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]) |
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.