Conclusions
In our study comparing religious and
non-religious
fraternities and sororities, we found that many of our assumptions were
correct, but we also saw some very interesting trends. We had six
main hypotheses about the differences between religious and non-religious
fraternities and sororities and all were validated through the
results. However, some results from our investigation were
surprising. The first hypothesis was that members of religious
groups joined their organizations for religious reasons whereas those in
non-religious groups joined for social reasons such as making
friends. Our
results
showed that more than
half (59%) of
the members of religious groups joined for religious reasons while 77% of
the non- religious group members joined to meet friends. Meeting
friends was also a factor for some in the religious groups but only
accounted for 26% of those surveyed. Our second hypothesis was that
members of the religious groups would attend church more than those
individuals in non-religious groups.nbsp According to our data, 70% of
religious group members went to church once a week, compared to only 19%
of non-religious group members. Despite these results, which proved
our hypothesis correct, we were surprised that the percentage attending a
religious service once a week for the religious sororities and
fraternities was not higher, and that 24% of the group only attended a
religious service once a month. We thought the percentage for
religious organizations would have been a lot closer to 100%. Next,
we hypothesized that for members of the religious groups, religion would
have more influence in their daily lives than those in the non-religious
groups. Again, our
results
showed that for almost all members of
religious groups religion was very important, however only a few found
religion to be important in there lives, or had no opinion. This was
very different for non-religious groups; there was almost an even split
among the options: very important, important, neutral, slightly important,
and not important. We also hypothesized that members of religious
groups would be less likely to participate in activities such as drinking
alcohol, taking drugs, using profanity, and premarital sex, and would
think these activities were morally wrong. Whereas the members of
the non-religious groups would not think the activities were morally wrong
and would therefore participate in the activity. We were surprised
at the number of those in religious groups who participated in drinking
alcohol and using profanity. Before doing the survey, we thought the
results would indicate a lower percentage of members of religious
fraternities and sororities who participate in drinking alcohol and using
profanity than they did. For both groups, religious and
non-religious, there was a strong correlation between participation in an
activity and feeling that the activity was morally wrong. The
activities with the lowest
participation were the activities
that were viewed as being
morally
wrong. Based on the chart in the
results section, there was less of a stigma about using profanity and
drinking alcohol than there was about having premarital sex and taking
drugs. Our next hypothesis explored the participation of members of
both the religious and non-religious groups in other campus
activities. We believed that members of religious groups were more
likely to be involved in other religious activities, while the members of
the social sororities were more likely to do other fun activities as
opposed to religious. Our
results showed that 59% of the other
activities members of religious sororities and fraternities participated
in were religious. This contrasted with the findings
for the non-religious groups,
where the greatest amount of their other campus activities fell into the
category classified as other, which included things such as cultural,
residence hall association, orientation counselors and more.
In addition to our results validating the
hypotheses, they
also fit the results discussed in American Evangelicalism by
Christian Smith, and Grief
and Mourning by Paul Rosenblatt, R. Patricia Walsh, and Douglas
Jackson. Our hypothesis was that more members of the religious
groups would consider themselves evangelical Christians than those in the
non-religious groups. As shown in the results, approximately 75%
of members of the religious
groups consider themselves evangelical Christians as compared to only 25%
of those in non-religious groups. Not only did a greater percentage
of the members of Christian organizations characterize themselves as
evangelical, but they also live as evangelical Christians. Their
relative abstinance from premarital sex, drinking, drugs, and profanity,
their commitment to church, and the importance of their beliefs in their
lives follow Christian Smith's conclusions about the evangelical movement
in America. During the interview portion
of the project, we asked
how members of each group handle tough situations. As discussed in
Grief and Mourning, the members of both the religious and
non-religious
organizations turned to close friends for comfort and help. The
authors of Grief and Mourning stated that this was
expected response in American culture in the face of tragedy or pain.
In
addition to agreeing with the finding in Grief and Mourning, we
found that the members of
the religious organizations also turned to prayer as a means of dealing
with a
problem.
Although the results were as expected,
there were some
weaknesses to this project. One of the strengths was the large
sample population surveyed (more than 100). In addition, we chose
two religious and non-religious fraternities and two religious and
non-religious sororities, which made our results a more accurate
representation of the entire population, than if we had just chosen one of
each type. We felt that by interviewing one member of each group, in
addition to doing a questionnaire, allowed us
the
opportunity to learn things
about the organizations that otherwise would not have been included
in the comparisons between the religious and the non-religious
fraternities and sororities. Lastly, we worked well
together as a group. Our weaknesses included wording problems on the
questionnaire. For example, we should have
asked for their religious
denomination instead of their religion, because some people said Christian
while others gave their denomination. If we had been given the
denomination, we could possibly have made some interesting comparisons
between some of the denominations and the values held by its members.
We also had some problems getting the questionnaires back in a timely
fashion. In order to correct this problem, we could have distributed
and collected them from the members, at a chapter meeting instead of
relying on the interviewee to collect them. We could have chosen a
more culturally and ethnically diverse mixture of fraternities and
sororities in the case of the non-religious groups, so as to have a better
representation of the Greek population. Lastly, we could have
possibly gotten different results if we surveyed more than the eight
groups.
Overall, our results supported our
hypotheses. For
the religious groups, we found that religion was an important factor in
deciding to join the organization, participating in activities such as
drinking alcohol, premarital sex, taking drugs, and using profanity,
determining if these activities were morally wrong, and joining other
organizations on campus. On the other hand, members of
non-religious groups did not consistently rely on their religious beliefs
to make these decisions. Participation in Greek life is a part of
college life and despite misconceptions it is still possible to keep ones
religious convictions while being apart of a sorority or fraternity.
Even though the non-religious groups are seen as purely social, members
still have an opportunity to practice their faith. In addition, the
religious groups are not solely focused on religion but they do have
social activities that agree with their beliefs.
Email
( -- 5/01/00 -- Harrell)