The relationships of family income and caste-status with religiousness: Mediation role of intolerance of uncertainty

Sanjay Kumar; Martin Voracek

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273174

. 2022 Aug 26;17(8):e0273174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273174

The relationships of family income and caste-status with religiousness: Mediation role of intolerance of uncertainty

Sanjay Kumar ^1,^*, Martin Voracek ^2,^*

Editor: Ning Du³

PMCID: PMC9417042 PMID: 36026518

Abstract

The relationship between lower socioeconomic status (SES) and religiousness is well known; however, its (psychological mediation) mechanism is not clear. In the present study, we studied the mediation role of intolerance of uncertainty (IU; a personality measure of self-uncertainty) in the effect of SES on religiousness and its dimensions (i.e., believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging), in two different samples (students sample, N = 868, and community sample, N = 250), after controlling the effects of factors like age, sex, handedness, and self-reported risk-taking. The results showed that IU mediated the effects of lower family income and lower caste status (in students’ sample only) on religiousness and its dimensions; higher caste status had a direct effect on religiousness (and its dimensions), and; among the sub-factors of IU, only prospective IU affected religiousness. Thus, along with showing that IU is a mediator of the effects of lower family income and lower caste status on religiousness, the present study supports the contention that religiousness is a latent variable that varied factors can independently initiate. Moreover, the present study suggests a nuanced model of the relationship between the hierarchical caste system and religiousness.

Introduction

Religiousness is the relationship of an individual with transcendence. This relationship involves a combination of believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging [1]. Believing is a meaningful relationship, bonding is an emotional attachment, behaving is related to morality, and belonging is related to a self-esteem-enhancing affiliation [1]. Thus, encompassing cognitive, emotional, moral, and affiliation motives, religiousness provides a holistic framework (or life system), which, although not an actual representation of realities, is oriented towards coping with the realities of life (or living conditions; [2]). Such coping attempts may involve explanations of the deprivations as well as the compensations [3].

There is enormous support for the weaker version of the relationship between living conditions and religiousness (i.e., worse living conditions or socioeconomic deprivation or lower socioeconomic status increases religiousness [4–9]), although some studies have supported the stronger version also (i.e., worse living conditions or socioeconomic deprivation produces religiousness [3,10]). Thus, perhaps the constraints and inadequacies (of a living condition) generate a psychological state that leads to (enhances or generates) religiousness. Lack of trust (i.e., psychological defensiveness; [11]), existential insecurity [5], self-uncertainty [6,8], and the lack of socio-psychological coping resources (i.e., distress; [12,13]) are some of the variables postulated to mediate the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and religiousness. However, perhaps due to inadequacies of the conceptualization and measurement of the postulated mediation factors and the religiousness, the mechanics of the relationship between lower socioeconomic status (SES) and religiousness is unclear.

Studies have shown that, among individuals, the lower SES [9,11], difficult life conditions (living in sites of natural disasters, [10]; self-reported difficult living conditions; [14]), social exclusion [15], and lower income [8] are related to religiousness. Among countries also, underdevelopment [8], difficult life conditions (e.g., widespread hunger and low life expectancy; [14]) inequitable income distribution [4,6,7], and low economic development [4,8] are related to religiousness. Thus, socioeconomic deprivation (which normally reflects the worse living conditions) affects religiousness among both the individuals and the nations; however, the effect of socioeconomic factors on religiousness is much stronger at the level of nations (among countries), than at the level of individuals (among individuals; [5,14]). Therefore, perhaps some psychological factors that show differences between developed and developing countries are important for understanding the SES-religiousness connection. Recently, studies have focused on such psychological variables (i.e., varying with the socioeconomic differences between countries; e.g., psychological defensiveness [11]; uncertainty stress [16]).

Compared to developed countries, psychological defensiveness is higher in developing countries [11,17]. Therefore, it may be a psychological reflector of the between-countries socioeconomic differences. However, whereas studies have reported that psychological defensiveness (opposite of trust) mediates the effect of lower SES on religiousness [11], this effect is salient in developed countries only [11]. Thus, because developing countries have more socioeconomic disparity and more absolute deprivation (compared to developed countries), psychological defensiveness only partially explains the effect of socioeconomic factors on religiousness.

Studies have suggested that existential insecurity (i.e., vulnerabilities to societal and personal risks and threats) mediates the effect of difficult living conditions on religiousness among nations [5]. However, existential security has been inferred only through self-reported, or the available, socioeconomic facilities [5]. Moreover, whereas low life expectancy supports increased fear of death among low SES individuals [18], studies have rendered, at best, only weak support for the relationship between fear of death and religiousness [19].

Conceptually, lack of trust (i.e., psychological defensiveness; [20]) and existential insecurity are manifestations of self-uncertainty (i.e., people being uncertain about themselves; [21]). Thus, the latter is likely to be the more basic psychological factor in the relationship of lower SES with religiousness. Self-uncertainty is related to the hardening of religious attitudes [22,23], and is suggested to be the basis for identification with religious groups (uncertainty-identity theory; [24]). Studies have suggested that self-uncertainty is a mediator in the effects of lower income on religiousness [6,8]. However, as far as we know, this likelihood has not been directly tested, except for a study on the relationship of social exclusion (a condition presumably related to lower SES) with religiousness [15].

In prior studies, self-uncertainty either was generated experimentally [22,23], was measured through partially standardized questionnaires [15], or was presumed (to be occurring) through related conditions (i.e., low economic development, income insecurity, and health insecurity [4]). Experimentally generated uncertainties tend to reflect transient states and have limited ecological validity [25], whereas socioeconomic factors are long-term variables with lasting effects [26]. Thus, the study of personality measure of self-uncertainty (as a mediator of the effect of socioeconomic factors on religiousness) may be more fruitful.

Moreover, studies have shown that, compared to higher status individuals, lower SES individuals show more psychological distress (irrespective of the similarity of the exposed stressful situation; [13]), which, in turn, is related to religiousness [27]. However, because psychological distress is a symptom (i.e., unspecified stress, anxiety, and depression), it has limited explanatory power (for understanding the underlying psychological processes). Moreover, studies have shown that intolerance of uncertainty underlies psychological distress [28,29].

Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is “an individual’s dispositional incapacity to endure the aversive response triggered by the perceived absence of salient, key, or sufficient information, and sustained by the associated perception of uncertainty”(p31) [30]. Thus, rather than simply reflecting the volume of uncertainty (a person is facing), as a personality measure, IU captures the general inability to face the uncertainty. Compared to other related concepts, IU is a better measure of uncertainty [31]. It measures fear of uncertainty, which is conceptually the basic fear (pervading most other fears and threats like fear of death; [32]). Compared to developed countries, the developing countries (with lower GDP) have much higher IU (i.e., mean IUS-12 score is higher by approximately a standard deviation in Brazil [33], China [34], and India [35]). IU is a trait measure (and not a type measure) that may be used to study individual differences (in the general population; [36]). It is measurable through highly reliable and cross-culturally valid scales [33–35,37]. Moreover, IU is related to religiousness [38,39] and is, conceptually, a personality measure of self-uncertainty [30]. Thus, as discussed above, IU underlies several proposed mediation factors (e.g., psychological distress, existential insecurity, fear of death, psychological defensiveness, and self-uncertainty) of the relationship between lower SES and religiousness and has the potential to reflect the socioeconomic differences between countries also. Moreover, because increased future uncertainties are characteristic of lower SES [40]; the SES translates into personality [41]; IU is a dispositional reaction to future uncertainties [30], and; religiousness is an attempt to cope with the future uncertainties [42], theoretically also, the lower SES, IU, and religiousness are interrelated through the common denominator of future uncertainties. Therefore, IU may be an effective mediator of the relationship between lower SES and religiousness.

Furthermore, in most of the prior studies (i.e., on the relationship between lower SES and religiousness), religiousness was measured either through behavioral indicators [6,7], beliefs [4], or a combination of them [5,8,9,14]. Although some earlier studies do recognize the multidimensional nature of religiousness [43], the recent theoretical advances support a composite four-dimensional conception of religiousness (i.e., believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging), which is likely to be universal and is cross-culturally and cross-religiously valid [44,45]. This conception seeks to discriminate religiousness from other related concepts, like non-organized spirituality, by emphasizing that only religiousness encompasses all the four dimensions, i.e., believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging [1,45]. Moreover, the dimensions (of religiousness) are value neutral and may study functional vs. dysfunctional aspects of religion through the qualitative analysis [1].

Thus, the present study perhaps is an initial study of the effect of SES on the four-basic dimensional conceptualization of religiousness. Because religiousness encompasses different dimensions, it would be interesting to study whether the effect of SES (and other variables) on general religiousness translates into its different dimensions also. In case the same effect expresses in all the four dimensions of religiousness, according to this conception (i.e., religiousness is a composite of four dimensions), the confidence in the occurrence of this effect on religiousness will be stronger (i.e., this effect is not occurring on the other related concepts like spirituality). Moreover, because, along with quantitative analysis, this (multidimensional) conception of religiousness allows for qualitative analyses (inter-correlations among dimensions and salience of dimensions in a group; [45]), in the present study, we have conducted such analysis also (discussed below).

Generally, the SES involves variables like income, social status, education, and access to health facilities. In India, caste status is an important SES variable [46]. It is an ascribed status, which represents a composite hierarchy of ritual, social, and economic scales [46,47]. It is determined by birth in an endogamous group [46]. The caste was originally (historically) characteristic of Hindus but presently it is characteristic of other religious groups as well [48,49]. In modern India, castes are functionally grouped in three descending hierarchical categories: upper, higher, or general castes (GC), intermediate or other backward castes (OBC), and scheduled castes (SC; [47]) and, irrespective of some transformations (i.e., weakening of Jajmani system, the caste-occupation connection), caste is quite effectively a psycho-social reality (i.e., endogamous, hierarchical, and psychologically felt; [50–52]).

As far as we know, irrespective of a large number of observational and anecdotal studies on the relationship of caste with religion, there are few studies on the quantitative relationship of caste status with religiousness. The caste hierarchy is based on the ideology of purity and pollution, which is supported by Hindu scriptures (classifying caste groupings based on occupations; [46]). Thus, isolation and discrimination are integral to the caste system of social organization [53]. Studies have shown that personal uncertainty mediates the effect of isolation and discrimination on religiousness [15]. Therefore, the mediation effect of IU on the relationship of lower caste status (which generates a feeling of isolation and discrimination) with religiousness is expected. Because India is a modern market-based economy, family income may be an important component of SES. Moreover, education (another indicator of SES) is also related to lower religiousness [7,54]. Although the relationship of education with IU is unknown, because education involves exposure to multiple viewpoints, we expect that education has a decremental effect on IU, which, in turn, leads to lower religiousness. Thus, in the present study, we studied the mediation role of IU on the effects of caste groups, family income, and education (as components of SES) on religiousness.

Studies have reported that self-uncertainty mediates the effect of minority communities on religiousness [15]. Moreover, different religions may have qualitatively different religiousness [45]. Similarly, age (religiousness [55]; IU [56]), women (religiousness [57]; IU [58]), self-reported risk-taking (religiousness [59]; lower IU [58]), and right-handedness (religiousness [60]; IU [61]) are related to both religiousness and IU. Thus, these factors may be confounding the mediation role of IU in the effect of SES on religiousness. Studies have reported that height [59] and body mass index [62] are also factors in religiousness.

Because IU [63] and religiousness [64,65] are related to prefrontal cortex; prefrontal cortex structures are amenable to developmental processes [66]; SES [67], risk-taking [68], sex and age [69] are related to prefrontal cortex and other cerebral cortex areas, and; handedness [70] and height [71] are related to cortical surface areas, the seemingly different antecedent factors (i.e., the bio-socio-developmental factors, e.g., self-reported risk-taking, age, height, handedness etc. vs. the pure environmental factors, e.g., SES) may be affecting the IU-religiousness connection through effects on the brain structure. Thus, although, in the present study, we are not studying the effects on the brain, this framework of understanding (i.e., mediation role of the brain structure) does justify conducting a comprehensive study of the effects of different antecedent variables (environmentally-determined as well as bio-socio-developmental factors) on IU-religiousness connection. Such analyses may generate new understandings for future research.

In the present study, we studied two different samples, i.e., a students’ sample and a community sample. Initially, the hypotheses were established in a larger sample of students and, subsequently, replication tests were done in the community sample. This is an ecologically valid testing strategy that renders robust effects [72]. To be precise, the following hypotheses were tested in the present study: (1) IU mediates the effect of lower family income on religiousness; (2) IU mediates the effect of lower caste status on religiousness, and; (3) IU mediates the effect of lower education on religiousness. Moreover, because earlier studies have shown that, compared to western and monotheistic religions (r = .70 to .84), eastern and non-monotheistic religions have low inter-correlations (r = .31 to .68) among the dimensions of religiousness [45], we hypothesized that (4) in the Indian population (with the predominance of non-monotheistic Hindu religion), the inter-correlations in the dimensions of religiousness are weaker (below .70). Moreover, in the present study, we assessed the interrelationships (in the dimensions of religiousness) as well as the relative importance of the dimensions of religiousness in different religions, castes, and income groups, albeit without any directional hypothesis. Thus, the present study is a comprehensive report on the IU-mediated effects (as well as the direct effects) of SES and other variables on religiousness and its dimensions, which includes qualitative analyses also.

Method

The study (part of a project: IU and its correlates) was conducted in academic session 2017–18 and was approved by the local ethics committee of the institution (i.e., D.A.V. College Ethics Committee).

Participants

Students’ sample

A sample of 868 students was selected from a college in Muzaffarnagar city of western Uttar Pradesh, India. The participants were selected based on availability as well as were actively approached, sometimes with the help of faculty members.

Community sample

A sample of 250 participants was selected from Muzaffarnagar city. Research assistants approached participants through personal networks and referrals. Higher age participants were preferred and the cutoff age was 25 years.

Material and procedure

Before the assessment, participants gave written informed consent. The research assistant gave detailed instructions and participants filled a set of paper-pencil formatted questionnaires individually (mostly in community sample) as well as in small groups (less than 40 participants).

In the personal details section, participants informed age, height, weight, sex, education level (below intermediate, undergraduate, postgraduate, higher degree), monthly family income (in rupees; less than 10 thousand, 10–30 thousand, 30–60 thousand, 60 thousand-1 Lakh, above 1 lakh), and caste category (SC, OBC, GC). For the disbursement of benefits of various schemes, the admissions to educational institutes, and employment, people are frequently required to fill their caste categories in India [47]. Thus, asking participants their caste category is an established common procedure for determining the caste categories [47,73].

For the assessment of IU, a reliable (Cronbach’s α = .79) and valid Hindi translation version of the IU scale small form (IUS-12) was used [35]. The IUS-12 is a 12-item scale with a five-point response scheme (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) so that a higher score reflects more IU [37]. It measures total IU as well as the components: prospective IU and inhibitive IU. Although a correlated two-factor structure of IU (prospective IU and inhibitive IU; [74]) has been reported, the bi-factor model studies strongly support studying IU as a unitary concept (the general factor of IU; [75]).

To assess religiousness, a reliable (α = .88) and valid Hindi translation version of the 4BDRS was used (a 12-item scale; [44]). The 4BDRS is a test of general religiousness with cross-cultural and cross-religious validity [44,45]. It has a seven-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) attached with each item so that a higher score indicates more religiousness. The 4BDRS measures the general religiousness as well as the four basic dimensions of religiousness: believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging, each of which is measured through three separate items [45]. Moreover, as suggested by Saroglou et al. [45], we transformed the raw scores of general religiousness and dimensions of religiousness into single item scores (total score/ number of items).

For assessment of handedness, we used a 14-item hand preference questionnaire, procedural details and reliability of which are reported elsewhere [61]. It has a five-point response scale (1 = always left hand to 5 = always right hand) attached with each item. The laterality quotient (LQ), ranging from -100 to 100, reported the degree of handedness when the negative values indicate left-handedness and the positive values indicate a right-handedness.

The assessment of risk-taking propensity was done through a single item similar to that used for establishing the genetics of self-reported risk-taking [76]. The item reads “I enjoy risk-taking?” [59]. A 7-point response scale (1 = fully incorrect about me to 7 = fully correct about me) was attached. Thus, a higher score indicates more risk-taking.

Statistical procedure

Mediation path analysis was conducted through Process procedure, in IBM SPSS 20, with 5000 bootstrap cycles for estimation of 95% confidence interval and standard error. First, the model with the total or general IU as a single mediation variable and the general religiousness as a dependent variable, second, the model with the prospective IU and inhibitive IU as two mediation variables and the general religiousness as a dependent variable, and lastly, the model with the general IU as a single mediation variable and the dimension of religiousness as a dependent variable (separate analysis for each dimension) were conducted. The interrelationship in the dimensions of religiousness (i.e., believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging), among groups, were studied through simple and partial correlations. The repeated measure analysis was used to assess the relative importance attributed to each dimension of religiousness, among groups. The same steps were followed for the statistical analysis of both samples.

Results

Students’ sample

Table 1 shows the distribution of variables. After the list-wise deletion of missing cases, path analyses were conducted on the sample of 838 cases.

Table 1. The distribution of variables in the students sample.

Variable	M	SD	Range	N
Religiousness	5.20	1.53	1–7	861
Believing	5.20	1.81	1–7	864
Bonding	5.44	1.79	1–7	866
Behaving	5.04	1.89	1–7	863
Belonging	5.10	1.99	1–7	866
IU	40.64	9.70	15–60	862
Prospective IU	25.23	5.78	9–35	867
Inhibitive IU	15.41	4.98	5–25	863
Age	21.43	3.12	16–29	868
Sex (female)	0.48	0.50	0–1	868
Handedness (LQ)	77.65	38.38	-100-100	867
Height (in meters)	1.64	0.10	1.07–1.98	861
BMI	32.56	5.43	18.37–52.28	857
Caste status (OBC)	0.45	0.50	0–1	861
Caste status (SC)	0.27	0.45	0–1	861
Income (60 thousand-1lakh)	0.09	0.29	0–1	865
Income (30–60 thousand)	0.22	0.42	0–1	865
Income (10–30 thousand)	0.42	0.49	0–1	865
Income (< 10 thousand)	0.23	0.42	0–1	865
Religion (muslim)	0.12	0.32	0–1	868
Religion (others)	0.07	0.26	0–1	868
Risktaking score (2)	0.04	0.20	0–1	859
Risktaking score (3)	0.06	0.24	0–1	859
Risktaking score (4)	0.17	0.38	0–1	859
Risktaking score (5)	0.07	0.26	0–1	859
Risktaking score (6)	0.08	0.26	0–1	859
Risktaking score (7)	0.38	0.49	0–1	859
Education (PG & above)^*	0.25	0.44	0–1	865

Open in a new tab

Note. IU = intolerance of uncertainty, LQ = laterality quotient, BMI = body mass index, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, PG = post-graduation. N shows the number of participants after deletion of missing cases.

* Because of fewer cases, extreme categories merged to form two categories’ of ‘Undergraduate & below’ and ‘PG & above’.

General IU as the mediator of the effects of antecedent variables on general religiousness

In the first model, general IU was the mediation factor in the relationship of SES (family income and caste status) and other variables (covariates) with religiousness. Fig 1 shows the final path analysis model. Table 2 shows the effects of antecedent variables on the mediation variable as well as (direct and indirect effect) on the dependent variable.

Fig 1 — IU = intolerance of uncertainty, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, th. = thousand, LQ = laterality quotient (handedness).

Table 2. The effects (direct and indirect effects) of antecedent variables on the mediation variable (general IU) and the dependent variable (religiousness) in the students sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	HCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.52	0.06	8.3^***
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.69	0.76	2.2^*	-0.86	1.36	-0.6	0.88	0.41	0.11	1.72
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	-0.23	0.83	-0.3	-5.13	1.49	-3.5^***	-0.12	0.45	-1.02	0.74
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 817) = 0.8, p = .5
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.035	1.69	0.6	4.59	3.01	1.5	0.54	0.93	-1.25	2.38
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	1.97	1.17	1.7	4.31	2.09	2.1 ^*	1.02	0.63	-0.15	2.36
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	1.78	0.83	2.1^*	-0.19	1.48	-0.1	0.92	0.45	0.07	1.82
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	0.65	0.89	0.7	-1.74	1.58	-1.1	0.34	0.48	-0.59	1.29
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 815) = 0.7, p = .6
Handedness (LQ)	0.028	0.01	3.2 ^***	0.003	0.015	0.2	0.014	0.01	0.01	0.03
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 818) = 0.3, p = .6
Sex	0.89	0.68	1.3	4.23	1.2	3.5 ^***	0.46	0.36	-0.22	1.18
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 818) = 1.0, p = .3
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-1.33	1.86	-0.7	-1.13	3.3	-0.3	-0.69	1.12	-2.98	1.42
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-2.64	1.55	-1.7	1.65	2.76	0.6	-1.37	0.84	-3.05	0.26
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-0.15	1.1	-0.1	2.07	1.97	1.1	-0.08	0.58	-1.22	1.07
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.69	1.44	-3.3^***	-0.37	2.58	-0.1	-2.44	0.78	-4.05	-1.0
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-0.49	1.43	-0.3	-1.43	2.55	-0.6	-0.25	0.78	-1.8	1.29
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-0.11	0.94	-0.1	5.91	1.67	3.5 ^***	-0.06	0.50	-1.04	0.94
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 813) = 1.2, p = .3
Age	0.38	0.11	3.5 ^***	0.33	0.20	1.7	0.20	0.07	0.072	0.34
X*M (X = Age)							F(1, 818) = 0.2, p = .6
Religion (Hindu vs. muslim)	-1.04	1.06	-1.0	5.78	1.89	3.1^**	-0.54	0.51	-1.62	0.43
Religion (Hindu vs. other religion)	0.95	1.31	0.7	11.46	2.32	4.9 ^***	0.49	0.74	-0.91	2.02
X*M (X = Religion)							F(2, 817) = 1.1, p = .3
	R² = 0.071, F(17, 820) = 3.66, p < .001			R² = 0.18, F(18, 819) = 9.83, p < .001

Open in a new tab

Note. M = mediation variable (intolerance of uncertainty), Y = Dependent variable (religiousness), Coeff. = coefficient, SE = standard error, LCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, LQ = laterality quotient, X*M = interaction of antecedent and mediation variables (moderation effect); bold values indicate significant indirect effects (not including zero between upper and lower limits of 95% confidence interval).

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

Although the omnibus direct effect of income on religiousness was (nominally) non-significant, F(4, 819) = 2.3, p = .057, participants in the family income bracket of 60 thousand to 1lakh does show lower religiousness than participants with income lower than this (lower than 60 thousand; relative direct effect). Moreover, there was a significant (IU mediated) indirect effect of family income (30–60 thousand vs. lower income) on religiousness. Thus, the decrease in family income leads to an increase in IU, which, in turn, leads to an increase in religiousness.

Caste had both direct and indirect effects. Thus, lowering of caste status (GC vs. others) leads to an increase in IU, which, in turn, leads to an increase in religiousness (indirect effect). However, OBC showed more religiousness than SC (direct effect; omnibus test: F(2, 819) = 5.95, p = .003).

Age had an indirect effect, but no direct effect, on religiousness. Thus, an increase in age leads to higher IU, which, in turn, leads to higher religiousness. Similar to this, handedness also had an indirect effect, but no direct effect, on religiousness. Thus, right-handedness leads to higher IU, which, in turn, leads to higher religiousness.

Risk-taking had a direct (omnibus test: F(6, 819) = 3.79, p = .001) as well as an indirect effect on religiousness. Thus, highest-level risk-takers (scoring 7, compared to lowest-level risk-takers) have higher religiousness (direct effect), whereas intermediate-level risk-takers (scoring 5, compared to lowest-level risk-takers) have lower IU, which, in turn, leads to lower religiousness (indirect effect).

Sex had a direct, but no indirect, effect on religiousness. Thus, women (compared to men) have higher religiousness. Similarly, religion had a direct (omnibus test: F(2, 819) = 15.95, p < .001), but no indirect, effect on religiousness. Thus, minority-religion participants (compared to majority-religion participants) have higher religiousness. There was no moderation effect (X-M interaction) in any of the above-reported mediation analyses (Table 2).

Because height is collinear with the combination of sex, age, and caste, the effect of height was separately analyzed for men and women (see S1 Fig). An indirect effect (b = -.75, SE = 0.3, 95% CI = -1.5 to -0.2; direct effect: b = 0.46, t(375) = 0.5, p = .6; X-M interaction: F(1, 374) = 0.3, p = .6) of height on religiousness among women (but not among men, indirect effect: b = 0.10, SE = 0.26, 95% CI = -0.4 to 0.6; direct effect: b = 1.1, t(419) = 1.2, p = .6; X-M interaction: F(1, 418) = 1.1, p = .3) was found. Thus, taller women have lower IU which, in turn, leads to lower religiousness.

Moreover, because BMI (indirect effect: b = 0.005, SE = 0.003, 95% CI = -0.001 to 0.01; direct effect: b = -0.01, t(825) = -1.4, p = .2) and education (indirect effect: b = 0.04, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = -0.3 to 0.11; direct effect: b = 0.21, t(835) = 1.8, p = .07) had no effect on religiousness, these variables were excluded from the final model.

Prospective and inhibitive IUs as mediators of the effects of antecedent variables on general religiousness

There were no mediation effects of the combination of prospective and inhibitive IUs. Therefore, we have reported the results of a simpler, parallel mediation, model (analyzing mediation effects of prospective and inhibitive IUs; see Table 3 and S2 Fig).

Table 3. The effects (direct and indirect) of antecedent and mediation (prospective IU & inhibitive IU) variables on religiousness in the students’ sample.

	Effect on M1			Effect on M2			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect (on Y) mediated by M1				Indirect effect (on Y) mediated by M2
	Cof.	SE	t	Cof.	SE	t	Cof.	SE	t	Cof.	SE	LCI	UCI	Cof.	SE	LCI	UCI
IUP							0.9	0.13	6.8^***
IUI							0.07	0.15	0.5
C1	0.96	0.45	2.1^*	0.73	0.39	1.9	-0.89	1.35	-0.7	0.86	0.42	0.07	1.71	0.05	0.13	-0.2	0.36
C2	0.13	0.50	0.3	-0.36	0.43	-0.8	-5.34	1.48	-3.6^***	0.12	0.47	-0.79	1.06	-0.03	0.09	-0.3	0.14
X*M										F(2, 816) = 0.2, p = .8				F(2, 816) = 0.8, p = .4
I1	0.69	1.00	0.7	0.34	0.88	0.4	4.48	2.99	1.5	0.62	1.03	-1.37	2.72	0.02	0.15	-0.25	0.39
I2	1.15	0.70	1.7	.82	.61	1.4	4.24	2.07	2.1^*	1.03	0.68	-0.21	2.48	0.06	0.16	-0.27	0.42
I3	0.86	0.49	1.8	0.91	0.43	2.1*	-0.1	1.47	-0.1	0.77	0.47	-0.14	1.73	0.07	0.16	-0.23	0.43
I4	0.40	0.53	0.8	0.25	0.46	0.6	-1.78	1.57	-1.1	0.36	0.47	-0.52	1.32	0.02	0.08	-0.14	0.22
X*M										F(4, 814) = 0.7, p = .6				F(4, 814) = 0.7, p = .6
LQ	0.012	0.005	3.8^***	0.008	0.004	1.9	-0.0	0.015	-0.0	0.017	0.006	0.01	.03	0.001	0.002	-0.002	0.004
X*M										F(1, 817) = 0.2, p = .6				F(1, 817) = 0.7, p = .4
Age	0.26	0.06	4.0^***	0.12	0.06	2.1^*	0.28	0.19	1.5	0.23	0.07	0.11	0.38	0.01	0.02	-0.03	0.05
X*M										F(1, 817) = 0.2, p = .7				F(1, 817) = 0.1, p = .8
RT1	-1.04	1.1	-0.9	-0.29	0.96	-0.3	-0.86	3.29	-0.3	-0.93	1.19	-3.5	1.24	-0.02	0.17	-0.42	0.29
RT2	-1.62	0.92	-1.8	-1.02	0.80	-1.3	1.80	2.74	0.7	-1.45	0.88	-3.31	0.23	-0.07	0.20	-0.56	0.31
RT3	-0.16	0.66	-0.2	0.01	0.57	0.0	2.14	1.95	1.1	-0.14	0.60	-1.35	1.04	0.00	0.09	-0.20	0.22
RT4	-2.3	0.86	-2.7^**	-2.4	0.75	-3.2^**	-0.57	2.57	-0.2	-2.06	0.81	-3.69	-0.51	-0.18	0.38	-0.98	0.56
RT5	0.61	0.85	0.7	-1.1	0.74	-1.5	-2.2	2.54	-0.9	0.55	0.81	-1.09	2.11	-0.08	0.21	-0.58	0.29
RT6	0.31	0.56	0.6	-0.42	0.49	-0.9	5.60	1.67	3.4^***	0.28	0.52	-0.75	1.31	-0.03	0.10	-0.29	0.16
X*M										F(6, 812) = 1.3, p = .3				F(6, 812) = 0.7, p = .7
R1	-0.20	0.63	-0.32	-0.84	0.55	-1.5	5.49	1.88	2.9^**	-0.18	0.55	-1.32	0.88	-0.61	0.15	-0.43	0.22
R2	-0.14	0.78	-0.18	1.09	0.68	1.61	12.0	2.32	5.2^***	-0.13	0.75	-1.60	1.34	0.08	0.21	-0.30	0.58
X*M										F(2, 816) = 0.29, p = .8				F(2, 816) = 2.0, p = .13
Sex	0.64	0.40	1.6	0.25	0.35	0.7	4.1	1.20	3.4^***	0.58	0.37	-0.12	1.34	0.02	0.07	-0.11	0.19
X*M										F(1, 817) = 0.0, p = .99				F(1, 817) = 3.34, p = .07
	R² = 0.08, F(17, 820) = 3.91, p < .001			R² = 0.05, F(17, 820) = 2.57, p < .001			R² = 0.19, F(19, 818) = 9.98, p < .001

Open in a new tab

Note. M1 = mediation variable 1 (IUP), M2 = mediation variable 2 (IUI), Y = Dependent variable (religiousness), Cof. = coefficient, SE = standard error, LCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval, IUP = prospective intolerance of uncertainty, IUI = inhibitive intolerance of uncertainty, C1 = general castes vs. others, C2 = other backward castes vs. scheduled castes, I1 = Income (above vs. below 1lakh), I2 = Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below), I3 = Income (30–60 thousand vs. below), I4 = Income (10–30 thousand vs. below), LQ = laterality quotient, RT1 = Risk-taking (1vs. 2), RT2 = Risk-taking (1vs. 3), RT3 = Risk-taking (1vs. 4), RT4 = Risk-taking (1vs. 5), RT5 = Risk-taking (1vs. 6), RT6 = Risk-taking (1vs. 7), R1 = Hindu vs. Muslim, R2 = Hindu vs. others, X*M = interaction of antecedent (given in above row) and mediation variables (moderation effect); bold values indicate significant indirect effects (not including zero between upper and lower limits of 95% confidence interval).

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

The lower family income (30–60 thousand vs. lower income) was related to inhibitive IU; however, it failed to translate into an (indirect) effect on religiousness. The lower caste status (GC vs. others) and the right-handedness were related to prospective IU and these effects translated into (indirect) effects on religiousness. Age and the intermediate level of risk-taking (scoring 5, compared to lowest-level risk-takers) were related to both prospective and inhibitive IUs, however, only the effects on prospective IU translated into (indirect) effects on religiousness. Thus, between the sub-factors of IU, only prospective IU was a factor in the religiousness (and not the inhibitive IU). The direct effects of antecedent variables (i.e., the direct effects of higher caste status, lower family income, the highest level of risk-taking, minority religions, and women) on religiousness were similar to that reported in the above section.

Moreover, among women, whereas height affected both inhibitive IU (b = -8.9, t(376) = -2.45, p = .02) and prospective IU (b = -11.8, t(376) = -2.9, p = .004), only the effect on prospective IU translated into an effect on religiousness (indirect effect: b = -1.09, SE = 0.45, 95% CI = -2.1 to -0.3).

General IU as the mediator of the effects of antecedent variables on the dimensions of religiousness

We also studied the effects of antecedent variables and general IU (mediation factor) on the dimensions of religiousness (for statistics, see Tables 4–7). The effects were largely similar to the effects reported for the general religiousness above.

Table 4. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on believing in the students’ sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	UCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.14	0.02	7.6^***
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.69	0.76	2.23^*	0.19	0.41	0.46	0.24	.1117	.0259	.4702
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	-0.23	0.84	-0.28	-1.13	0.45	-2.52^*	-.033	.1258	-.2951	.2080
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 817) = 1.04, p = .4
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.04	1.69	0.6	2.2	0.91	2.5^*	0.15	0.25	-0.34	0.65
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	1.97	1.17	1.69	0.75	0.63	1.2	0.28	0.17	-0.03	0.63
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	1.78	0.83	2.14^*	0.68	0.45	1.5	0.25	0.13	0.02	0.52
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	0.65	0.89	0.73	0.009	0.48	.02	0.09	0.13	-0.15	0.34
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 815) = 0.9, p = .5
Handedness (LQ)	0.03	.01	3.22^**	-0.001	0.005	-0.11	0.004	0.001	0.001	0.007
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 818) = 0.00, p = .98
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-1.33	1.86	-0.72	-0.27	1.00	-0.27	-0.19	0.31	-0.81	0.41
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-2.64	1.55	-1.71	-0.27	0.83	-0.33	-0.37	0.23	-0.84	0.07
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-0.15	1.10	-0.13	0.37	0.59	0.63	-0.02	0.16	-0.32	0.30
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.69	1.44	-3.26^**	0.57	0.78	0.74	-0.67	0.22	-1.1	-0.26
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-0.49	1.43	-0.34	-0.40	0.77	-0.52	-0.07	0.22	-0.50	0.38
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-0.11	0.94	-0.12	1.67	0.50	3.32^**	-0.02	0.14	-0.29	0.26
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 813) = 2.54, p = .02
Age	0.38	0.11	3.46^***	0.09	0.06	1.54	0.05	0.02	0.02	0.09
X*M (X = Age)							F(1, 818) = 1.36, p = .2
Sex	0.89	0.68	1.32	1.02	0.36	2.80^**	0.13	0.1	-0.06	0.33
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 818) = 0.93, p = .3
Religion (Hindu vs. muslim)	-1.04	1.06	-0.98	1.38	0.57	2.42^*	-0.03	0.03	-0.08	0.02
Religion (Hindu vs. others)	0.95	1.31	0.73	2.88	0.70	4.11^**	0.02	0.04	-0.05	0.10
X*M (X = Religion)							F(2, 817) = 0.97, p = .4
	R² = 0.07, F(17, 820) = 3.7, p < .001			R² = 0.15, F(18, 819) = 8.07, p < .001

Open in a new tab

Note. M = mediation variable (intolerance of uncertainty), Y = dependent variable (believing), Coeff. = coefficient, SE = standard error, LCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, LQ = laterality quotient, X*M = interaction of antecedent and mediation variables (moderation effect); bold values indicate significant indirect effects (not including zero between upper and lower limits of 95% confidence interval).

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

Table 7. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on belonging in the students’ sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	UCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.15	0.02	7.11^***
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.69	0.76	2.23^*	0.17	0.46	0.38	0.25	0.12	0.03	0.48
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	-0.23	0.83	-0.28	-0.73	0.50	-1.47	-0.03	0.13	-0.31	0.21
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 817) = 0.51, p = .6
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.03	1.69	0.61	0.53	1.01	0.53	0.15	0.26	-0.37	0.67
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	1.97	1.17	1.69	1.47	0.70	2.10^*	0.29	0.18	-0.04	0.68
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	1.78	0.83	2.14^*	-0.55	0.50	-1.11	0.26	0.13	0.01	0.53
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	0.65	0.89	0.73	-0.27	0.53	-0.50	0.10	0.13	-0.16	0.36
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 815) = 0.84, p = .5
Handedness (LQ)	0.03	0.01	3.22^**	0.002	0.005	0.45	0.004	0.002	0.002	.007
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 818) = 0.24, p = .6
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-1.33	1.86	-0.72	0.59	1.11	0.53	-0.20	0.32	-0.89	0.40
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-2.64	1.55	-1.71	0.57	0.93	0.62	-0.39	0.24	-0.87	0.07
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-0.15	1.10	-0.13	0.28	0.66	0.42	-0.02	0.17	-0.35	0.30
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.69	1.44	-3.26^**	-1.16	0.87	-1.33	-0.70	0.23	-1.18	-0.28
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-0.49	1.43	-0.34	-0.15	0.86	-0.18	-0.07	0.22	-0.51	0.36
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-0.11	0.94	-0.12	1.09	0.56	1.94	-0.02	0.14	-0.31	0.27
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 813) = 1.38, p = .2
Age	0.38	0.11	3.46^***	0.16	0.07	2.37^*	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.10
X*M (X = Age)							F(1, 818) = 1.24, p = .3
Sex	0.89	0.68	1.32	0.93	0.40	2.29^*	0.13	0.10	-0.07	0.34
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 818) = 0.00, p = .96
Religion (Hindu vs. muslim)	-1.04	1.06	-0.98	1.50	0.63	2.37^*	-0.15	0.15	-0.44	0.13
Religion (Hindu vs. others)	0.95	1.30	0.73	2.50	0.78	3.20^**	0.14	0.22	-0.28	0.59
X*M (X = Religion)							F(2, 817) = 0.51, p = .6
	R² = 0.07, F(17, 820) = 3.66, p < .001			R² = 0.12, F(18, 819) = 6.11, p < .001

Open in a new tab

Note. M = mediation variable (intolerance of uncertainty), Y = dependent variable (belonging), Coeff. = coefficient, SE = standard error, LCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, LQ = laterality quotient, X*M = interaction of antecedent and mediation variables (moderation effect); bold values indicate significant indirect effects (not including zero between upper and lower limits of 95% confidence interval).

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

Table 5. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on bonding in the students’ sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	UCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				.12	.02	6.3^***
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.69	0.76	2.23^*	-0.39	0.41	-0.96	0.20	0.09	0.03	0.39
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	-0.23	0.83	-0.28	-2.01	0.45	-4.5^***	-0.03	0.10	-0.24	0.18
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 817) = 1.9, p = .2
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.03	1.69	0.61	-0.53	0.90	-0.59	0.12	0.21	-0.29	0.56
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	1.97	1.17	1.69	1.58	0.63	2.53^*	0.23	0.14	-0.04	0.52
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	1.78	0.83	2.14^*	-0.49	.44	-1.09	0.21	0.10	0.01	0.42
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	0.65	0.89	0.73	-0.90	0.48	-1.88	0.08	0.10	-0.12	0.29
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 815) = 1.1, p = .3
Handedness (LQ)	0.03	.01	3.2^**	0.004	0.005	0.8	0.003	0.001	0.001	0.006
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 818) = 0.04, p = .8
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-1.33	1.86	-0.72	-1.02	0.99	-1.03	-0.16	0.25	-0.70	0.30
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-2.64	1.55	-1.71	0.81	0.83	0.98	-0.31	0.19	-0.70	0.07
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-0.15	1.10	-0.13	0.61	0.59	1.04	-0.02	0.13	-0.27	0.24
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.69	1.44	-3.26^**	-0.14	0.78	-0.19	-0.55	0.19	-0.95	-0.20
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-0.49	1.43	-0.34	-0.73	0.77	-0.96	-0.06	0.18	-0.41	0.30
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-0.11	0.94	-0.12	1.50	0.50	2.98^**	-0.01	0.12	-0.24	0.22
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 813) = 0.81, p = .6
Age	0.38	0.11	3.46^***	0.02	0.06	0.29	0.04	0.02	0.02	0.08
X*M (X = Age)							F(1, 818) = 0.2, p = .7
Sex	0.89	0.68	1.32	1.26	0.36	3.5^***	0.1	0.08	-0.05	0.27
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 818) = 2.45, p = .12
Religion (Hindu vs. muslim)	-1.04	1.06	-0.98	0.83	0.57	1.46	-0.12	0.12	-0.37	0.10
Religion (Hindu vs. others)	0.95	1.31	0.73	2.31	0.7	3.3^***	0.11	0.17	-0.22	0.46
X*M (X = Religion)							F(2, 817) = 1.14, p = .3
	R² = 0.07, F(17, 820) = 3.7, p < .001			R² = 0.13, F(18, 819) = 6.82, p < .001

Open in a new tab

Note. M = mediation variable (intolerance of uncertainty), Y = dependent variable (bonding), Coeff. = coefficient, SE = standard error, LCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, LQ = laterality quotient, X*M = interaction of antecedent and mediation variables (moderation effect); bold values indicate significant indirect effects (not including zero between upper and lower limits of 95% confidence interval).

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

Table 6. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on behaving in the students’ sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	UCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.11	0.02	5.6^***
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.69	0.76	2.23^*	-0.83	0.43	-1.91	0.03	0.02	0.004	0.07
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	-0.23	0.84	-0.28	-1.25	0.47	-2.65^**	-0.01	.02	-0.04	0.03
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 817) = 0.3, p = .8
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.04	1.69	0.61	2.37	0.96	2.48^*	0.11	0.20	-0.28	0.52
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	1.97	1.17	1.69	0.50	0.66	0.75	0.22	0.14	-0.03	0.53
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	1.78	0.83	2.14^*	0.18	0.47	0.37	0.20	0.10	0.01	0.41
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	0.65	0.89	0.73	-0.58	0.50	-1.16	0.07	0.10	-0.11	0.28
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 815) = 0.81, p = .5
Handedness (LQ)	0.03	.01	3.2^**	-0.002	0.005	-0.4	0.003	0.001	0.001	0.006
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 818) = 2.02, p = .2
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-1.33	1.86	-0.72	-0.42	1.05	-0.4	-0.15	0.24	-0.67	0.32
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-2.64	1.55	-1.71	0.54	0.88	0.61	-0.29	0.18	-0.67	.05
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-0.15	1.10	-0.13	0.80	0.63	1.29	-0.02	0.13	-0.26	0.23
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.69	1.44	-3.3^**	0.35	0.82	0.44	-0.52	0.18	-0.9	-0.19
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-0.49	1.43	-0.34	-0.14	0.81	-0.18	-0.05	0.17	-0.4	0.28
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-0.11	0.94	-0.12	1.65	0.53	3.1^**	-0.01	0.11	-0.22	0.21
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 813) = 0.62, p = .7
Age	0.38	0.11	3.46^***	0.07	0.06	1.1	0.04	0.02	0.01	0.08
X*M (X = Age)							F(1, 818) = 0.22, p = .6
Sex	0.89	0.68	1.32	1.03	0.38	2.7^**	0.10	0.08	-0.05	0.26
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 818) = 0.63, p = .4
Religion (Hindu vs. muslim)	-1.04	1.06	-0.98	2.08	0.60	3.5^***	-0.02	0.02	-0.06	0.01
Religion (Hindu vs. others)	0.95	1.31	0.73	3.77	0.74	5.1^***	0.02	0.03	-0.04	0.08
X*M (X = Religion)							F(2, 817) = 0.49, p = .6
	R² = 0.07, F(17, 820) = 3.66, p < .001			R² = 0.13, F(18, 819) = 6.61, p < .001

Open in a new tab

Note. M = mediation variable (intolerance of uncertainty), Y = dependent variable (behaving), Coeff. = coefficient, SE = standard error, LCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, LQ = laterality quotient, X*M = interaction of antecedent and mediation variables (moderation effect); bold values indicate significant indirect effects (not including zero between upper and lower limits of 95% confidence interval).

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

The indirect (mediated by general IU) effect of the lower caste status (GC vs. others) and the direct effect of the higher caste status (SC vs. OBC) were similar in believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging. The indirect effect of the lower family income (30–60 thousand vs. below) was similar in believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging, whereas the direct effect of the lower family income was similar in bonding and belonging, at one level (60 thousand-1 lakh vs. below), and similar in believing and behaving, at another level (above vs. below 1 lakh). The indirect effects of right-handedness and age and the direct effect of women were similar in believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging. The indirect effect of the intermediate level of risk-taking (scoring 5, compared to the lowest level) was similar in believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging, whereas the direct effect of the highest level of risk-taking (scoring 7, compared to the lowest level) was similar in believing, bonding, and behaving only (no effect in belonging). Moreover, the direct effect of other-religion (compared to Hindu) was similar in believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging, whereas the direct effect of Muslim (compared to Hindu) was similar in believing, behaving, and belonging only (no effect in bonding, i.e., Hindus and Muslims were similar in bonding). There was no moderation effect (X-M interaction), except that risk-taking moderated the effect of IU on believing.

The indirect effect of height was similar in believing (b = -0.80, SE = 0.37, 95% CI = -1.64 to -.20), bonding (b = -0.63, SE = 0.29, 95% CI = -1.3 to -0.2), behaving (b = -0.60, SE = 0.31, 95% CI = -1.3 to -0.11), and belonging (b = -0.96, SE = 0.41, 95% CI = -1.9 to -.30), among women.

The interrelationships in the dimensions of religiousness

The inter-correlations in the dimensions of religiousness (see Table 8) among the whole sample varied from .50 to .62. The inter-correlations in the dimensions of religiousness were similar (the ‘others’ were not analyzed because of the mixed religion category) among Hindus (.51 to .61), and Muslims (.34 to .60). The inter-correlations of the dimensions of religiousness were slightly higher among SC (.58 to .68) than among GC (.50 to .62) and OBC (.44 to .57). The inter-correlations in the dimensions of religiousness were slightly higher among participants with income below 30 thousand (.54 to .65) than with income 30 to 60 thousand (.40 to .56), and income above 60 thousand (.48 to .57). Interestingly, for all these groups, after controlling religiousness, the partial inter-correlations were negative and, mostly, significant. This shows that the dimensions of religiousness were distinct from the general religiousness.

Table 8. Simple and partial (in parenthesis; after controlling religiousness) correlations between the dimensions of religiousness in social, economic, and religion groups among the students’ sample.

Students	Bel.-Bond.	Bel.-Beh.	Bel.-Blg.	Bond.-Beh.	Bond.-Blg.	Beh.-Blg.
Total (n = 861)	.56 [.50, .61] (-.29 [-.37, -.21])	.62 [.56, .67] (-.26 [-.34, -.18])	.52 [.47, .58] (-.40 [-.46, -.33])	.59 [.53, .64] (-.30 [-.38, -.23])	.50 [.44, .56] (-.39 [-.46, -.32])	.57 [.52, .63] (-.35 [-.41, -.26])
Hindu (n = 698)	.56 [.51, .62] (-.28 [-.36, -.20])	.60 [.54, .65] (-.30 [-.38, -.22])	.52 [.46, .58] (-.39 [-.46, -.32])	.61 [.55, .66] (-.27 [-.35, -.18])	.56 [.51, .62] (-.42 [-.49, -.33])	.58 [.52, .64] (-.33 [-.41, -.25])
Muslim (n = 98)	.46 [.25, .65] (-.25 [-.50, -.00])	.60 [.42, .75] (-.10 [-.31, .14])	.44 [.21, .60] (-.49 [-.63, -.30])	.34 [.08, .57] (-.46 [-.36, -.20])	.39 [.15, .58] (-.30 [-.60, -.28])	.45 [.25, .64] (-.28 [-.59, -.12])
GC (n = 235)	.50 [.39, .60] (-.39 [-.49, -.25])	.62 [.52, .71] (-.21 [-.35, -.07])	.54 [.42, .64] (-.38 [-.51, -.24])	.60 [.49, .70] (-.25 [-.41, -.08])	.54 [.42, .65] (-.36 [-.50, -.20])	.58 [.48, .68] (-.40 [-.51, -.26])
OBC (n = 385)	.49 [.41, .57] (-.26 [-.37, -.13])	.57 [.49, .65] (-.26 [-.38, -.14])	.44 [.34, .52] (-.44 [-.53, -.33])	.55 [.45, .63] (-.29 [-.40, -.18])	.43 [.33, .53] (-.40 [-.49, -.29])	.54 [.45, .63] (-.33 [-.44, -.21])
SC (n = 234)	.66 [.58, .73] (-.25 [-.40, -.11])	.68 [.58, .77] (-.28 [-.41, -.10])	.62 [.51, .71] (-.40 [-.52, -.27])	.62 [.52, .71] (-.39 [-.49, -.29])	.58 [.48, .68] (-.39 [-.50, -.25])	.64 [.55, .73] (-.29 [-.42, -.15])
Income 1 (n = 111)	.49 [.33, .62] (-.35 [-.52, -.13])	.57 [.42, .69] (-.28 [-.47, -.07])	.48 [.32, .63] (-.42 [-.58, -.24])	.55 [.39, .70] (-.30 [-.52, -.06])	.49 [.30, .65] (-.36 [-.56, -.15])	.57 [.41, .71] (-.28 [-.48, -.06])
Income 2 (n = 191)	.45 [.32, .58] (-.31 [-.47, -.14])	.56 [.43, .67] (-.29 [-.46, -.10])	.44 [.31, .56] (-.39 [-.52, -.25])	.51 [.38, .63] (-.30 [-.45, -.15])	.40 [.26, .54] (-.37 [-.51, -.19])	.51 [.39, .62] (-.34 [-.49, -.17])
Income 3 (n = 556)	.61 [.54, .67] (-.26 [-.36, -.17])	.65 [.59, .71] (-.25 [-.33, -.17])	.56 [.49, .62] (-.39 [-.47, -.31])	.62 [.56, .68] (-.30 [-.38, -.21])	.54 [.46, .60] (-.42 [-.49, -.33])	.59 [.53, .66] (-.37 [-.45, -.28])

Open in a new tab

Note. Bel. = believing, Bond. = bonding, Beh. = behaving, Blg. = belonging, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, Income 1 = above 60 thousand, Income 2 = 30–60 thousand, Income 3 = below 30 thousand. For a more meaningful understanding (aligned with path analysis), in this analysis, original five categories were merged to form three categories of income. One thousand bootstrap cycles, for estimation of 95% confidence interval, were used to derive correlations. Brackets report 95% confidence interval.

The relative importance of the dimensions of religiousness in different groups

We conducted one-way repeated measures analyses of the dimensions of religiousness for different groups (see Table 9). Among Hindus, bonding was highest, followed by believing, which, in turn, was higher than behaving (belonging is lower than bonding). Among Muslims, there was no difference in the dimensions of religiousness. However, bonding tends to be the highest (in mean scores). Among GC, bonding was higher than all other dimensions. Among OBC, bonding was highest, followed by believing, which, in turn, was higher than behaving (belonging is lower than bonding). In SC, behaving was lower than all other dimensions. Moreover, among the higher-income group (above 60 thousand), there was no difference in the dimensions of religiousness, whereas, among the intermediate-income group (30–60 thousand), bonding was highest, followed by believing, which, in turn, was higher than behaving (belonging is lower than bonding) and, among the lower-income group (below 30 thousand), bonding was highest, followed by believing, which, in turn, was higher than behaving and belonging.

Table 9. The distribution and the comparison of the dimensions of religiousness in different groups among the students sample.

	Believing^a	Bonding^b	Behaving^c	Belonging^d	Comparisons
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	df	F	ɳ²
Hindu	5.08 (0.07)^b,c	5.36 (0.07)^a,c,d	4.86 (0.07)^a,b	4.99 (0.08)^b	3, 695	21.5***	.09	b > a > c; b > d
Muslims	5.52 (0.17)	5.75 (0.15)	5.6 (0.17)	5.5 (0.18)	3, 95	0.9	.03
GC	5.09 (0.12)^b	5.47 (0.12) ^a,c,d	5.22 (0.12)^b	4.99 (0.13)^b	3, 232	6***	.07	b > a, c, d
OBC	5.36 (0.09)^b,c	5.69 (0.08) ^a,c,d	5.12 (0.09)^a,b	5.21 (0.10)^b	3, 382	16***	.11	b > a > c; b > d
SC	5.06 (0.13) ^c	5.04 (0.13) ^c	4.75 (0.13) ^a,b,d	5.03 (0.13) ^c	3, 231	3.6*	.05	a, b, d > c
Income 1	4.78 (0.19)	5.11 (0.18)	4.7 (0.18)	4.67 (0.18)	3, 108	2.35	.06
Income 2	5.04 (0.13)^b	5.5 (0.12)^a,c,d	4.94 (0.14)^b,d	5.22 (0.13)	3, 188	7.3***	.10	b > a > c; b > d
Income 3	5.35 (0.08)^b,c,d	5.5 (0.08)^a,c,d	5.15 (0.08)^a,b	5.15 (0.09)^a,b	3, 553	11.1***	.06	b > a > c, d

Open in a new tab

Note. Superscripted letters indicate differences between the dimensions of religiousness, significant at the .05 level. GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, Income 1 = above 60 thousand, Income 2 = 30–60 thousand, Income 3 = below 30 thousand. For a more meaningful understanding, in this analysis, original five categories were merged to form three categories of income.

Community sample

Table 10 shows the distribution of variables. After the list-wise deletion of missing cases, path analyses were conducted on a sample of 232 cases.

Table 10. The distribution of variables in the community sample.

Variable	M	SD	Range	N
Religiousness	5.60	1.29	1.83–7	247
Believing	5.66	1.57	1–7	249
Bonding	5.70	1.66	1–7	249
Behaving	5.45	1.80	1–7	247
Belonging	5.59	1.79	1–7	250
IU	39.50	8.83	12–60	249
Prospective IU	24.73	5.40	7–35	249
Inhibitive IU	14.75	4.65	5–25	250
Age	37.55	6.95	27–63	250
Sex (female)	0.37	0.49	0–1	248
Handedness (LQ)	76.90	42.89	-100- 100	246
Height (in meters)	1.64	0.08	1.42–1.85	248
BMI	39.36	5.80	25.40–62.13	247
Caste status (OBC)	0.43	0.50	0–1	245
Caste status (SC)	0.11	0.31	0–1	245
Income (60 thousand-1lakh)	0.11	0.31	0–1	248
Income (30–60 thousand)	0.28	0.45	0–1	248
Income (10–30 thousand)	0.33	0.47	0–1	248
Income (< 10 thousand)	0.19	0.39	0–1	248
Religion (muslim)	0.09	0.28	0–1	250
Religion (others)	0.04	0.20	0–1	250
Risktaking score (2)	0.04	0.19	0–1	249
Risktaking score (3)	0.06	0.23	0–1	249
Risktaking score (4)	0.17	0.38	0–1	249
Risktaking score (5)	0.05	0.21	0–1	249
Risktaking score (6)	0.08	0.28	0–1	249
Risktaking score (7)	0.31	0.46	0–1	249
Education (UG)	0.35	0.48	0–1	248
Education (PG)	0.34	0.48	0–1	248
Education (higher)	0.06	0.25	0–1	248

Open in a new tab

Note. IU = intolerance of uncertainty, LQ = laterality quotient, BMI = body mass index, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, UG = under-graduation PG = post-graduation. N shows the number of participants after deletion of missing cases.

General IU as the mediator of the effects of antecedent variables on general religiousness

Fig 2 shows the final path analysis model of the effect of SES and other factors on religiousness. Table 11 shows the effects of antecedent variables on mediation and (direct and indirect effects) dependent variables.

Table 11. The effects (direct and indirect effects) of antecedent variables on the mediation variable (general IU) and the dependent variable (religiousness) in the community sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	HCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.42	0.12	3.6^***
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.35	1.34	1.0	-5.7	2.3	-2.5^*	0.56	0.59	-0.6	1.8
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	0.80	1.98	0.4	-4.4	3.4	-1.3	0.34	0.88	-1.4	2.1
X*M (X = Caste)							F (2, 214) = 1.1, p = .3
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.3	1.93	0.7	3.94	3.33	1.2	0.54	0.87	-1.3	2.3
Income (60 thousand-1lakh vs. below)	3.88	1.9	2.0^*	0.78	3.31	0.2	1.63	0.84	0.2	3.4
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	4.12	1.4	2.9^**	0.75	2.47	0.3	1.73	0.76	0.4	3.3
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	-0.35	1.7	-0.2	-0.5	2.94	-0.2	-0.15	0.77	-1.7	1.4
X*M (X = Income)							F (4, 212) = 1.3, p = .3
Handedness	0.0005	.01	0.04	0.05	0.03	2.0^*	0.0002	0.005	-0.01	0.01
X*M (X = Handedness)							F (1, 215) = 2.0, p = .2
Sex	-0.95	1.24	-0.8	4.24	2.14	2.0^*	-0.4	0.53	-1.6	0.5
X*M (X = Sex)							F (1, 215) = 1.5, p = .2
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-5.2	3.31	-1.6	-12.04	5.74	-2.1^*	-2.19	1.46	-5.5	0.1
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-5.1	2.71	-1.9	1.58	4.71	0.3	-2.13	1.12	-4.6	-0.3
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-1.2	1.83	-0.7	-6.24	3.17	-2.0^*	-0.51	0.80	-2.1	1.1
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.3	2.73	-1.6	1.82	4.74	0.4	-1.79	1.12	-4.2	0.2
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-3.81	2.20	-1.8	1.78	3.79	0.5	-1.6	1.11	-3.9	0.6
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-1.66	1.51	-1.1	-0.06	2.61	-0.02	-0.69	0.67	-2.1	0.6
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F (6, 210) = 1.1, p = .4
	R² = 0.10, F(14, 217) = 1.7, p = .06			R² = 0.16, F(15, 216) = 2.72, p < .001

Open in a new tab

Note. M = mediation variable (intolerance of uncertainty), Y = Dependent variable (religiousness), GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, LQ = laterality quotient, Coeff. = coefficient, SE = standard error, LCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval, X*M = interaction of antecedent and mediation variables (moderation effect); bold values indicate significant indirect effects (not including zero between upper and lower limits of 95% confidence interval).

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

There were significant indirect effects (60 thousand-1lakh vs. lower income; 30–60 thousand vs. lower income), but no direct effects (omnibus test, F(4, 216) = 0.42, p = .79), of family income on religiousness. Thus, a decrease in family income leads to an increase in IU, which, in turn, leads to an increase in religiousness.

The omnibus direct effect of caste status on religiousness was (nominally) not significant (F(2, 216) = 3.01, p = .051). However, the relative direct effect of caste status (GC vs. others) on religiousness was significant. There was no indirect effect of caste status on religiousness. Thus, an increase in caste status (higher status) leads to a direct increase in religiousness.

Although omnibus direct effect was not significant (F(6, 216) = 1.8, p = .10), relative direct effects of risk-taking (score 1 vs. 2; score 1 vs. 4) on religiousness were significant. Thus, intermediate-level risk-takers (compared to lowest-level risk-takers) have lower religiousness. Moreover, there was also an indirect effect of risk-taking on religiousness (score 1 vs. 3). Thus, intermediate-level risk-takers (scoring 3, compared to lowest-level risk-takers) have lower IU, which, in turn, leads to lower religiousness.

Moreover, sex had a direct effect, but no indirect effect, on religiousness. Thus, women have higher religiousness than men. Similarly, handedness had a direct effect, but no indirect effect, on religiousness. Thus, right-handers have higher religiousness than left-handers. There was no moderation effect (X-M interaction) in any of the above-reported relationships (Table 11).

Age (indirect effect: b = -0.001, SE = 0.003, 95% CI = -0.007 to 0.004; direct effect: b = 0.009, t(229) = 0.8, p = .4), height (indirect effect: b = 0.18, SE = 0.29, 95% CI = -0.33 to 0.83; direct effect: b = -1.5, t(228) = -1.44, p = .15), BMI (indirect effect: b = -0.005, SE = 0.004, 95% CI = -0.013 to 0.002; direct effect: b = 0.02, t(227) = 1.52, p = .13), religion (indirect effects, Muslim (vs. Hindu): b = -0.07, SE = 0.09, 95% CI = -0.3 to 0.07; Other religion (vs. Hindu): b = -0.009, SE = 0.12, 95% CI = -0.26 to 0.22; omnibus direct effect: F (2, 228) = 1.97, p = .14) and education (indirect effect, undergraduate (vs. intermediate): b = -0.08, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = -0.2 to 0.02, postgraduate (vs. intermediate): b = -0.07, SE = 0.6, 95% CI = -0.2 to 0.03, Higher (vs. intermediate): b = -0.15, SE = 0.09, 95% CI = -0.4 to 0.001; omnibus direct effect: F (3, 226) = 0.83, p = .5) had no effects on religiousness. Therefore, these variables were excluded from the final model.

Prospective and inhibitive IUs as mediators of the effects of antecedent variables on general religiousness

There were no mediation effects of the combination of prospective and inhibitive IUs. Therefore, we have reported the results of a parallel mediation model (see Table 12 and S3 Fig).

Table 12. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (IUP & IUI) variables on religiousness in the community sample.

	Effect on M1			Effect on M2			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect (on Y) mediated by M1				Indirect effect (on Y) mediated by M2
	Cof.	SE	t	Cof.	SE	T	Cof.	SE	t	Cof.	SE	LCI	UCI	Cof.	SE	LCI	UCI
IUP							0.37	0.23	1.6
IUI							0.49	0.27	1.8
C1	0.67	0.83	0.8	0.68	0.69	1.0	-5.7	2.3	-2.5^**	0.25	0.41	-0.5	1.2	0.33	0.41	-0.4	1.23
C2	-0.35	1.23	-0.3	1.15	1.02	1.1	-4.5	3.44	-1.3	-0.13	0.57	-1.4	1.08	0.56	0.61	-0.6	1.88
X*M										F(2, 213) = 1.3, p = .3				F(2, 213) = 0.3, p = .8
I1	0.45	1.20	0.4	0.85	0.99	0.9	3.90	3.34	1.2	0.16	0.57	-0.7	1.61	0.41	0.61	-0.8	1.72
I2	-0.11	1.18	-0.1	3.98	0.97	4.1^***	0.50	3.46	0.2	-0.04	0.50	-1.1	1.08	1.94	1.15	-0.1	4.39
I3	1.32	0.87	1.5	2.80	0.72	3.9^***	0.63	2.51	0.3	0.48	0.50	-.03	1.63	1.36	0.85	-0.1	3.22
I4	-0.87	1.06	-0.8	0.52	0.88	0.60	-0.58	2.97	-0.2	-0.32	0.49	-1.5	.054	0.25	0.54	-0.7	1.50
X*M										F(4, 211) = 1.7, p = .15				F(4, 211) = 0.5, p = .7
LQ	-0.002	0.009	-0.2	0.002	0.007	0.3	0.052	0.025	2.1^*	-0.001	0.003	-0.01	0.01	0.001	0.003	-0.01	0.01
X*M										F(1, 214) = 0.7, p = .4				F(1, 214) = 2.7, p = .1
RT1	-3.42	2.05	-1.7	-1.80	1.70	-1.06	-12.1	5.76	-2.1^*	-1.26	1.27	-4.5	0.40	-0.9	0.98	-3.2	0.66
RT2	-3.43	1.68	-2.0^*	-1.65	1.39	-1.19	1.52	4.73	0.3	-1.26	1.01	-3.6	0.33	-0.8	0.81	-2.8	0.38
RT3	-0.33	1.14	-0.3	-0.88	0.94	-0.94	-6.20	3.18	-2.0	-0.12	0.50	-1.2	0.91	-0.4	0.58	-1.9	0.47
RT4	-2.36	1.70	-1.4	-1.90	1.40	-1.36	1.82	4.75	0.4	-0.87	0.94	-3.1	0.55	-0.9	0.76	-2.7	0.24
RT5	-1.97	1.35	-1.5	-1.85	1.12	-1.65	1.80	3.8	0.5	-0.72	0.76	-2.5	0.52	-0.9	0.87	-3.0	0.35
RT6	-0.28	0.94	-0.3	-1.37	0.77	-1.78	.019	2.63	0.0	-0.10	0.42	-1.1	0.72	-0.7	0.56	-2.0	0.19
X*M										F(6, 209) = 1.4, p = .2				F(6, 209) = 1.0, p = .4
Sex	0.29	0.77	0.4	-1.24	0.64	-1.95	4.34	2.18	2.0^*	0.11	0.34	-0.5	0.88	-0.6	0.50	-1.8	0.08
X*M										F(1, 214) = 0.6, p = .4				F(1, 214) = 2.0, p = .2
	R² = 0.07, F(14, 217) = 1.07, p = .40			R² = 0.17, F(14, 217) = 3.11, p < .001			R² = 0.16, F(16, 215) = 2.54, p < .01

Open in a new tab

Note. M1 = mediation variable 1 (IUP), M2 = mediation variable 2 (IUI), Y = Dependent variable (religiousness), Cof. = coefficient, SE = standard error, LCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval, IUP = prospective intolerance of uncertainty, IUI = inhibitive intolerance of uncertainty, C1 = general castes vs. others, C2 = other backward castes vs. scheduled castes, I1 = Income (above vs. below 1lakh), I2 = Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below), I3 = Income (30–60 thousand vs. below), I4 = Income (10–30 thousand vs. below), LQ = laterality quotient, RT1 = Risk-taking (1vs. 2), RT2 = Risk-taking (1vs. 3), RT3 = Risk-taking (1vs. 4), RT4 = Risk-taking (1vs. 5), RT5 = Risk-taking (1vs. 6), RT6 = Risk-taking (1vs. 7), X*M = interaction of antecedent (given in above row) and mediation variables (moderation effect); bold values indicate significant indirect effects (not including zero between upper and lower limits of 95% confidence interval).

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

The lower family income (60 thousand-1lakh vs. lower income; 30–60 thousand vs. lower income) was related to inhibitive IU; however, it failed to translate into an (indirect) effect on religiousness. The intermediate level of risk-taking (scoring 3, compared to lowest-level risk-takers) was related to prospective IU; however, it failed to translate into an (indirect) effect on religiousness. Moreover, the intermediate level of risk-taking (scoring 2, compared to lowest-level risk-takers), the higher caste status (GC vs. others), right-handedness, and women (compared to men) were directly related to religiousness.

General IU as the mediator of the effects of antecedent variables on the dimensions of religiousness

The effects of antecedent variables on the dimensions of religiousness were largely similar to the effects reported for the general religiousness above (see Tables 13–16).

Table 13. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on believing in the community sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	UCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.14	0.04	3.34^**
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.35	1.34	1.00	-2.05	0.84	-2.44^*	0.19	0.20	-0.20	0.60
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	0.80	1.98	0.41	-1.96	1.24	-1.58	0.11	0.30	-0.51	0.71
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 214) = 0.14, p = .9
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.30	1.93	0.67	0.35	1.00	0.35	0.15	0.25	-0.36	0.66
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	3.88	1.9	2.04^*	-0.02	1.00	-0.02	0.45	0.23	0.06	0.96
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	4.12	1.4016	2.94^**	-1.16	0.74	-1.56	0.48	0.22	0.11	0.97
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	-0.35	1.71	-0.21	-0.50	0.89	-0.56	-0.04	0.22	-0.49	0.37
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 212) = 2.34, p = .06
Handedness (LQ)	0.001	0.014	0.04	0.02	0.01	2.51^*	0.000	.001	-0.003	.003
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 215) = 4.08, p = .04
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-5.23	3.31	-1.58	-2.1	1.73	-1.21	-0.61	0.41	-1.56	0.03
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-5.08	2.71	-1.87	0.40	1.42	0.28	-0.59	0.32	-1.30	-0.07
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-1.22	1.83	-0.66	-1.79	0.95	-1.87	-0.14	0.22	-0.58	0.31
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.26	2.73	-1.56	-0.59	1.43	-0.42	-0.49	0.32	-1.18	0.08
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-3.82	2.18	-1.75	0.59	1.14	0.52	-0.44	0.32	-1.13	0.15
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-1.66	1.51	-1.1	0.15	0.79	0.19	-0.19	0.19	-0.60	0.18
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 210) = 0.73, p = .6
Sex	-0.95	1.24	-0.76	0.74	0.65	1.15	-0.11	0.15	-0.44	0.17
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 215) = 0.99, p = .3
	R² = 0.10, F(14, 217) = 1,68, p = .06			R² = 0.13, F(15,216) = 1.41, p = .14

Open in a new tab

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

Table 16. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on belonging in the community sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	UCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.14	0.04	3.34^**
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.34	1.34	1.0	-2.05	0.84	-2.44^*	0.19	0.20	-0.20	0.60
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	0.80	1.98	0.41	-1.96	1.24	-1.58	0.11	0.30	-0.50	0.74
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 214) = 0.14, p = .87
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.30	1.93	0.67	0.47	1.21	0.39	0.18	0.30	-0.39	0.80
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	3.88	1.90	2.04^*	-0.66	1.20	-0.55	0.55	0.28	0.07	1.17
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	4.12	1.40	2.94^**	0.03	0.90	0.03	0.59	0.27	0.14	1.15
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	-0.35	1.71	-0.21	0.70	1.07	0.65	-0.05	0.26	-0.58	0.48
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 212) = 0.31, p = .87
Handedness (LQ)	0.001	0.014	0.036	-0.002	0.009	-0.226	0.000	0.002	-0.003	0.004
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 215) = 0.75, p = .4
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-5.23	3.31	-1.58	-2.69	2.08	-1.29	-0.74	0.51	-1.97	0.01
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-5.08	2.71	-1.87	1.14	1.71	0.67	-0.72	0.39	-1.58	-0.07
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-1.22	1.83	-0.66	-1.41	1.15	-1.23	-0.17	0.28	-0.75	0.37
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.26	2.73	-1.60	1.10	1.72	0.64	-0.61	0.38	-1.42	0.07
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-3.82	2.18	-1.75	-0.48	1.38	-0.35	-0.54	0.38	-1.33	0.17
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-1.66	1.51	-1.1	-0.43	0.95	-0.45	-0.24	0.23	-0.73	0.18
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 210) = 1.28, p = .27
Sex	-0.95	1.24	-0.76	-0.17	0.80	-0.21	-0.13	0.18	-0.51	0.20
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 215) = 0.53, p = .5
	R² = 0.10, F(14, 217) = 1.68, p = .06			R² = 0.09, F(15, 216) = 1.41, p = .15

Open in a new tab

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

Table 14. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on bonding in the community sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	UCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.08	0.04	2.19^*
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.35	1.34	1.00	-0.97	0.76	-1.28	0.11	0.13	-0.11	0.40
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	0.80	1.98	0.41	-0.22	1.11	-0.20	0.07	0.18	-0.29	0.44
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 214) = 1.1, p = .3
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.30	1.93	0.67	1.68	1.08	1.55	0.11	0.18	-0.26	0.50
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	3.88	1.90	2.04^*	0.93	1.08	0.87	0.33	0.19	0.01	0.77
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	4.12	1.40	2.94^**	1.00	0.80	1.25	0.34	0.18	0.04	0.72
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	-0.35	1.71	-0.21	-0.25	0.96	-0.26	-0.03	0.16	-0.39	0.26
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 212) = 1.1, p = .4
Handedness (LQ)	0.001	0.014	0.036	0.014	0.008	1.75	0.000	0.001	-0.002	0.002
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 215) = 0.2, p = .7
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-5.23	3.31	-1.58	-4.21	1.87	-2.25^*	-0.44	0.34	-1.28	0.03
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-5.08	2.71	-1.87	0.12	1.54	0.08	-0.42	0.27	-1.05	-0.01
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-1.22	1.83	-0.66	0.12	1.03	0.12	-0.10	0.17	-0.48	0.21
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.26	2.73	-1.56	1.91	1.55	1.24	-0.36	0.26	-0.94	.06
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-3.82	2.18	-1.75	0.50	1.23	0.40	-0.32	0.25	-0.86	0.11
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-1.66	1.51	-1.1	0.23	0.85	0.27	-0.14	0.15	-0.47	0.11
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 210) = 0.4, p = .9
Sex	-0.95	1.24	-0.76	1.32	0.70	1.89	-0.08	0.12	-0.37	0.11
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 215) = 0.11, p = .7
	R² = 0.10, F(14, 217) = 1.68, p = .06			R² = 0.12, F(15, 216) = 1.91, p = .02

Open in a new tab

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

Table 15. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on behaving in the community sample.

	Effect on M			Direct effect on Y			Indirect effect on Y
Antecedent variable	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	t	Coeff.	SE	LCI	UCI
Intolerance of uncertainty				0.08	0.04	1.94
Caste (GC vs. others)	1.34	1.34	1.00	-1.57	0.79	-1.97^*	0.10	0.12	-0.13	0.39
Caste (OBC vs.SC)	0.80	1.98	0.41	-1.72	1.17	-1.47	0.06	0.17	-0.29	0.45
X*M (X = caste)							F(2, 214) = 2.73, p = .07
Income (above vs. below 1lakh)	1.30	1.93	0.67	1.44	1.14	1.26	0.10	0.18	-0.23	0.51
Income (60 thousand-1Lakh vs. below)	3.88	1.90	2.04^*	0.53	1.13	0.47	0.30	0.21	-0.01	0.77
Income (30–60 thousand vs. below)	4.12	1.40	2.94^*	0.88	0.84	1.05	0.32	0.20	0.001	0.78
Income (10–30 thousand vs. below)	-0.35	1.71	-0.21	-0.45	1.01	-0.45	-0.03	0.15	-0.36	0.28
X*M (X = income)							F(4, 212) = 1.03, p = .3
Handedness (LQ)	0.001	0.014	0.04	0.021	0.01	2.46^*	0.0	0.001	-0.002	0.002
X*M (X = Handedness)							F(1, 215) = 1.0, p = .3
Risk-taking (1vs 2)	-5.23	3.31	-1.58	-3.05	1.96	-1.55	-0.41	0.34	-1.22	0.04
Risk-taking (1vs 3)	-5.08	2.71	-1.87	-0.08	1.61	-0.05	-0.40	0.27	-1.03	0.02
Risk-taking (1vs 4)	-1.22	1.83	-0.66	-3.17	1.08	-2.92^**	-0.09	0.16	-0.43	0.24
Risk-taking (1vs 5)	-4.26	2.73	-1.56	-0.60	1.62	-0.37	-0.33	0.25	-0.89	0.07
Risk-taking (1vs 6)	-3.82	2.18	-1.75	1.17	1.30	0.91	-0.30	0.25	-0.83	0.13
Risk-taking (1vs 7)	-1.66	1.51	-1.1	-0.01	0.89	-0.01	-0.13	0.14	-0.44	0.12
X*M (X = Risk-taking)							F(6, 210) = 0.9, p = .5
Sex	0.001	0.01	0.04	2.21	0.73	3.02^**	-0.07	0.11	-0.34	0.11
X*M (X = Sex)							F(1, 215) = 2.46, p = .12
	R² = 0.10, F(14, 217) = 1.68, p = .06			R² = 0.18, F(15, 216) = 3.09, p < .001

Open in a new tab

*** Significant at the .001 level.

** Significant at the .01 level.

* Significant at the .05 level.

The direct effect of the higher caste status (GC vs. others) was similar in believing, behaving, and belonging only (no such effect in bonding). The indirect effect of the lower family income for 30–60 thousand vs. below was similar in believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging. However, the indirect effect of the lower family income for 60 thousand-1 lakh vs. below was similar in believing, bonding, and belonging only (no effect in behaving; although the lower family income had an effect on IU, it failed to translate into an effect on behaving). The direct effect of right-handedness was similar in believing and behaving only (no effect in bonding and belonging). The indirect effect of intermediate level of risk-taking (scoring 3, compared to the lowest level) was similar in believing, bonding, and belonging only (no effect in behaving), whereas the direct effect of intermediate level of risk-taking was in bonding (for score 2, compared to the lowest level) and behaving (for score 4, compared to the lowest level) only (no effect in other dimensions). The direct effect of sex was in behaving only (no effect in believing, bonding, and belonging). Moreover, there was no moderation effect (X-M interaction), except that handedness moderated the effect of IU on believing.

The interrelationships in the dimensions of religiousness

The inter-correlations in the dimensions of religiousness (Table 17) for the whole sample varied from .33 to .56. The inter-correlations in the dimensions of religiousness among Hindus (.34 to .57) and Muslims (.06 to .59), among GC (.28 to .60), OBC (.38 to .54), and SC (.11 to .68), and among lower-income (below 30 thousand; .27 to .65), intermediate-income (30 to 60 thousand; .21 to .69), and higher-income (above 60 thousand; .26 to .63) were similar. Moreover, for all these groups, the partial inter-correlations in the dimensions of religiousness (after controlling religiousness) were, mostly, negative and significant. This shows that the dimensions of religiousness were distinct from the general religiousness.

Table 17. Simple and partial (in parenthesis; after controlling religiousness) correlations between the dimensions of religiousness in social, economic, and religion groups among the community sample.

community	Bel.-Bond.	Bel.-Beh.	Bel.-Blg.	Bond.-Beh.	Bond.-Blg.	Beh.-Blg.
Total (n = 247)	.43 [.32, .55] (-.31 [-.45, -.16])	.56 [.44, .66] (-.21 [-.36, -.05])	.39 [.26, .51] (-.34 [-.49, -.20])	.51 [.40, .62] (-.25 [-.39, -.09])	.32 [.17, .44] (-.44 [-.56, -.28])	.41 [.28, .53] (-.43 [-.53, -.31])
Hindu (n = 218)	.43 [.30, .55] (-.33 [-.49, -.17])	.57 [.46, .66] (-.22 [-.36, -.06])	.42 [.30, .55] (-.33 [-.48, -.15])	.50 [.37, .60] (-.20 [-.44, -.15])	.34 [.19, .47] (-.43 [-.56, -.29])	.46 [.33, .58] (-.38 [-.51, -.24])
Muslim (n = 20)	.30 [-.18, .75] (-.30 [-.77, .09])	.34 [-.13, .85] (-.44 [-.78, .19])	.24 [-.28, .75] (-.27 [-.68, .38])	.59 [.21, .87] (.13 [-.40, .68])	.06 [-.45, .49] (-.57 [-.86, -.16])	.22 [-.41, .62] (-.49 [-.88, .03])
GC (n = 112)	.44 [.27, .60] (-.31 [-.51, -.10])	.60 [.49, .71] (-.06 [-.23, .11])	.28 [.08, .48] (-.42 [-.59, -.23])	.56 [.40, .70] (-.22 [-.44, .01])	.29 [.08, .49] (-.43 [-.59, -.22])	.35 [.15, .53] (-.49 [-.64, -.34])
OBC (n = 104)	.49 [.30, .69] (-.22 [-.46, .08])	.51 [.32, .67] (-.34 [-.56, -.07])	.38 [.19, .55] (-.45 [-.63, -.20])	.52 [.34, .69] (-.33 [-.53, -.11])	.39 [.18, .58] (-.44 [-.61, -.22])	.54 [.36, .70] (-.22 [-.45, .02])
SC (n = 26)	.11 [-.21, .50] (-.64 [-.85, -.23])	.54 [.12, .84] (-.17 [-.67, .43])	.68 [.39, .86] (.14 [-.36, .53])	.24 [-.10, .63] (-.25 [-.64, .24])	.24 [-.23, .62] (-.28 [-.69, .18])	.26 [-.18, .65] (-.74 [-.86, -.58])
Income 1 (n = 50)	.63 [.46, .79] (-.11 [-.41, .22])	.61 [.37, .78] (-.04 [-.38, .31])	.33 [.07, .59] (-.53 [-.73, -.29])	.45 [.20, .67] (-.48 [-.66, -.21])	.45 [.15, .70] (-.24 [-.52, .11])	.26 [-.08, .67] (-.53 [-.72, -.28])
Income 2 (n = 68)	.58 [.40, .72] (-.17 [-.45, .14])	.62 [.48, .76] (-.21 [-.48, .11])	.39 [.16, .61] (-.32 [-.57, -.03])	.69 [.53, .82] (-.06 [-.36, .21])	.21 [-.02, .46] (-.62 [-.75, -.43])	.34 [.12, .58] (-.50 [-.71, -.21])
Income 3 (n = 127)	.27 [.09, .47] (-.40 [-.59, -.17])	.65 [.59, .71] (-.17 [-.37, .06])	.43 [.26, .59] (-.39 [-.58, -.14])	.37 [.18, .55] (-.36 [-.56, -.17])	.34 [.14, .51] (-.33 [-.51, -.12])	.54 [.38, .68] (-.33 [-.48, -.15])

Open in a new tab

The relative importance of the dimensions of religiousness in different groups

We conducted one-way repeated measures analyses of the dimensions of religiousness for the groups (Table 18). Among Hindus, behaving was lower than all other dimensions of religiousness. Among Muslims, there was no difference in the dimensions of religiousness; however, the mean score of believing and behaving tends to be higher than bonding and belonging. Among GC, OBC, and SC, there was no difference in the dimensions of religiousness. Moreover, among the higher-income group (above 60 thousand), there was no difference in the dimensions of religiousness, whereas, among the intermediate-income group (30–60 thousand), believing was higher than bonding and behaving, and, among the lower-income group (below 30 thousand), bonding was higher than all other dimensions of religiousness.

Table 18. The distribution and the comparison of the dimensions of religiousness in different groups among the community sample.

	Believing^a	Bonding^b	Behaving^c	Belonging^d	Comparisons
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	df	F	ɳ²
Hindu	5.64 (0.11)^c	5.73 (0.11)^c	5.39 (0.12)^a,b,d	5.7 (0.12)^c	3, 215	3.45*	.05	b, d, a > c
Muslims	5.53 (0.4)	5.13 (0.34)	5.53 (0.44)	4.58 (0.44)	3, 17	1.5	.03
GC	5.84 (0.14)	5.76 (0.16)	5.57 (0.16)	5.75 (0.17)	3, 109	1.43	.04
OBC	5.57 (0.16)	5.72 (0.16)	5.49 (0.17)	5.57 (0.17)	3, 101	0.62	.02
SC	5.35 (0.32)	5.63 (0.31)	4.92 (0.44)	4.97 (0.41)	3, 23	1.76	.19
Income 1	5.57 (0.22)	5.29 (0.25)	5.12 (0.27)	5.63 (0.26)	3, 47	2.1	.12
Income 2	5.89 (0.19)^b,c	5.48 (0.23)^a	5.33 (0.24)^a	5.49 (0.24)	3, 65	3.23*	.13	a > b, c
Income 3	5.57 (0.14)^b	5.97 (0.12)^a,c,d	5.61 (0.14)^b	5.61 (0.15)^b	3, 124	2.68*	.06	b > d, c, a

Open in a new tab

Note. Superscripted letters indicate differences between the dimensions of religiousness, significant at the .05 level. GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes. Income 1 = above 60 thousand, Income 2 = 30–60 thousand, Income 3 = below 30 thousand. For a more meaningful understanding, in this analysis, original five categories were merged to form three categories of income.

Discussion

Consistent with our hypothesis, the present study reports that IU mediates the effect of lower family income on religiousness (in both samples). Earlier studies have suggested that personal uncertainty mediates the relationship between family income and religiousness [6,8]. However, the present study directly tested this likelihood using a personality measure of uncertainty (i.e., IU). Unlike prior studies (reporting mediation effect of psychological defenses in developed countries only; [11]), the present study identifies a psychological variable (i.e., IU) that mediates the relationship of family income with religiousness in a developing country. Moreover, because IU differs between developed and developing countries (discussed in detail by Kumar et al. [35]), it has the potential to explain (mediate) the relationship of lower SES with religiousness across countries, which future studies should focus.

However, the present study also reports that not all effects of the lower family income on religiousness are mediated by IU (i.e., the lower family income is also directly related to religiousness in the students’ sample). Recent studies have shown that social class plays an important role in the structuring of self-concept [77], the lower class status is related to lower self-esteem [78], and religiousness elevates low self-esteem [79]. Thus, psychological variables like self-esteem may be additional factors mediating the relationship between the lower family income and religiousness. Moreover, because the direct effect of lower family income on religiousness is limited to the students’ sample (younger, compared to the community sample), a possibility is that the effect of self-esteem on religiousness is restricted to younger ages.

Similar to the lower family income effect and consistent with the hypothesis, IU mediates the effect of lower caste status on religiousness (in the students’ sample). Thus, the effects of lower family income and lower caste status on religiousness may be determined by the same psychological mechanism (i.e., mediated by general IU). However, the present study also reports subtle differences in this common mediator (i.e., in the effect of lower caste status, prospective IU mimics the mediation role of general IU, whereas, in the effect of lower family income, none of the sub-factors of IU replicate the mediation role of general IU). Thus, whereas the active seeking of information for certainty (and not the inhibition of cognition and action) may be the key component in the effect of the lower caste status on religiousness, the unique characteristics of the general IU may be mediating the effect of lower family income (on religiousness). Because the lower family income is related to inhibitive IU (and not the prospective IU; reported in the present study) and the lower SES is related to uncertainty stress [16], perhaps the stress-related component is salient in the general IU, mediating the effect of lower family income on religiousness. Thus, future studies should test the likelihood of such subtle differences between the IU-mediated effects of social (caste) status and family income on religiousness.

In addition, the present study reports a direct relationship between the higher caste status and religiousness (in both samples). Although this perhaps is an initial report, the history and norms of Hindu society support this likelihood (i.e., higher religiousness in higher castes). Until the modern era, knowledge of religious texts (of Hindu religion) was limited to higher castes (the scheduled castes were explicitly disqualified; [46]); the religious leaders mostly belong to higher castes; the cultural mobilization (to higher castes’ status) entails knowledge of sacred texts or rituals (Sanskratization; [80]), and; higher castes have stronger identification with caste norms [51,73]. Thus, higher castes may have higher religious socialization and involvement, which, in turn, are related to higher religiousness [7,9]. Therefore, religious socialization and involvement may be determining the higher religiousness of the higher castes.

Thus, different SES factors have different patterns of effect on religiousness, some convergent and some divergent (i.e., whereas all the effects of family income on religiousness are negative, the effect of lower caste status is negative and the effect of higher caste status is positive). In response to similar findings (i.e., lower SES individuals have high religiousness and the higher religious engagement attenuates this effect, especially in higher SES individuals), Schieman [9] has suggested that meaning-making is the requirement of all human beings and the poor and rich achieve this through psychological and performative religiousness respectively. However, the present study shows that all the effects of SES (i.e., the positive and the negative effects of caste status, as well as the negative effects of family income) express in all four dimensions of religiousness. Therefore, differences in the nature of religiousness (bonding vs. behaving) may not be an explanation (for the differences of effects in higher caste status vs. lower caste status and lower income status). Alternatively, a simple explanation may be that religiousness is latent (i.e., residing in the basic human nature or human psychology), and different factors only differently initiate its expression. The cognitive theory of religiousness supports this explanation (i.e., religiousness is based on the basic human cognitive abilities [81]). Moreover, findings on the genetic predisposition for religiousness [82,83] and the brain localization of religiousness [64,65] also support this likelihood. Thus, any of the factors, like the higher level of socialization and participation or the higher level of IU (determined by the lower social status or by the lower income), may initiate a similar form of religiousness (i.e., expressing similarly in all four dimensions of religiousness) independently.

In addition, the above-discussed findings are important for understanding the Indian socio-cultural system. The directionally opposite effects (suppression effect [84]) of caste status on religiousness (and its dimensions) support a nuanced model of the relationship of the hierarchical caste system with religiousness. Forced by the unpleasantness of IU (i.e., fear of the unknown), the approach of the lower castes towards religion is likely to be similar to that of solution seekers, whereas, determined by the socialization and participation, the approach of the upper castes towards religion is likely to be similar to that of professionals (i.e., leaders, helpers, guide, organizers, or thinkers). Therefore, there may be a positive religious relationship between the lower and higher castes (i.e., client-provider relationship). Moreover, endorsement of the caste system by the religion (by the Hindu scriptures; [46]), may establish a mutually reinforcing relationship between religiousness and caste hierarchy. Thus, because the positive religious relationship adds an approach-tendency to the approach-avoidance conflict of the lower castes towards the upper castes [85,86], this model explains the paradoxical behavior of the lower castes (i.e., behavior of not leaving the fold of Hindu religion, despite its support for the discriminatory caste system [85]). Moreover, because the caste characteristics, similar to India, have been reported in other countries [85], and are evident in cross-national affairs also [87], the present findings on the religiousness of caste may be of a wider cross-national significance.

Studies have documented higher little traditions (i.e., beliefs and rituals with local and individualistic outlook) in lower castes and higher greater traditions (i.e., beliefs and rituals with orthodox and universal outlook) in upper castes [88]. Thus, some differences in the religiousness of the lower and higher castes may be suspected. The above-discussed client-provider role differences (between lower and higher castes) also support this likelihood. However, the present study shows that the form of religiousness (i.e., expression in all four dimensions) is similar in the effects of lower (IU-mediated) and higher (socialization-based) caste statuses (discussed above) and there is no difference in the salience of the dimensions of religiousness among castes. Thus, the little and greater traditions (or client-provider role differences) may not affect the nature and quality of religiousness. However, as far as we know, the studies on the greater and little traditions have not controlled the effect of income, which, otherwise, is different between the lower and upper castes [47]. Moreover, the present study shows that the quality of religiousness is different between the higher and lower income groups. Thus, perhaps family income is a factor in any likely qualitative difference between the religiousness of the greater and little tradition communities. Future studies should test these likelihoods.

We failed to support the hypothesized relationship between education and religiousness in the present study. Perhaps because earlier studies have reported a weak (negative) relationship between education and religiousness [7]; there is a narrower band of education levels in the students’ sample (larger sample), and; the sample size is smaller in the community sample, the present study has failed to capture the effect of education on religiousness.

Consistent with prior studies [15], we found that the majority-religion community (Hindus) was less religious than Muslims (demographically second-largest religion; except in bonding) and other minorities (including Jain, Buddh, Sikh, etc; only among students). However, unlike prior studies [15], the present study fails to support social exclusion as a factor in the higher religiousness of minorities (i.e., because there is a lack of IU-mediation in this relationship). Moreover, because the pattern of the salience of dimensions of religiousness is different between Hindus (bonding is salient) and Muslims (no difference in the dimensions of religiousness), perhaps, along with the effect on degrees, religion also affect the quality of religiousness. However, unlike prior studies [45], the present study fails to find a salience of behaving dimension, as well as a strong positive inter-relationship in the dimensions of religiousness, among Muslims (following a monotheistic religion). Instead, Muslims have weaker interrelationships and negative partial inter-correlations (after controlling general religiousness) in the dimensions of religiousness, similar to Hindus (a polytheistic eastern religion) or Indians, in general (which we hypothesized to have lower inter-correlations). Therefore, instead of religion, the weak, or negative, interrelationship in the dimensions of religiousness seems to be the characteristics of the socio-cultural system (of India).

Along with the effect of socio-cultural factors, the present study reports a complex pattern of the effects of bio-socio-developmental factors on religiousness. For example, in the students’ sample, IU mediates the effect of age, handedness, height (in women only), and risk-taking on religiousness, whereas in the community sample, except for risk-taking, there is no such IU-mediated effect. Perhaps the smaller sample size may be a factor in the null-effect report for the community sample. However, alternatively, age-related developmental changes may be the determinant. In the present study, the community sample is older than the students’ sample; age is related to an increase in IU among adolescents’ (but, perhaps, not among adults [56]; similar age effects occur for ambiguity aversion also [89]), and; religiousness increases with age up to young adulthood [55], and the relationship thereafter flattens (no relationship; [90]). Thus, the effects of age, height, and handedness may be affected by the age-related variations of IU and religiousness. However, because, consistent with prior studies [60], we found a direct effect of right-handedness on religiousness in the community sample, the effect of the age-related variations, on the handedness (effect), may be slightly different.

The pattern of effects of risk-taking on religiousness is quite interesting, i.e., at the intermediate levels of self-reported risk-taking, the effects on religiousness are negative (the IU-mediated indirect effect in the students’ sample, and the direct as well as IU-mediated indirect effects in the community sample), whereas, at the highest level of self-reported risk-taking, the effect on religiousness is positive (direct effect in the students’ sample). Earlier reports have supported both positive [59] and negative [91,92] effects of self-reported risk-taking on religiousness. Thus, because self-reported risk-taking is a genetically determined trait [76], future studies should focus on delineating the different patterns of the effect of the different levels of risk-taking on religiousness i.e., the IU-mediated vs. direct effects and the positive vs. negative effects of different levels of self-reported risk-taking on religiousness.

Moreover, sex has no IU-mediated effect, whereas, consistent with the prior reports [57], there is a direct effect of sex on religiousness. Because this effect similarly occurs in both samples, perhaps the age-related developmental variations are not involved in the effect of sex on religiousness. However, because the effect of sex is consistent only in the behaving dimension of religiousness across samples, some subtle age-related differences may be suspected. Future studies should explore these likelihoods. In addition, we failed to find the relationship between BMI and religiousness. Earlier studies have reported an inconsistent pattern of relationship between BMI and religiousness [62].

Noticeably, for the above-mentioned bio-socio-developmental factors, the present study reports different patterns of the effect on religiousness, i.e., direct effects, indirect effects (mediated by IU), positive effects, and negative effects. Moreover, the expression of each effect is largely similar across the four dimensions of religiousness (especially in the larger size students’ sample). Thus, the findings for the bio-socio-developmental factors, in the present study, additionally support the contention that religiousness is a latent variable that varied factors may independently initiate.

In the present study, the analyses of the sub-factors of IU show that the different antecedent variables have varied effects on the sub-factors of IU. For example, family income has an effect on inhibitive IU only, caste status has an effect on prospective IU only, and age has effects on both prospective and inhibitive IUs (in the students’ sample). Thus, it is difficult to explain the determinants of such effects of different socioeconomic and biosocial factors on different sub-factors of IU. Perhaps, there may be some unknown sub-components in both the socioeconomic and the bio-socio-developmental factors that are related to either prospective IU or inhibitive IU, which future studies should explore.

Moreover, the present study shows that only prospective IU mediates the effect of antecedent variables on religiousness. Earlier studies have shown that prospective IU (and not inhibitive IU) is related to psychological relief-based motives of religiousness [38]. Thus, the psychological relief motive in the active seeking of information for certainty (i.e., prospective IU) may be a determinant of religiousness. Furthermore, because inhibitive IU is not related to religiousness, the inhibitive response in the face of uncertainty may not be a factor in religiousness (except, perhaps in the effect of family income on religiousness, discussed above). However, inhibitive IU is related to depression [93] and studies have documented an inconsistent pattern of relationship between religiousness and depression [94]. Thus, based on the present study, we suggest that, by controlling the effects of prospective and inhibitive IUs, inconsistency in the reported patterns of relationship between religiousness and depression may be resolved.

In the present study, we have not elaborated, further, the few odd findings of moderation effects (i.e., the moderation effect of risk-taking on the relationship of IU with believing, in the students’ sample, and the moderation effect of handedness on the relationship of IU with believing, in the community sample), because it may be beyond the scope of the present study. Moreover, although, we considered IU as an antecedent of religiousness the opposite relationship is also a possibility. However, again, studying this is beyond the scope of the present study.

The present study may have several limitations. First, instead of actual assessment, the income assessment is self-reported. There may be differences in the actual and self-reported incomes. However, the single item query and the response in terms of the choice of income brackets are suggested to be good procedures for income surveys [95]. Moreover, the demography of the reported income brackets is similar to that reported by the national sample surveys of India [96]. Second, the height and weight are self-reported and not measured. However, because studies have shown that self-reported height and weights correspond with actual height and weights [97], this is not likely to be a significant confounding factor. Third, whereas religiousness may differ along the rural-urban dimension, we have not gathered information about urban-rural dwellings and the nature of family (nuclear vs. joint). However, because the present study was conducted in an urban setting we expect that urban dwelling and nuclear family may be the norm. Lastly, because both IU and religiousness are measured through questionnaires, the assignment of these variables as antecedents and consequents is theory-driven and not supported by methodological procedures (not an experiment).

Thus, in conclusion, the present study comprehensively studies IU-mediated effects (and direct effects also) of a large number of antecedent (environmental and bio-socio-developmental) variables on religiousness and its dimensions. It shows that IU mediates the effects of lower family income and lower caste status on religiousness; the higher caste status is related to higher religiousness; bio-socio-developmental factors have varied effects (direct, IU-mediated, positive, and negative) on religiousness, and; the most of the above-mentioned effects have similar expression in all four dimensions of religiousness. Thus, the present study supports the contention that religiousness is a latent variable that varied factors may independently initiate. It also suggests a nuanced model of the relationship between caste hierarchy and religiousness and reports qualitative differences in religiousness between Hindus vs. Muslims and between lower vs. higher income groups. The similar low inter-correlations (or negative partial inter-correlations) between the religiousness dimensions of the monotheistic (Muslims) and polytheistic (Hindus) Indians is another significant finding of the present study. Moreover, by using a standardized personality measure of personal uncertainty (i.e., IU) and a standardized, cross-culturally valid, and multidimensional measure of religiousness, the present study presents a new, and richer, approach to the study of the relationship between SES and religiousness.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The conceptual path diagram of the studied relationships of height (other variables as covariates) with IU and religiousness separately for men and women in the students’ sample.

IU = intolerance of uncertainty, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, th. = thousand, LQ = laterality quotient (handedness).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(145.6KB, docx)}

S2 Fig. The conceptual path diagram of the studied relationships of antecedents with IUP, IUI, and religiousness in the students’ sample.

IUP = prospective intolerance of uncertainty, IUI = inhibitive intolerance of uncertainty, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, th. = thousand, LQ = laterality quotient (handedness).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(179.4KB, docx)}

S3 Fig. The conceptual path diagram of the studied relationships of antecedents with IUP, IUI, and religiousness in the community sample.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(165KB, docx)}

S1 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(53KB, xlsx)}

S2 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(166.6KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor Heinz Streib for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript and acknowledge the help rendered by Dr. Reena Saini and Dr. Ranjeeta Jain in data collection.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This article was supported by the Open Access Publishing Fund of the University of Vienna.

References

1.Saroglou V. Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The big four religious dimensions and cultural variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2011. Nov;42(8):1320–40. doi: 10.1177/0022022111412267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Pargament KI, Raiya HA. A decade of research on the psychology of religion and coping: Things we assumed and lessons we learned. Psyke & Logos. 2007. Dec 1;28(2):25–25. [Google Scholar]
3.Wimberley DW. Socioeconomic deprivation and religious salience: A cognitive behavioral approach. The Sociological Quarterly. 1984. Mar 1;25(2):223–38. [Google Scholar]
4.Barber N. A cross-national test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief. Cross-Cultural Research. 2011. Aug;45(3):318–33. doi: 10.1177/1069397111402465 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5.Norris P, Inglehart R. Are high levels of existential security conducive to secularization? A response to our critics. In the changing world religion map 2015. (pp. 3389–3408). Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
6.Rees TJ. Is personal insecurity a cause of cross-national differences in the intensity of religious belief? Journal of Religion and Society.2009;11:1–24. [Google Scholar]
7.Ruiter S, Van Tubergen F. Religious attendance in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 60 countries. American Journal of Sociology. 2009. Nov;115(3):863–95. doi: 10.1086/603536 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Storm I. Does economic insecurity predict religiosity? Evidence from the European social survey 2002–2014. Sociology of Religion. 2017. Jun 1;78(2):146–72. doi: 10.1093/socrel/srw055 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Schieman S. Socioeconomic status and beliefs about God’s influence in everyday life. Sociology of Religion. 2010. Mar 1;71(1):25–51. doi: 10.1093/socrel/srq004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Bentzen JS. Origins of religiousness: The role of natural disasters. Univ. of Copenhagen Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper. 2013 Feb 18(13–02). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2221859 or doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2221859 [DOI]
11.Brandt MJ, Henry PJ. Psychological defensiveness as a mechanism explaining the relationship between low socioeconomic status and religiosity. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 2012. Oct 1;22(4):321–32. doi: 10.1080/10508619.2011.646565 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.McIntosh DN, Silver RC, Wortman CB. Religion’s role in adjustment to a negative life event: coping with the loss of a child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993. Oct;65(4):812. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.4.812 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Kessler RC, Cleary PD. Social class and psychological distress. American Sociological Review. 1980. Jun 1:463–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Diener E, Tay L, Myers DG. The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011. Dec;101(6):1278. doi: 10.1037/a0024402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Aydin N, Fischer P, Frey D. Turning to God in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2010. Jun;36(6):742–53. doi: 10.1177/0146167210367491 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Yang T, Yang XY, Yu L, Cottrell RR, Jiang S. Individual and regional association between socioeconomic status and uncertainty stress, and life stress: a representative nationwide study of China. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2017. Dec;16(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0618-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Hamamura T. Social class predicts generalized trust but only in wealthy societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2012. Apr;43(3):498–509. [Google Scholar]
18.Mirowsky J, Ross CE. Socioeconomic status and subjective life expectancy. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2000. Jun 1:133–51. [Google Scholar]
19.Jong J, Ross R, Philip T, Chang SH, Simons N, Halberstadt J. The religious correlates of death anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Religion, Brain & Behavior. 2018. Jan 2;8(1):4–20. [Google Scholar]
20.Alaszewski A, Coxon K. Uncertainty in everyday life: Risk, worry and trust. Health, Risk & Society. 2009;11(3): 201–207. [Google Scholar]
21.Van den Bos K. Making sense of life: The existential self trying to deal with personal uncertainty. Psychological Inquiry. 2009. Dec 11;20(4):197–217. [Google Scholar]
22.Van den Bos K, Van Ameijde J, Van Gorp H. On the psychology of religion: The role of personal uncertainty in religious worldview defense. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2006. Dec 1;28(4):333–41. [Google Scholar]
23.McGregor I, Haji R, Nash KA, Teper R. Religious zeal and the uncertain self. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2008. Jul 11;30(2):183–8. [Google Scholar]
24.Hogg MA, Adelman JR, Blagg RD. Religion in the face of uncertainty: An uncertainty-identity theory account of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2010. Feb;14(1):72–83. doi: 10.1177/1088868309349692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Schmuckler MA. What is ecological validity? A dimensional analysis. Infancy. 2001. Oct;2(4):419–36. doi: 10.1207/S15327078IN0204_02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Kivimäki M, Batty GD, Pentti J, Shipley MJ, Sipilä PN, Nyberg ST, et al. Association between socioeconomic status and the development of mental and physical health conditions in adulthood: a multi-cohort study. The Lancet Public Health. 2020. Mar 1;5(3):e140–9. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30248-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Wang Z, Koenig HG, Ma H, Shohaib SA. Religion, purpose in life, social support, and psychological distress in Chinese university students. Journal of Religion and Health. 2016. Jun;55(3):1055–64. doi: 10.1007/s10943-016-0184-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Boelen P. Intolerance of uncertainty and emotional distress following the death of a loved one. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 2010. Jul 1;23(4):471–8. doi: 10.1080/10615800903494135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Bottesi G, Marino C, Vieno A, Ghisi M, Spada MM. Psychological distress in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: The joint contribution of intolerance of uncertainty and cyberchondria. Psychology & Health. 2021. Jul 6:1–8. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2021.1952584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Carleton RN. Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2016. Apr 1;39:30–43. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Koerner N, Mejia T, Kusec A. What’s in a name? Intolerance of uncertainty, other uncertainty-relevant constructs, and their differential relations to worry and generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2017. Mar 4;46(2):141–61. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2016.1211172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Carleton RN. Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all?. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2016. Jun 1;41:5–21. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.03.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Kretzmann RP, Gauer G. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale–short version (IUS-12). Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. 2020. Jul 17;42:129–37. doi: 10.1590/2237-6089-2018-0087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Yao N, Qian M, Jiang Y, Elhai JD. The influence of intolerance of uncertainty on anxiety and depression symptoms in Chinese-speaking samples: Structure and validity of the Chinese translation of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2021. May 4;103(3):406–15. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2020.1739058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Kumar S, Saini R, Jain R, Sakshi. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (short form) in India. International Journal of Mental Health. 2021. Aug 28:1–20. doi: 10.1080/00207411.2021.1969321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36.Carleton RN, Weeks JW, Howell AN, Asmundson GJ, Antony MM, McCabe RE. Assessing the latent structure of the intolerance of uncertainty construct: An initial taxometric analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2012. Jan 1;26(1):150–7. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Carleton RN, Norton MP, Asmundson GJ. Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2007. Jan 1;21(1):105–17. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Howell AN, Carleton RN, Horswill SC, Parkerson HA, Weeks JW, Asmundson GJ. Intolerance of uncertainty moderates the relations among religiosity and motives for religion, depression, and social evaluation fears. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2019. Jan;75(1):95–115. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22691 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Valdesolo P, Graham J. Awe, uncertainty, and agency detection. Psychological Science. 2014. Jan;25(1):170–8. doi: 10.1177/0956797613501884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Amir D, Jordan MR, Rand DG. An uncertainty management perspective on long-run impacts of adversity: The influence of childhood socioeconomic status on risk, time, and social preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2018. Nov 1;79:217–26. [Google Scholar]
41.Jonassaint CR, Siegler IC, Barefoot JC, Edwards CL, Williams RB. Low life course socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with negative NEO PI-R personality patterns. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2011. Mar;18(1):13–21. doi: 10.1007/s12529-009-9069-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Hood RW Jr, Hill PC, Spilka B. The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. Guilford Publications; 2009. [Google Scholar]
43.Glock CY. On the study of religious commitment. Religious Education. 1962;57(4, Res. Suppl.): 98–110. doi: 10.1080/003440862057S407 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.Kumar S, Jain R, Saini R. Confirmatory factor analysis and gender invariance of the Four Basic Dimensions of Religiousness Scale in India. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2021. Feb;13(1):53. doi: 10.1037/rel0000305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
45.Saroglou V, Clobert M, Cohen AB, Johnson KA, Ladd KL, Van Pachterbeke M, et al. Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The cognitive, emotional, moral, and social dimensions of religiousness across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2020. Sep;51(7–8):551–75. doi: 10.1177/0022022120946488 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
46.Ghurye GS. Caste and race in India. Popular Prakashan; 1969. [Google Scholar]
47.Zacharias A, Vakulabharanam V. Caste stratification and wealth inequality in India. World Development. 2011. Oct 1;39(10):1820–33. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48.Srinivas MN. Caste: Its 20th Century Avatar. Penguin; UK; 2000. Oct 14. [Google Scholar]
49.Singh Y. Modernization of Indian tradition. Thompson press (India) limited; Faridabad. 1977. [Google Scholar]
50.Desai S, Dubey A. Caste in 21st century India: Competing narratives. Economic and Political Weekly. 2012. Mar 3;46(11):40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Jaspal R. Caste, social stigma and identity processes. Psychology and Developing Societies. 2011. Mar;23(1):27–62. doi: 10.1177/097133361002300102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
52.Sharma KL. Is there today caste system or there is only caste in India?. Polish Sociological Review. 2012;178(2):245–64. [Google Scholar]
53.Thorat S. Caste, social exclusion and poverty linkages–Concept, measurement and empirical evidence. Concept Paper for PACS. 2005. [Google Scholar]
54.Hill JP. Faith and understanding: Specifying the impact of higher education on religious belief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2011. Sep;50(3):533–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41307102. [Google Scholar]
55.McNamara Barry C, Nelson L, Davarya S, Urry S. Religiosity and spirituality during the transition to adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2010. Jul;34(4):311–24. doi: 10.1177/0165025409350964 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
56.Barahmand U. Age and gender differences in adolescent worry. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008. Dec 1;45(8):778–83. [Google Scholar]
57.Donelson E. Psychology of religion and adolescents in the United States: Past to present. Journal of Adolescence. 1999. Apr;22(2):187–204. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Dekkers LM, Jansen BR, Salemink E, Huizenga HM. Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale: Measurement invariance among adolescent boys and girls and relationships with anxiety and risk taking. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2017. Jun 1;55:57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Ellis L, Hoskin AW, Ratnasingam M. Testosterone, risk taking, and religiosity: Evidence from two cultures. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2016. Mar;55(1):153–73. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12248 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
60.Dutton E, Madison G, Dunkel C. The mutant says in his heart,“there is no god”: The rejection of collective religiosity centred around the worship of moral gods is associated with high mutational load. Evolutionary Psychological Science. 2018. Sep;4(3):233–44. doi: 10.1007/s40806-017-0133-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
61.Kumar S, Saini R, Jain R. Hand preference and intolerance of uncertainty: Atypical cerebral lateralization advantages lower intolerance of uncertainty. Laterality. 2020. Jan 2;25(1):22–42. doi: 10.1080/1357650X.2019.1611843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Yeary KH, Sobal J, Wethington E. Religion and body weight: A review of quantitative studies. Obesity Reviews. 2017. Oct;18(10):1210–22. doi: 10.1111/obr.12569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Tanovic E, Gee DG, Joormann J. Intolerance of uncertainty: Neural and psychophysiological correlates of the perception of uncertainty as threatening. Clinical Psychology Review. 2018. Mar 1;60:87–99. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Harris S, Kaplan JT, Curiel A, Bookheimer SY, Iacoboni M, Cohen MS. The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief. PLoS One. 2009. Oct 1;4(10):e7272. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Zhong W, Cristofori I, Bulbulia J, Krueger F, Grafman J. Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism. Neuropsychologia. 2017. Jun 1;100:18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Arain M, Haque M, Johal L, Mathur P, Nel W, Rais A, et al. Maturation of the adolescent brain. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2013;9:449. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S39776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Yaple ZA, Yu R. Functional and structural brain correlates of socioeconomic status. Cerebral Cortex. 2020. Jan 10;30(1):181–96. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhz080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Aydogan G, Daviet R, Karlsson Linnér R, Hare TA, Kable JW, Kranzler HR, et al. Genetic underpinnings of risky behaviour relate to altered neuroanatomy. Nature Human Behaviour. 2021. Jun;5(6):787–94. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-01027-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Koolschijn PC, Crone EA. Sex differences and structural brain maturation from childhood to early adulthood. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. 2013. Jul 1;5:106–18. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2013.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Sha Z, Pepe A, Schijven D, Carrión-Castillo A, Roe JM, Westerhausen R, et al. Handedness and its genetic influences are associated with structural asymmetries of the cerebral cortex in 31,864 individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021. Nov 23;118(47):e2113095118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2113095118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Vuoksimaa E, Panizzon MS, Franz CE, Fennema-Notestine C, Hagler DJ, Lyons MJ, et al. Brain structure mediates the association between height and cognitive ability. Brain Structure and Function. 2018. Sep;223(7):3487–94. doi: 10.1007/s00429-018-1675-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Zwaan RA, Etz A, Lucas RE, Donnellan MB. Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2018;41. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17001972 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Sankaran S, Sekerdej M, Von Hecker U. The role of Indian caste identity and caste inconsistent norms on status representation. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017. Mar 31;8:487. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.Birrell J, Meares K, Wilkinson A, Freeston M. Toward a definition of intolerance of uncertainty: A review of factor analytical studies of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Clinical Psychology Review. 2011. Nov 1;31(7):1198–208. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Bottesi G, Noventa S, Freeston MH, Ghisi M. Seeking certainty about Intolerance of Uncertainty: Addressing old and new issues through the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised. PloS One. 2019. Feb 11;14(2):e0211929. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Strawbridge RJ, Ward J, Lyall LM, Tunbridge EM, Cullen B, Graham N, et al. Genetics of self-reported risk-taking behaviour, trans-ethnic consistency and relevance to brain gene expression. Translational Psychiatry. 2018. Sep 4;8(1):1–1. doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0236-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Easterbrook MJ, Kuppens T, Manstead AS. Socioeconomic status and the structure of the self‐concept. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2020. Jan;59(1):66–86. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12334 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Kraus MW, Park JW. The undervalued self: Social class and self-evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014. Dec 5;5:1404. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Reiland S, Lauterbach D. Effects of trauma and religiosity on self-esteem. Psychological Reports. 2008. Jun;102(3):779–90. doi: 10.2466/pr0.102.3.779-790 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80.Srinivas MN. Social change in modern India. Orient Blackswan; 1995. [Google Scholar]
81.Atran S, Norenzayan A. Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2004. Dec;27(6):713–30. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x04000172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82.Bradshaw M, Ellison CG. Do genetic factors influence religious life? Findings from a behavior genetic analysis of twin siblings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2008. Dec;47(4):529–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00425.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
83.Voland E, Schiefenhövel W, editors. The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior. Springer Science & Business Media; 2009. Aug 12. [Google Scholar]
84.Rucker DD, Preacher KJ, Tormala ZL, Petty RE. Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2011. Jun;5(6):359–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
85.Berreman GD. Caste in India and the United States. American Journal of Sociology. 1960. Sep 1;66(2):120–7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2773155. [Google Scholar]
86.Lindt B. Towards a comprehensive model of caste. Contributions to Indian sociology. 2013. Feb;47(1):85–112. doi: 10.1177/006996671204700104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
87.Velitchkova A. Citizenship as a caste marker: How persons experience cross-national inequality. Current Sociology. 2021. Jul 15:00113921211028644. [Google Scholar]
88.Cohn BS. Changing traditions of a low caste. The Journal of American Folklore. 1958. Jul 1;71(281):413–21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/538570. [Google Scholar]
89.Blankenstein NE, Crone EA, van den Bos W, van Duijvenvoorde AC. Dealing with uncertainty: Testing risk-and ambiguity-attitude across adolescence. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2016. Feb 17;41(1–2):77–92. doi: 10.1080/87565641.2016.1158265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90.Wang KY, Kercher K, Huang JY, Kosloski K. Aging and religious participation in late life. Journal of Religion and Health. 2014. Oct;53(5):1514–28. doi: 10.1007/s10943-013-9741-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91.Ameri Z, Mirzakhani F, Nabipour AR, Khanjani N, Sullman MJ. The relationship between religion and risky behaviors among Iranian university students. Journal of Religion and Health. 2017. Dec;56(6):2010–22. doi: 10.1007/s10943-016-0337-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92.Sinha JW, Cnaan RA, Gelles RJ. Adolescent risk behaviors and religion: Findings from a national study. Journal of Adolescence. 2007. Apr 1;30(2):231–49. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93.Jensen D, Cohen JN, Mennin DS, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG. Clarifying the unique associations among intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2016. Nov 1;45(6):431–44. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2016.1197308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94.Bonelli R, Dew RE, Koenig HG, Rosmarin DH, Vasegh S. Religious and spiritual factors in depression: review and integration of the research. Depression Research and Treatment. 2012. Oct;2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/962860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95.Kuhn U. Measurement of income in surveys. FORS Guide. 2019. Jan;2. doi: 10.24449/FG-2019-00002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
96.Basole A. State of working India. Azim Premji University. 2018. Retrieved from https://cse.azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/state-ofworking-india/. [Google Scholar]
97.Olfert MD, Barr ML, Charlier CM, Famodu OA, Zhou W, Mathews AE, et al. Self-reported vs. measured height, weight, and BMI in young adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public health. 2018. Oct;15(10):2216. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273174.r001

Decision Letter 0

Ning Du

20 May 2022

PONE-D-21-30575The relationships of family income and caste-status with religiousness: Mediation effect of intolerance of uncertaintyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The research question needs to be clarified. Without a clearly articulated research question, this paper is very difficult to read. The authors indicate that this study examines the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on intolerance of uncertainty (IU; a personality measure of self uncertainty) and religiousness. This suggests that IU and religiousness are the dependent variables, and SES is the independent variable. However, the authors mentioned the mediating effect of IU on the association between lower family income and lower caste status. What is the focus of the paper? You seem to switch your focus to the association of SES and religiousness mediated by the IU. If that’s your focus, you should reposition the paper.

It is not clear why the association of SES, IU and religiousness is important. You need to provide a stronger motivation about your research question, and provide some theoretical background about how these variables affect each other. Instead of measuring different variables and report the results in different tables, you should think about building a model and map out the associations/effects. This will help the readers understand what you try to do in the paper.

On page 26, you mentioned that “developmental-genetic processes related to age, height, and hand preference may affect brain structures of IU and religiousness to determine the interrelationships”. You measured these variables, but did not provide a clear explanation how they affect IU and religious, and why they are important and relevant to your study. If IU and religious are genetically determined, then why do you investigate SES at the first place? How does that relate to the initial research question, which seems to investigate the effect of SES?

You need to clearly define religiousness. Could you provide a review of prior literature on this concept? How is defined? How is it measured? Is an attitude or a personal trait? You mentioned its dimension include believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging. Could you elaborate on these factors? Without a clear lit review, it is difficult to see how your study extend prior work and determine its contribution.

You need provide explanation about the caste status. Don’t assume readers know it. How is this system determined? How is tracked? Is it still relevant today? If relevant, what is its impact? Is it correlated with family income? It appears to be a self-reported variable in your two samples. How do you make sure they reported this variable truthfully?

You should provide a clear interpretation of your results. For example, you find the positive effect of self-reported risk-taking (in highest risk-takers) on religiousness in one sample but the negative effect in the different sample. Could you explain why this happens in your samples and provide a reconciliation of the difference?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ning Du

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study was actually conducted in the spirit of a theoretical lineage left untapped by the authors, namely the opiate thesis of religion. This negligence of the literature shows that the authors have relied on ramifications of a key theory instead of its main source. Consequently, the authors have measured their focal concepts, ses and religiousness, in a manner at odd with the state of the art literature on religion. The inclusion of handedness as some sort of correlated factor of religiousness is ludicrously void of any theoretical support and may likely come from the p-hacking of the small scale psychological studies being cited. Measuring socioeconomic status as income alone also gives away how much the authors are unfamiliar with the prevailing evidence on the multiaxial nature of ses and class. Finally, religion literature has already made popular the knowledge that religiosity comprises of beliefs, behaviors, and identification, the remaking of the wheel here still adheres to the proclamation of religiousness as a focal research question, instead of all other aspects of religiosity. The sample is composed of two very different sources in the population, whose unequal representativeness cannot even be redeemed by sample weights, let alone the absence of it.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Aug 26;17(8):e0273174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273174.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

28 Jun 2022

The Editor: Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit

The Authors: Thank you for your evaluation and for your gentle guidance to conduct a wholesome discussion of our results.

The Editor: The research question needs to be clarified. Without a clearly articulated research question, this paper is very difficult to read. The authors indicate that this study examines the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on intolerance of uncertainty (IU; a personality measure of self uncertainty) and religiousness. This suggests that IU and religiousness are the dependent variables, and SES is the independent variable. However, the authors mentioned the mediating effect of IU on the association between lower family income and lower caste status. What is the focus of the paper? You seem to switch your focus to the association of SES and religiousness mediated by the IU. If that’s your focus, you should reposition the paper.

The Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified the manuscript accordingly to emphasize the mediation role of IU. Please see the introduction, results, and discussion sections.

The Editor: It is not clear why the association of SES, IU and religiousness is important. You need to provide a stronger motivation about your research question, and provide some theoretical background about how these variables affect each other.

The Authors: We have tried to formulate our justification for studying the mediation role of IU in the effect of SES on religiousness. Along with reporting inadequacies in the earlier suggested mediation factors, we have also provided a theoretical connection for the interrelationships of SES, IU, and religiousness. Please see the introduction section

The Editor: Instead of measuring different variables and report the results in different tables, you should think about building a model and map out the associations/effects. This will help the readers understand what you try to do in the paper.

The Authors: Thank you for the suggestion. We have tried to organize our discussion. Please see the discussion section

The Editor: On page 26, you mentioned that “developmental-genetic processes related to age, height, and hand preference may affect brain structures of IU and religiousness to determine the interrelationships”. You measured these variables, but did not provide a clear explanation how they affect IU and religious, and why they are important and relevant to your study.

The Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now added this all to the introduction section. We have reviewed relationships of different bio-socio-developmental factors with both IU and religiousness. Moreover, because studies support the mediation role of brain structure in determining the relationship of bio-socio-developmental factors (and the environmental factors also) with IU-religiousness connection, perhaps the mediation role of brain structure justifies the study of diverse determinants of the IU-religiousness connection. Please see lines 215-234.

The Editor: If IU and religious are genetically determined, then why do you investigate SES at the first place? How does that relate to the initial research question, which seems to investigate the effect of SES?

The Authors: There seems to be some misunderstanding. We only contended that both IU and religiousness are related to the prefrontal cortex. In this revised draft we have tried to be more specific and unambiguous in our language and have laid the justification for the relationship of a wide variety of antecedent variables (the bio-socio-developmental and the environmental variables) with the IU-religiousness connection. Please see lines 222-234

The Editor: You need to clearly define religiousness. Could you provide a review of prior literature on this concept? How is defined? How is it measured? Is an attitude or a personal trait? You mentioned its dimension include believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging. Could you elaborate on these factors? Without a clear lit review, it is difficult to see how your study extend prior work and determine its contribution.

The Authors: Thank you for the suggestion. We have addressed these questions in this revision. Please see the introduction section, lines 56-62, 161-183.

The Editor: You need provide explanation about the caste status. Don’t assume readers know it. How is this system determined? How is tracked? Is it still relevant today? If relevant, what is its impact? Is it correlated with family income? It appears to be a self-reported variable in your two samples. How do you make sure they reported this variable truthfully?

The Authors: Please see the introduction section, lines 186-205. The relevant references deal with these questions in detail. However, we are also answering them here, for clarity.

1. Caste is decided by birth. Thus, the caste of a person is the caste of his parents, especially of his father.

2. Caste is an endogamous group fitted to a hierarchy in the broader society. Thus birth to a specific group decides the ritual and social status of an individual. Moreover, because hierarchy is also strengthened by the access to resources (occupation-caste connection), economic asymmetry is there to support caste hierarchy.

3. Yes, it is relevant and important. Despite some changes in the caste-occupation connection, caste is a psycho-social reality of modern India. Endogamy is still a predominant theme in marriages (less than 6% are inter-caste marriages, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-caste_marriages_in_India), caste consciousness is there, and even caste hierarchy also finds an explicit expression occasionally (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/crimes-against-dalits-tribals-increased-in-covid-pandemic-year-ncrb-101631731260293.html). We have added new references to support this. Please see lines 193-196.

4. Yes, irrespective of modern economic opportunities, wealth differences occur across caste statuses and it is well documented. E.g., Zacharias & Vakulabharanam, 2011

5. Caste is a reality of Indian life. Generally, in a particular small society, everyone has an idea of each other’s caste. Thus, it is quite difficult to fake the caste. Moreover, because caste is a criterion for deciding the disbursement of benefits of various government schemes, there is an incentive to exactly report caste category (GC, OBC, SC), even for lower caste individuals. Asking participants about their caste category is an established common procedure for determining the caste categories, followed by earlier studies also (e.g., Sankaran et al., 2017; Zacharias & Vakulabharanam, 2011). Please see lines 271-275.

The Editor: You should provide a clear interpretation of your results.

The Authors: Thank you for the suggestion. We have tried improvement. Please see the discussion section.

The Editor: For example, you find the positive effect of self-reported risk-taking (in highest risk-takers) on religiousness in one sample but the negative effect in the different sample. Could you explain why this happens in your samples and provide a reconciliation of the difference?

The Authors: There seems to be some misunderstanding. To clarify, we found a negative relationship between risk-taking and religiousness for the intermediate level of risk-taking, in both samples (students and community), and a positive relationship between risk-taking and religiousness for the highest level of risk-taking, in the students' sample only. Thus, the negative relationship may be associated with the intermediate level of risk-taking and the positive relationship with the highest level of risk-taking. We have tried to be more specific in reporting these results. Please see the discussion section.

The Reviewer: This study was actually conducted in the spirit of a theoretical lineage left untapped by the authors, namely the opiate thesis of religion. This negligence of the literature shows that the authors have relied on ramifications of a key theory instead of its main source.

The Authors: Thank you for this suggestion. In this revised manuscript, we have reviewed psychological studies that support the contention that the constraints and inadequacies of low SES lead to religiousness. We have discussed the strong (i.e., constraints and inadequacies generate religiousness) as well as the weak (i.e., constraints and inadequacies increase religiousness) versions of this contention. Please see the introduction section, lines 60-72.

The Reviewer: Consequently, the authors have measured their focal concepts, ses and religiousness, in a manner at odd with the state of the art literature on religion.

The Authors: The reviewer has not clarified how he got such an impression. We have not framed a composite SES variable (it has conceptualization difficulties). Instead, we simultaneously entered the different indices of SES, i.e., family income, caste status, and education level, and assessed their effect on religiousness. Income, social status, and education are commonly used indexes of SES. Moreover, we have used standardized measures of religiousness and IU.

The Reviewer: The inclusion of handedness as some sort of correlated factor of religiousness is ludicrously void of any theoretical support and may likely come from the p-hacking of the small scale psychological studies being cited.

The Authors: In response to this question related to the lack of support for the study of the effect of handedness and other bio-socio-developmental variables on religiousness, we have attempted a justification. Please see our response to the editor. Please see the lines 215-234 also.

The Reviewer: Measuring socioeconomic status as income alone also gives away how much the authors are unfamiliar with the prevailing evidence on the multiaxial nature of ses and class.

The Authors: Perhaps the reviewer has not noticed that caste and education (both indices of SES) were also studied. We have rewritten the relevant text to highlight this, please see the lines 205-212, 238-241.

The Reviewer: Finally, religion literature has already made popular the knowledge that religiosity comprises of beliefs, behaviors, and identification, the remaking of the wheel here still adheres to the proclamation of religiousness as a focal research question, instead of all other aspects of religiosity.

The Authors: Thank you for the suggestion.

In the present study, we analyzed religiousness in terms of four basic dimensions of believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging. We also analyzed the quality of religiousness by comparing the salience of the dimensions.

However, now, we have derived additional conclusions based on these analyses. Please see the lines 174-184, 592-605.

The Reviewer: The sample is composed of two very different sources in the population, whose unequal representativeness cannot even be redeemed by sample weights, let alone the absence of it.

The Authors: Please see that the study was conducted in the discovery-replication sample approach, in which replication needs to be done in a different population. Therefore, sample weighting may be irrelevant.

Attachment

Submitted filename: COMMENTS of editor PLOS ONE.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(23.6KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273174.r003

Decision Letter 1

Ning Du

11 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-30575R1The relationships of family income and caste-status with religiousness: Mediation role of intolerance of uncertaintyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumar,

I only see section titles for Abstract, Method and Discussion. Please include tittles for other sections. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 25 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ning Du

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

I only see sections titles for Abstract, Method and Discussion. Please include section titles for other parts.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. 2022 Aug 26;17(8):e0273174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273174.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

15 Jul 2022

The Editor: I only see section titles for Abstract, Method and Discussion. Please include tittles for other sections.

The Authors: Done. Please see the marked changes in the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to comments of the editor.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(12.6KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273174.r005

Decision Letter 2

Ning Du

4 Aug 2022

The relationships of family income and caste-status with religiousness: Mediation role of intolerance of uncertainty

PONE-D-21-30575R2

Dear Dr. Kumar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ning Du

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273174.r006

Acceptance letter

Ning Du

17 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-30575R2

The relationships of family income and caste-status with religiousness: Mediation role of intolerance of uncertainty

Dear Dr. Kumar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ning Du

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. The conceptual path diagram of the studied relationships of height (other variables as covariates) with IU and religiousness separately for men and women in the students’ sample.

IU = intolerance of uncertainty, GC = general castes, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, th. = thousand, LQ = laterality quotient (handedness).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(145.6KB, docx)}

S2 Fig. The conceptual path diagram of the studied relationships of antecedents with IUP, IUI, and religiousness in the students’ sample.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(179.4KB, docx)}

S3 Fig. The conceptual path diagram of the studied relationships of antecedents with IUP, IUI, and religiousness in the community sample.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(165KB, docx)}

S1 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(53KB, xlsx)}

S2 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(166.6KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: COMMENTS of editor PLOS ONE.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(23.6KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to comments of the editor.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(12.6KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0273174.ref001] 1.Saroglou V. Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The big four religious dimensions and cultural variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2011. Nov;42(8):1320–40. doi: 10.1177/0022022111412267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref002] 2.Pargament KI, Raiya HA. A decade of research on the psychology of religion and coping: Things we assumed and lessons we learned. Psyke & Logos. 2007. Dec 1;28(2):25–25. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref003] 3.Wimberley DW. Socioeconomic deprivation and religious salience: A cognitive behavioral approach. The Sociological Quarterly. 1984. Mar 1;25(2):223–38. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref004] 4.Barber N. A cross-national test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief. Cross-Cultural Research. 2011. Aug;45(3):318–33. doi: 10.1177/1069397111402465 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref005] 5.Norris P, Inglehart R. Are high levels of existential security conducive to secularization? A response to our critics. In the changing world religion map 2015. (pp. 3389–3408). Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref006] 6.Rees TJ. Is personal insecurity a cause of cross-national differences in the intensity of religious belief? Journal of Religion and Society.2009;11:1–24. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref007] 7.Ruiter S, Van Tubergen F. Religious attendance in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 60 countries. American Journal of Sociology. 2009. Nov;115(3):863–95. doi: 10.1086/603536 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref008] 8.Storm I. Does economic insecurity predict religiosity? Evidence from the European social survey 2002–2014. Sociology of Religion. 2017. Jun 1;78(2):146–72. doi: 10.1093/socrel/srw055 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref009] 9.Schieman S. Socioeconomic status and beliefs about God’s influence in everyday life. Sociology of Religion. 2010. Mar 1;71(1):25–51. doi: 10.1093/socrel/srq004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref010] 10.Bentzen JS. Origins of religiousness: The role of natural disasters. Univ. of Copenhagen Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper. 2013 Feb 18(13–02). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2221859 or doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2221859 [DOI]

[pone.0273174.ref011] 11.Brandt MJ, Henry PJ. Psychological defensiveness as a mechanism explaining the relationship between low socioeconomic status and religiosity. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 2012. Oct 1;22(4):321–32. doi: 10.1080/10508619.2011.646565 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref012] 12.McIntosh DN, Silver RC, Wortman CB. Religion’s role in adjustment to a negative life event: coping with the loss of a child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993. Oct;65(4):812. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.4.812 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref013] 13.Kessler RC, Cleary PD. Social class and psychological distress. American Sociological Review. 1980. Jun 1:463–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref014] 14.Diener E, Tay L, Myers DG. The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011. Dec;101(6):1278. doi: 10.1037/a0024402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref015] 15.Aydin N, Fischer P, Frey D. Turning to God in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2010. Jun;36(6):742–53. doi: 10.1177/0146167210367491 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref016] 16.Yang T, Yang XY, Yu L, Cottrell RR, Jiang S. Individual and regional association between socioeconomic status and uncertainty stress, and life stress: a representative nationwide study of China. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2017. Dec;16(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0618-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref017] 17.Hamamura T. Social class predicts generalized trust but only in wealthy societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2012. Apr;43(3):498–509. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref018] 18.Mirowsky J, Ross CE. Socioeconomic status and subjective life expectancy. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2000. Jun 1:133–51. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref019] 19.Jong J, Ross R, Philip T, Chang SH, Simons N, Halberstadt J. The religious correlates of death anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Religion, Brain & Behavior. 2018. Jan 2;8(1):4–20. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref020] 20.Alaszewski A, Coxon K. Uncertainty in everyday life: Risk, worry and trust. Health, Risk & Society. 2009;11(3): 201–207. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref021] 21.Van den Bos K. Making sense of life: The existential self trying to deal with personal uncertainty. Psychological Inquiry. 2009. Dec 11;20(4):197–217. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref022] 22.Van den Bos K, Van Ameijde J, Van Gorp H. On the psychology of religion: The role of personal uncertainty in religious worldview defense. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2006. Dec 1;28(4):333–41. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref023] 23.McGregor I, Haji R, Nash KA, Teper R. Religious zeal and the uncertain self. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2008. Jul 11;30(2):183–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref024] 24.Hogg MA, Adelman JR, Blagg RD. Religion in the face of uncertainty: An uncertainty-identity theory account of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2010. Feb;14(1):72–83. doi: 10.1177/1088868309349692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref025] 25.Schmuckler MA. What is ecological validity? A dimensional analysis. Infancy. 2001. Oct;2(4):419–36. doi: 10.1207/S15327078IN0204_02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref026] 26.Kivimäki M, Batty GD, Pentti J, Shipley MJ, Sipilä PN, Nyberg ST, et al. Association between socioeconomic status and the development of mental and physical health conditions in adulthood: a multi-cohort study. The Lancet Public Health. 2020. Mar 1;5(3):e140–9. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30248-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref027] 27.Wang Z, Koenig HG, Ma H, Shohaib SA. Religion, purpose in life, social support, and psychological distress in Chinese university students. Journal of Religion and Health. 2016. Jun;55(3):1055–64. doi: 10.1007/s10943-016-0184-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref028] 28.Boelen P. Intolerance of uncertainty and emotional distress following the death of a loved one. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 2010. Jul 1;23(4):471–8. doi: 10.1080/10615800903494135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref029] 29.Bottesi G, Marino C, Vieno A, Ghisi M, Spada MM. Psychological distress in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: The joint contribution of intolerance of uncertainty and cyberchondria. Psychology & Health. 2021. Jul 6:1–8. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2021.1952584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref030] 30.Carleton RN. Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2016. Apr 1;39:30–43. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref031] 31.Koerner N, Mejia T, Kusec A. What’s in a name? Intolerance of uncertainty, other uncertainty-relevant constructs, and their differential relations to worry and generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2017. Mar 4;46(2):141–61. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2016.1211172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref032] 32.Carleton RN. Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all?. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2016. Jun 1;41:5–21. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.03.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref033] 33.Kretzmann RP, Gauer G. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale–short version (IUS-12). Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. 2020. Jul 17;42:129–37. doi: 10.1590/2237-6089-2018-0087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref034] 34.Yao N, Qian M, Jiang Y, Elhai JD. The influence of intolerance of uncertainty on anxiety and depression symptoms in Chinese-speaking samples: Structure and validity of the Chinese translation of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2021. May 4;103(3):406–15. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2020.1739058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref035] 35.Kumar S, Saini R, Jain R, Sakshi. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (short form) in India. International Journal of Mental Health. 2021. Aug 28:1–20. doi: 10.1080/00207411.2021.1969321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref036] 36.Carleton RN, Weeks JW, Howell AN, Asmundson GJ, Antony MM, McCabe RE. Assessing the latent structure of the intolerance of uncertainty construct: An initial taxometric analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2012. Jan 1;26(1):150–7. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref037] 37.Carleton RN, Norton MP, Asmundson GJ. Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2007. Jan 1;21(1):105–17. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref038] 38.Howell AN, Carleton RN, Horswill SC, Parkerson HA, Weeks JW, Asmundson GJ. Intolerance of uncertainty moderates the relations among religiosity and motives for religion, depression, and social evaluation fears. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2019. Jan;75(1):95–115. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22691 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref039] 39.Valdesolo P, Graham J. Awe, uncertainty, and agency detection. Psychological Science. 2014. Jan;25(1):170–8. doi: 10.1177/0956797613501884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref040] 40.Amir D, Jordan MR, Rand DG. An uncertainty management perspective on long-run impacts of adversity: The influence of childhood socioeconomic status on risk, time, and social preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2018. Nov 1;79:217–26. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref041] 41.Jonassaint CR, Siegler IC, Barefoot JC, Edwards CL, Williams RB. Low life course socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with negative NEO PI-R personality patterns. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2011. Mar;18(1):13–21. doi: 10.1007/s12529-009-9069-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref042] 42.Hood RW Jr, Hill PC, Spilka B. The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. Guilford Publications; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref043] 43.Glock CY. On the study of religious commitment. Religious Education. 1962;57(4, Res. Suppl.): 98–110. doi: 10.1080/003440862057S407 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref044] 44.Kumar S, Jain R, Saini R. Confirmatory factor analysis and gender invariance of the Four Basic Dimensions of Religiousness Scale in India. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2021. Feb;13(1):53. doi: 10.1037/rel0000305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref045] 45.Saroglou V, Clobert M, Cohen AB, Johnson KA, Ladd KL, Van Pachterbeke M, et al. Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The cognitive, emotional, moral, and social dimensions of religiousness across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2020. Sep;51(7–8):551–75. doi: 10.1177/0022022120946488 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref046] 46.Ghurye GS. Caste and race in India. Popular Prakashan; 1969. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref047] 47.Zacharias A, Vakulabharanam V. Caste stratification and wealth inequality in India. World Development. 2011. Oct 1;39(10):1820–33. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref048] 48.Srinivas MN. Caste: Its 20th Century Avatar. Penguin; UK; 2000. Oct 14. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref049] 49.Singh Y. Modernization of Indian tradition. Thompson press (India) limited; Faridabad. 1977. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref050] 50.Desai S, Dubey A. Caste in 21st century India: Competing narratives. Economic and Political Weekly. 2012. Mar 3;46(11):40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref051] 51.Jaspal R. Caste, social stigma and identity processes. Psychology and Developing Societies. 2011. Mar;23(1):27–62. doi: 10.1177/097133361002300102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref052] 52.Sharma KL. Is there today caste system or there is only caste in India?. Polish Sociological Review. 2012;178(2):245–64. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref053] 53.Thorat S. Caste, social exclusion and poverty linkages–Concept, measurement and empirical evidence. Concept Paper for PACS. 2005. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref054] 54.Hill JP. Faith and understanding: Specifying the impact of higher education on religious belief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2011. Sep;50(3):533–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41307102. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref055] 55.McNamara Barry C, Nelson L, Davarya S, Urry S. Religiosity and spirituality during the transition to adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2010. Jul;34(4):311–24. doi: 10.1177/0165025409350964 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref056] 56.Barahmand U. Age and gender differences in adolescent worry. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008. Dec 1;45(8):778–83. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref057] 57.Donelson E. Psychology of religion and adolescents in the United States: Past to present. Journal of Adolescence. 1999. Apr;22(2):187–204. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref058] 58.Dekkers LM, Jansen BR, Salemink E, Huizenga HM. Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale: Measurement invariance among adolescent boys and girls and relationships with anxiety and risk taking. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2017. Jun 1;55:57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref059] 59.Ellis L, Hoskin AW, Ratnasingam M. Testosterone, risk taking, and religiosity: Evidence from two cultures. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2016. Mar;55(1):153–73. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12248 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref060] 60.Dutton E, Madison G, Dunkel C. The mutant says in his heart,“there is no god”: The rejection of collective religiosity centred around the worship of moral gods is associated with high mutational load. Evolutionary Psychological Science. 2018. Sep;4(3):233–44. doi: 10.1007/s40806-017-0133-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref061] 61.Kumar S, Saini R, Jain R. Hand preference and intolerance of uncertainty: Atypical cerebral lateralization advantages lower intolerance of uncertainty. Laterality. 2020. Jan 2;25(1):22–42. doi: 10.1080/1357650X.2019.1611843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref062] 62.Yeary KH, Sobal J, Wethington E. Religion and body weight: A review of quantitative studies. Obesity Reviews. 2017. Oct;18(10):1210–22. doi: 10.1111/obr.12569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref063] 63.Tanovic E, Gee DG, Joormann J. Intolerance of uncertainty: Neural and psychophysiological correlates of the perception of uncertainty as threatening. Clinical Psychology Review. 2018. Mar 1;60:87–99. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref064] 64.Harris S, Kaplan JT, Curiel A, Bookheimer SY, Iacoboni M, Cohen MS. The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief. PLoS One. 2009. Oct 1;4(10):e7272. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref065] 65.Zhong W, Cristofori I, Bulbulia J, Krueger F, Grafman J. Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism. Neuropsychologia. 2017. Jun 1;100:18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref066] 66.Arain M, Haque M, Johal L, Mathur P, Nel W, Rais A, et al. Maturation of the adolescent brain. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2013;9:449. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S39776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref067] 67.Yaple ZA, Yu R. Functional and structural brain correlates of socioeconomic status. Cerebral Cortex. 2020. Jan 10;30(1):181–96. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhz080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref068] 68.Aydogan G, Daviet R, Karlsson Linnér R, Hare TA, Kable JW, Kranzler HR, et al. Genetic underpinnings of risky behaviour relate to altered neuroanatomy. Nature Human Behaviour. 2021. Jun;5(6):787–94. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-01027-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref069] 69.Koolschijn PC, Crone EA. Sex differences and structural brain maturation from childhood to early adulthood. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. 2013. Jul 1;5:106–18. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2013.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref070] 70.Sha Z, Pepe A, Schijven D, Carrión-Castillo A, Roe JM, Westerhausen R, et al. Handedness and its genetic influences are associated with structural asymmetries of the cerebral cortex in 31,864 individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021. Nov 23;118(47):e2113095118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2113095118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref071] 71.Vuoksimaa E, Panizzon MS, Franz CE, Fennema-Notestine C, Hagler DJ, Lyons MJ, et al. Brain structure mediates the association between height and cognitive ability. Brain Structure and Function. 2018. Sep;223(7):3487–94. doi: 10.1007/s00429-018-1675-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref072] 72.Zwaan RA, Etz A, Lucas RE, Donnellan MB. Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2018;41. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17001972 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref073] 73.Sankaran S, Sekerdej M, Von Hecker U. The role of Indian caste identity and caste inconsistent norms on status representation. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017. Mar 31;8:487. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref074] 74.Birrell J, Meares K, Wilkinson A, Freeston M. Toward a definition of intolerance of uncertainty: A review of factor analytical studies of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Clinical Psychology Review. 2011. Nov 1;31(7):1198–208. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref075] 75.Bottesi G, Noventa S, Freeston MH, Ghisi M. Seeking certainty about Intolerance of Uncertainty: Addressing old and new issues through the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised. PloS One. 2019. Feb 11;14(2):e0211929. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref076] 76.Strawbridge RJ, Ward J, Lyall LM, Tunbridge EM, Cullen B, Graham N, et al. Genetics of self-reported risk-taking behaviour, trans-ethnic consistency and relevance to brain gene expression. Translational Psychiatry. 2018. Sep 4;8(1):1–1. doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0236-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref077] 77.Easterbrook MJ, Kuppens T, Manstead AS. Socioeconomic status and the structure of the self‐concept. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2020. Jan;59(1):66–86. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12334 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref078] 78.Kraus MW, Park JW. The undervalued self: Social class and self-evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014. Dec 5;5:1404. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref079] 79.Reiland S, Lauterbach D. Effects of trauma and religiosity on self-esteem. Psychological Reports. 2008. Jun;102(3):779–90. doi: 10.2466/pr0.102.3.779-790 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref080] 80.Srinivas MN. Social change in modern India. Orient Blackswan; 1995. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref081] 81.Atran S, Norenzayan A. Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2004. Dec;27(6):713–30. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x04000172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref082] 82.Bradshaw M, Ellison CG. Do genetic factors influence religious life? Findings from a behavior genetic analysis of twin siblings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2008. Dec;47(4):529–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00425.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref083] 83.Voland E, Schiefenhövel W, editors. The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior. Springer Science & Business Media; 2009. Aug 12. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref084] 84.Rucker DD, Preacher KJ, Tormala ZL, Petty RE. Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2011. Jun;5(6):359–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref085] 85.Berreman GD. Caste in India and the United States. American Journal of Sociology. 1960. Sep 1;66(2):120–7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2773155. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref086] 86.Lindt B. Towards a comprehensive model of caste. Contributions to Indian sociology. 2013. Feb;47(1):85–112. doi: 10.1177/006996671204700104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref087] 87.Velitchkova A. Citizenship as a caste marker: How persons experience cross-national inequality. Current Sociology. 2021. Jul 15:00113921211028644. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref088] 88.Cohn BS. Changing traditions of a low caste. The Journal of American Folklore. 1958. Jul 1;71(281):413–21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/538570. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref089] 89.Blankenstein NE, Crone EA, van den Bos W, van Duijvenvoorde AC. Dealing with uncertainty: Testing risk-and ambiguity-attitude across adolescence. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2016. Feb 17;41(1–2):77–92. doi: 10.1080/87565641.2016.1158265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref090] 90.Wang KY, Kercher K, Huang JY, Kosloski K. Aging and religious participation in late life. Journal of Religion and Health. 2014. Oct;53(5):1514–28. doi: 10.1007/s10943-013-9741-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref091] 91.Ameri Z, Mirzakhani F, Nabipour AR, Khanjani N, Sullman MJ. The relationship between religion and risky behaviors among Iranian university students. Journal of Religion and Health. 2017. Dec;56(6):2010–22. doi: 10.1007/s10943-016-0337-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref092] 92.Sinha JW, Cnaan RA, Gelles RJ. Adolescent risk behaviors and religion: Findings from a national study. Journal of Adolescence. 2007. Apr 1;30(2):231–49. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref093] 93.Jensen D, Cohen JN, Mennin DS, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG. Clarifying the unique associations among intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2016. Nov 1;45(6):431–44. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2016.1197308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref094] 94.Bonelli R, Dew RE, Koenig HG, Rosmarin DH, Vasegh S. Religious and spiritual factors in depression: review and integration of the research. Depression Research and Treatment. 2012. Oct;2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/962860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref095] 95.Kuhn U. Measurement of income in surveys. FORS Guide. 2019. Jan;2. doi: 10.24449/FG-2019-00002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref096] 96.Basole A. State of working India. Azim Premji University. 2018. Retrieved from https://cse.azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/state-ofworking-india/. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0273174.ref097] 97.Olfert MD, Barr ML, Charlier CM, Famodu OA, Zhou W, Mathews AE, et al. Self-reported vs. measured height, weight, and BMI in young adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public health. 2018. Oct;15(10):2216. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The relationships of family income and caste-status with religiousness: Mediation role of intolerance of uncertainty

Sanjay Kumar

Martin Voracek

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Participants

Students’ sample

Community sample

Material and procedure

Statistical procedure

Results

Students’ sample

Table 1. The distribution of variables in the students sample.

General IU as the mediator of the effects of antecedent variables on general religiousness

Fig 1. The conceptual path diagram shows the studied relationships of antecedent variables with IU and religiousness in the students’ sample.

Table 2. The effects (direct and indirect effects) of antecedent variables on the mediation variable (general IU) and the dependent variable (religiousness) in the students sample.

Prospective and inhibitive IUs as mediators of the effects of antecedent variables on general religiousness

Table 3. The effects (direct and indirect) of antecedent and mediation (prospective IU & inhibitive IU) variables on religiousness in the students’ sample.

General IU as the mediator of the effects of antecedent variables on the dimensions of religiousness

Table 4. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on believing in the students’ sample.

Table 7. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on belonging in the students’ sample.

Table 5. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on bonding in the students’ sample.

Table 6. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on behaving in the students’ sample.

The interrelationships in the dimensions of religiousness

Table 8. Simple and partial (in parenthesis; after controlling religiousness) correlations between the dimensions of religiousness in social, economic, and religion groups among the students’ sample.

The relative importance of the dimensions of religiousness in different groups

Table 9. The distribution and the comparison of the dimensions of religiousness in different groups among the students sample.

Community sample

Table 10. The distribution of variables in the community sample.

General IU as the mediator of the effects of antecedent variables on general religiousness

Fig 2. The conceptual path diagram shows the studied relationships of antecedent variables with IU and religiousness in the community sample.

Table 11. The effects (direct and indirect effects) of antecedent variables on the mediation variable (general IU) and the dependent variable (religiousness) in the community sample.

Prospective and inhibitive IUs as mediators of the effects of antecedent variables on general religiousness

Table 12. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (IUP & IUI) variables on religiousness in the community sample.

General IU as the mediator of the effects of antecedent variables on the dimensions of religiousness

Table 13. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on believing in the community sample.

Table 16. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on belonging in the community sample.

Table 14. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on bonding in the community sample.

Table 15. The effects (direct and indirect effect) of antecedent and mediation (general IU) variables on behaving in the community sample.

The interrelationships in the dimensions of religiousness

Table 17. Simple and partial (in parenthesis; after controlling religiousness) correlations between the dimensions of religiousness in social, economic, and religion groups among the community sample.

The relative importance of the dimensions of religiousness in different groups

Table 18. The distribution and the comparison of the dimensions of religiousness in different groups among the community sample.

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Ning Du

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Ning Du

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Ning Du

Roles

Acceptance letter

Ning Du

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases