian Orthodoxy Scale: A validity study. Psychological Reports, 72 (2), 537 – 538. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.72.2.537</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2006). Spirituality, liberal learning, and college student engagement. Liberal Education, 92 (1), 40 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsden, G. M. (2021). The soul of the American university revisited: From Protestant to postsecular (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, N. (2015). Secularization or socialization? A study of student religiosity at an elite university. Journal of College & Character, 16 (4), 225 – 241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayrl, D., & Oeur, F. (2009). Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and directions for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48 (2), 260 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01446.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McFarland, M. J., Wright, B. R. E., & Weakliem, D. L. (2010). Educational attainment and religiosity: Exploring variations by religious tradition. Sociology of Religion, 72 (2), 166 – 188. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srq065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Micou, P. (1923). College chapel. Christian Education, 6 (4), 195 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pew Research Center. (2014). Religious landscape study: Religious composition of 18–29 year olds. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/age-distribution/18-29/">www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/age-distribution/18-29/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rine, P. J., Brown, J. T., & Hunter, J. M. (2021). How institutional identity shapes college student recruitment: The relationship between religious distinctiveness and market demand. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 80 (1), 133 – 159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringenberg, W. C. (2006). The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saad, L. (2023). Historically low faith in U.S. institutions continues. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/508169/historically-low-faith-institutions-continues.aspx</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, R. H. (1975). Mandatory chapel attendance at small church-related colleges (Publication No. 7515584) [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uecker, J. E., Regnerus, M. D., & Vaaler, M. L. (2007). Losing my religion: The social sources of religious decline in early adulthood. Social Forces, 85 (4), 1667 – 1692. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wuthnow, R. (1989). The struggle for America's soul: Evangelicals, liberals, and secularism. Eerdmans.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Daniel M. Allen; Perry L. Glanzer and Kevin D. Dougherty</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref82"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1456676
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Hindrance or a Help? The Chapel Experience and Student Religiosity at a Christian University
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniel+M%2E+Allen%22">Daniel M. Allen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5955-4767">0000-0002-5955-4767</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Perry+L%2E+Glanzer%22">Perry L. Glanzer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3649-2516">0000-0002-3649-2516</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kevin+D%2E+Dougherty%22">Kevin D. Dougherty</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4925-3311">0000-0002-4925-3311</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Christian+Higher+Education%22"><i>Christian Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 24(1):3-21.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Christianity%22">Christianity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Colleges%22">Religious Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Factors%22">Religious Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Role+of+Religion%22">Role of Religion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Experience%22">Learning Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Benefits%22">Educational Benefits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Churches%22">Churches</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Church+Role%22">Church Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Space%22">School Space</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Facilities%22">Educational Facilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Space+Utilization%22">Space Utilization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Change+Strategies%22">Change Strategies</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15363759.2024.2361256
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1536-3759<br />1539-4107
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Chapel is one of the oldest traditions of American higher education and continues to hold a distinctive place among many faith-based institutions today. Although a significant contingent of religiously committed students resonate with an educational environment that incorporates faith and learning, emerging adults today are less affiliated with organized religion than ever before. Anecdotes about the value of chapel abound, but there is little current empirical research dealing with the chapel experience in relation to student religiosity. Using survey data from one Christian university, this study asks: What types of students indicate that the chapel experience has a positive or negative impact on their religious beliefs? We find that religious belief, religious behavior, and religious identity are not related to the perception that chapel strengthened religious beliefs. However, these same measures reduce the odds of someone saying that chapel weakened their religious beliefs. Implications for Christian higher education are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1456676
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1456676
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15363759.2024.2361256
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 3
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Christianity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religious Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religious Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Role of Religion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Benefits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Churches
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Church Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Space
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Facilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Space Utilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Change Strategies
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Hindrance or a Help? The Chapel Experience and Student Religiosity at a Christian University
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daniel M. Allen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Perry L. Glanzer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kevin D. Dougherty
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1536-3759
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1539-4107
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Christian Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1