Information-seeking Behavior in US Catholic Young Adults Maria Marceline Frederick

Plan II Honors Program The University of Texas at Austin

May 2, 2007

LeeAnn Kahlor, Ph.D. Department of Advertising Supervising Professor

Terry Hemeyer, MA Department of Advertising Second Reader

ABSTRACT Author:

Maria Frederick

Title:

Information-seeking Behavior in US Catholic Young Adults

Supervising Professor:

Dr. LeeAnn Kahlor

Research shows that young adults in the Catholic Church are different from previous generations—overall they attend Mass less than previous generations, emphasize personal conscience over church teaching, and exhibit less religious illiteracy.1 In order to continue to maintain and establish its relationships with its younger members, the Catholic Church must gain an understanding of how to effectively communicate with this demographic and what topics and issues resonate with them. This study discusses data gathered from a sample of the Catholic young adult population and analyzes information-seeking behavior to discover what sources this demographic uses for information as well as what issues they are fully aware of. The results also segment the audience based on two variables, gender and political affiliation, to test for significant differences that may necessitate additional segmenting of the demographic in order to better facilitate communication. My data shows significant correlations between gender and political affiliation and their effects on the sources a respondent uses for religious information as well as how knowledgeable he or she feels on particular issues. While extremely limited in its specific results, this study helps set the stage for inquiry into further research questions regarding this demographic segment of the Catholic Church. Prior to creating and implementing a public relations plan to better maintain and establish relationships with this target public, significant and generalizable research must be conducted in order to narrow down this broad demographic into more segmented strategic publics. The more specific these strategic publics, the more targeted the message will be and the more likely the plan will achieve its intended goals.

1

Foley, Leonard. Vatican II: the Vision Lives On. Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Cincinnatti, 1993. "CARA Says Recent Mass Attendance Steady." America 31 Jan. 2005: 4-5.

O Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church, With joy and wonder we seek to make our own your Magnificat, joining you in your hymn of thankfulness and love. With you we give thanks to God, "whose mercy is from generation to generation," for the exalted vocation and the many forms of mission entrusted to the lay faithful. God has called each of them by name to live his own communion of love and holiness and to be one in the great family of God's children. He has sent them forth to shine with the light of Christ and to communicate the fire of the Spirit in every part of society through their life inspired by the gospel. O Virgin full of courage, may your spiritual strength and trust in God inspire us, so that we might know how to overcome all the obstacles that we encounter in accomplishing our mission. Teach us to treat the affairs of the world with a real sense of Christian responsibility and a joyful hope of the coming of God's Kingdom, and of a "new heaven and a new earth." You who were gathered in prayer with the Apostles in the Cenacle, awaiting the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, implore his renewed outpouring on all the faithful, men and women alike, so that they might more fully respond to their vocation and mission, as branches engrafted to the true vine, called to bear much fruit for the life of the world. O Virgin Mother, guide and sustain us so that we might always live as true sons and daughters of the Church of your Son. Enable us to do our part in helping to establish on earth the civilization of truth and love, as God wills it, for his glory. Amen Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici

Thank you to all the respondents who helped me with my research! Also, thank you Father Shoemaker and Father Blaney for allowing me to conduct my research at your parishes. I especially thank Helen Osman, Mary Sperry, and Sister Judith Zoebelein for your help and advice. Thank you LeeAnn Kahlor and Terry Hemeyer, for your expertise, knowledge, and support throughout this year. Many thanks to everyone who said a prayer for me as I went through this process. And a big thank you to my parents for your support, love, proofreading, and prayers.

Table of Contents Literature Review……………...……………………………….………………….…...1 Research Questions………….........................................................................................4 Methods Sample and Procedure………….………..……………………………..………5 Data Collection….……..………………………….…….….…..............5 Sample…..……………………………..………………........….....…....6 Measures…………………………………………….…………….…….…......6 Questionnaire….………………………….………………..………......6 Variables…..………………………….……………….…..……...……8 Analysis……………………………………………………………………….....……10 Results.…………………………………………………………..……...….....………10 Descriptive Statistics…....…………………………………...………….…….10 . Research Related to Research Questions………………………..……….…...12 Discussion.…………………..….………………………………………………....….19 Conclusion……………………...……………………………………………….….....23 Appendix Questionnaire…………....………………………………………….………...28 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….....37 Biography………………………………………………………………………….....39

Page 1

Literature Review Roman Catholicism is the largest single religious denomination in the United States, with over 69 million members. However, since the Vatican II Council meeting, which lasted from 1962 to 1965 and which mandated changes in liturgy, lay ministry, ecumenism, religious life, and other areas, researchers have found that a majority of younger Catholics are beginning to distinguish themselves from older generations (Foley, 1993). Research conducted at Purdue University found that younger Catholics “place more emphasis on following one’s personal conscience” than on church teachings; this trend was not found among older generations (Pogorelc, 2000). The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) found that Mass attendance in the US has declined in the long term and that the trend “is best explained by generational change” specifically because Pre-Vatican II generation Catholics, the oldest generation of Catholics, grew up “in an era where deliberately failing to attend Mass on Sunday or another day of obligation without good reason was quite clearly communicated as a mortal sin” while “for the Vatican II and post-Vatican II generations [Mass attendance] has not been emphasized to the same degree (CARA, 2005).” A 2005 study on religious illiteracy found that “religious illiteracy does not appear to be any more widespread among today’s young adults than among other Catholics. If anything, it is more pronounced among pre-Vatican II Catholics than among post-Vatican II Catholics and members of the Millennial generation (Poorman, 2005).” Youth ministers agree that “young people are prepared to both accept and defend their faith—provided that in reply to their many questions they are given answers that make sense in the light of their experience and their faith (Jones, 2003).”

Page 2 Many different efforts have been made to connect with younger Catholics including visiting pubs, and even publishing a bible with anime illustrations. Mark Poorman, an associate professor of Theology and campus minister at the University of Notre Dame, suggests developing a more effective campus ministry to help reach out to college-age Catholics (Poorman, 2004). However, no large-scale program for addressing the needs of young Catholics has emerged. And even before a program can be created, the young adult demographic must be studied to help segment it into more specific groups, perhaps based on gender or political affiliation if these differences are significant. Public relations research and strategies may be effective in helping the institutional Catholic Church reach out to its younger members. Public relations is “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends (Cutlip, 2006). Public relations often plays a key role in communication, the “reciprocal process of exchanging signals to inform, persuade, or instruct, based on shared meanings and conditioned by the communicators’ relationship and the social context (Cutlip, 2006).” The concept of “publics” and further, the contingency, “on whom its success or failure depends” are key to effective communication. Public relations practitioners create their own publics, that is to say, they consider the goals of their communication program and segment their target audience so that they can craft individual messages that will resonate with each group; this is a process known as reification (Cutlip, 2006). Groups can be segmented based on many characteristics including demographic, geographic, or psychographic specifics or an individual’s position, reputation, or organizational membership (Cutlip, 2006). These practitioner-defined groups are known as “target publics” or “strategic publics” (Cutlip).

Page 3 Defining Catholic young adults based on significant characteristics is the first step toward creating a public relations plan that can help the institutional Catholic Church establish and maintain its relationship with this demographic. One distinctive trait that separates young adults from other generations is that they have “come of age shaped by an unprecedented revolution in technology…(Kohut, et al., 2007). In particular, states Marc Prensky, author of Don’t Bother Me, Mom—I’m Learning, younger adults have a preference “for sharing, staying connected, instantaneity, multi-tasking, assembling random information into patterns, and using technology in new ways (Rainie, 2006).” Should the Catholic Church try to connect to the younger generation by utilizing new technology or do these young adults connect with the Church using traditional media? What is traditional media to this demographic? What important characteristics segment this demographic and merit special consideration when crafting specific messages? In this study, I hope to answer some of these questions by looking at particular demographic factors and how they affect information-seeking behavior in Catholics ages 18-29.

Page 4

Research Questions In discovering more about the younger Catholic demographic, I chose to segment the population based on gender and political affiliation. In addition, I will be investigating trends in information-seeking behavior among young Catholics; specifically to find out what sources they use to obtain information, what issues they are informed about and whether gender and political affiliation play a significant role in determining information-seeking behavior. 1. What mass mediated and interpersonal sources do Catholic young adults use for information about Church-related topics? 2. How frequently does the average Catholic spend looking for religious information? 3. What Church-related topics are they informed about? 4. How credible do Catholics consider various sources of religious information? 5. What official Catholic communications are Catholics aware of? 6. Are Catholics aware of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)? 7. Is there a correlation between gender and sources used for religious information? 8. Is there a correlation between political affiliation and sources used for religious information? 9. Is there a correlation between gender and perceived knowledge on particular religious topics? 10. Is there a correlation between political affiliation and perceived knowledge on particular religious topics?

Page 5

Methods Sample and Procedure Data Collection Information was gathered using online and paper questionnaires; the appendix contains a copy of the paper questionnaire. Both questionnaires begin with a consent form and description about the study. I estimate that the questionnaire took between 10-25 minutes to complete. The online questionnaire was put on the world wide web using the Websurveyor program and was hosted by the University of Texas Department of Advertising. Emails with the link were sent to members on distribution lists at the University Catholic Center, as well as members of Catholic Facebook, Google, and Yahoo groups to solicit responses online. My emails set forth three criteria for qualified respondents: that they be Catholic, currently residing in the US, and age 18 or older. I encouraged the online participants to refer other Catholics to take the survey through emails and via a separate web site that participants were directed to after completing the survey. In order to distribute the paper questionnaires, I randomly selected Catholic dioceses within the US and randomly selected parishes within these dioceses. After soliciting the help of over 20 parish and diocesan priests, two parish priests agreed to participate. One parish was located in Massachusetts, the other in Indiana. Each priest received between 100 and 150 surveys and self-addressed-stamped envelopes. I included actual stamps on my addressed envelopes, which, compared to business reply envelopes, seemed more personal. Studies show real stamps also demonstrate a “goodwill gesture” because it shows that the sender trusts the participant enough to send them an envelope which could be used to send another piece of mail (Dillman,

Page 6 2000). In order to make an extra effort of goodwill, I took advantage of the holiday season and used stamps that displayed the Virgin Mary with the Child Jesus, a central image of the Catholic religion. While the priests initially described my research to their parishioners, I also provided a detailed cover letter as research suggests that including a cover letter can increase survey response rates (Dillman, 2000). Sample I received 1,694 responses throughout the 113-day questionnaire collection period. The majority of the responses were received online. Of this set, a subset of 1,315 respondents, or 77.6%, of respondents were between the ages of 18 and 29, the demographic that I will be studying. The larger study was designed to investigate information-seeking behavior from the entire population; this particular subset was selected because it composed a large part of the entire sample. Measures Questionnaire The questionnaire was modeled after a questionnaire Professor Kahlor used for a study on information-seeking behavior. The questionnaire began by asking general questions and then moving to specific questions. Demographic questions were at the end of the survey so that if the respondent did not want to answer them, the majority of the survey was already complete. In addition, “by the time these questions are asked, interviewees have been conditioned to respond (McDaniel, 2005).” Some open-ended questions had probes and others simply stated “additional comments.” These questions were included in order to allow the respondent to include any additional thoughts and to help analyze responses to the closed-ended and scaled-response questions (McDaniel, 2005).

Page 7 The closed-ended questions focused on discovering demographic data such as how much time the respondent spent doing various activities such as listening to the radio or using the internet recreationally. The questionnaire did include two dichotomous questions, one of which set up a non-regular skip pattern, that is to say, the respondent only answered the following question if he or she answered “yes” to the prior. The Websurveyor program directed online respondents to the next appropriate question after they answered this question. The paper copy included the text “If yes” at the beginning of the next question and designated it as a subquestion of the former (12 and 12a). The majority of the questions were scaled-response questions. Most scaled-response questions were unidimensional, though two were multidimensional in that they compared use of sources of information to source credibility. This type of question was preferred because it “permits measurement of the intensity of respondents’ answers” and can be used with statistical tools for analysis (McDaniel, 2005). Research shows that “rating scales typically should have from 5 to 9 categories” so all of the scaled responses had at least 5 answer choices (McDaniel, 2005). One itemized scale, ranking from 1 to 7 was used. Likert scales with the following answer choices were also used: strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree. Semantic differential scales were used to determine relative credibility of and familiarity with the items listed. Prior to soliciting responses, a final evaluation of the questionnaire was done to eliminate unnecessary questions, questions that did not help to answer specific research questions and questions that were too long.

Page 8 Variables The following variables will be used in this study: time spent looking for religious information, mass mediated and interpersonal sources, source credibility, knowledge regarding specific issues, gender, and political affiliation. Time spent looking for religious information Effective communication to this demographic of Catholics must consider how much time this demographic invests in looking for religious information. This variable is captured by the item, “In a given month, how often do you look for information on Church-related topics?” Possible responses were Never (0), Once or twice (1), More than once or twice (2), Fairly regularly (3), and Regularly (4), with a mean of 1.96 (SD=1.290). Mass mediated and interpersonal sources Use of mass mediated and interpersonal sources was captured by the item, “I turn to the following sources for information on Church-related topics.” 15 mass mediated or interpersonal sources were listed along with a 5-category Likert scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). The means varied from a low of 1.73 (SD=.875) for TV advertising to a high of 4.39 (SD=.899) for Catholic Mass or Sermon. Source Credibility Source credibility was captured by the item, “How credible are the following sources regarding Church-related topics?.” The same 15 mass mediated or interpersonal sources used in the prior variable were listed along with a 5-category Semantic differential scale ranging from “Not credible” (1) to “Very Credible” (5). The means varied from a low of 1.67 (SD=.887) for TV advertising to a high of 4.60 (SD=.768) for Priests or Deacons. Knowledge Regarding Specific Issues

Page 9 The respondent’s knowledge regarding specific issues was captured by the item, “How informed do you feel about the following topics?” I chose to use 29 of the issues listed on the USCCB’s web site of specific issues (http://www.nccbuscc.org:8765/). A Semantic differential scale ranging from “Uninformed” (1) to “Informed” (7) was used and the means varied from a low of 3.2 (SD=1.853) for Hispanic Affairs to a high of 6.21 (SD=1.151) for Abortion. Gender Gender was captured by the item, “What is your gender?” Respondents had a choice of selecting male (1) or female (2). Political Affiliation Political Affiliation was captured by the item, “Which political party do you most identify with?” Answer choices included “Republican”, “Democrat”, “Independent”, “Green”, “Socialist”, “Libertarian”, and “Other.” 47.4% of respondents affiliated with the Republican party and 21.6% affiliated with the Democratic party. The next highest ranking percentage of political affiliation was 14.4%, with the Independent party.

Page 10

Analysis The data from the Websurveyor program was exported to Microsoft Excel where it was coded and cleaned-up; that is to say, extraneous responses were thrown out. Next the data was exported to SPSS in order to obtain descriptive statistics as well as Pearson Correlations and bivariate correlations. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

Results Before detailing and analyzing my results, it is important to put them into context. Specifically, I want to acknowledge that the responses I am using come from a convenience sample, a “nonprobability sample based on using people who are easily accessible (McDaniel et al., 2005).” The descriptive statistics and correlations obtained from this sample represent a small and unique portion of both the US populations and the population of US Catholics; I do not claim that any data can or should be generalized to any population other than the population that mirrors the sample itself. There are benefits and drawbacks to using a convenience sample. The main benefit of using a convenience sample is speed and accessibility—I was able to obtain many respondents in a limited amount of time. The major drawback, however, was that because the sample was a nonprobability sample, sampling error cannot be caluculated which means that there is no way to indicate how the sample may reflect the larger population (McDaniel et al., 2005). Descriptive Statistics The following are statistics about the sample used and the general US population; they are useful in comparing my sample’s representation of the general population.

Page 11


70.2% of respondents were female, while 51% of the entire US population is female (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).




73.6% of respondents fell into the 18-24 age bracket, while 9,1% of the US population falls in this age bracket (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). 10.7% were age 50 or older, while 29.4% of the US population falls in this age bracket (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).




All minority populations were underrepresented. Only 6% of respondents were of Hispanic or Latino origin while 39% of the entire US Catholic Church is Hispanic and 14.5% (USCB, 2006 ; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Less than one percent of respondents were African American, while 3% of US Catholics and 12% of the US population is African American (USCB, 2006 ; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).




I was able to get respondents from all 50 states. 18.8% of respondents were from Texas, 6.5% from Indiana, 6.5% from Minnesota, 5.4% from Massachusetts, 4.9% from Ohio, 3.7% from Missouri, 3.6% from Pennsylvania, 3.2% from Virginia, 3.2% from Michigan, and 3% from Indiana. The remaining states had represented between 0.1% to 2.8% with the least representation, 0.1%, coming from Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah.




80% of respondents had at least some college education; 16.3% had a bachelor’s degree, compared to 17.2% of the US population, and 5.6% had a post-graduate or professional degree, compared to the 10% of the US population that has a master’s, professional, or doctorate degree. 58.1% stated they had some college, while 20.1% of the US population has some college experience (Evans, 2000).This number is so much higher than the US population because many of my respondents are currently enrolled in college.




Politically, 47.5% were Republicans, 21.6% were Democrat, and 14.4% were Independent. In the 2006 midterm election, 56% of Catholics voted Democrat and 44%

Page 12 voted Republican (CARA, 2007). Nationwide, 30.7% of Americans usually consider themselves Republican while 35.5% usually consider themselves Democrat (Harris Interactive, 2004.).


79% of respondents had access to high speed internet while only 2.4% didn’t have access to internet or didn’t know their internet speed. Nationwide, 70% of adults have access to the internet (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2006).




28.7% of respondents made less than $25,000 a year, which is close to the US population average of 28% (Evans, 2000). I believe that for this sample the high percentage of those in this income bracket is probably due to the fact that many of the respondents are students and are making a small income while probably being funded mostly through their parents, or loans or scholarships. 41.9% made $75,000 or more, compared with 12% of the US population, which is a very high percentage that may be due in part to the fact that a large percentage of respondents were from the East coast, which has a higher cost of living and thus generally a higher annual salary, or because college students may have included their parents’ salary as part of their household salary.

Research Related to Research Questions Below are the research questions along with the results that surfaced as significant. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

1. What mass mediated and interpersonal sources do Catholic young adults use for information about Church-related topics? Respondents turned to Catholic Mass or Sermon (M=4.39, SD=.899), Priests and Deacons (M=4.01, SD=1.107), Friends (M=4, SD=.964), Family (M=4, SD=1.081), Books (M=3.95,

Page 13 SD=1.072), Web sites (M=3.68, SD=1.189), Newsletters (M=3.31, SSD=1.146), Pamphlets or Brochures (M=3.24, SD=1.119), and a Spouse or Domestic Partner (M=3.02, SD=1.117) for information on Church-related topics. All other listed sources had a mean less than 3, which signified “Neither agree nor disagree,” the middle of the scale which ranged from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.

2. How frequently does the average Catholic spend looking for religious information? 10.8% of respondents stated that they never looked for information on Church-related topics. 71.9% stated that they looked anywhere between once or twice a month to fairly regularly, while 17.4% stated that they looked for information on Church-related topics regularly.

3. What Church-related topics are they informed about? Respondents felt informed about the topics of Abortion (M=5.21, SD=1.151), Catechism (M=5.02, SD=1.708), Contraception (M=5.88, SD=1.403), the Death Penalty (M=5.57, SD=1.513), Education (M=5.24, SD=1.499), Euthanasia (M=5.10, SD=1.835), Liturgy (M=5.09, SD=1.653), Marriage and Family (M=5.77, SD=1.278), Sacraments (M=5.95, SD=1.341), Teaching on hell, heaven, and purgatory (M=5.33, SD=1.628), and Teaching on homosexuality (M=5.34, SD=1.693). All other listed sources had a mean less than 5, on a scale ranging from 1 to 7, with 1 signifying “uninformed” and 7 signifying “informed.”

4. How credible do Catholics consider various sources of religious information? Respondents considered Priests and Deacons (M=4.60, SD=.768), Catholic Mass or Sermon (M=4.54, ST=.781), Books (M=3.93, SD=.992), Family (M=3.88, SD=.980), Friends (M=3.65, SD=.987), a Spouse or Domestic Partner (M=3.28, SD=.944), Newsletters

Page 14 (M=3.27, SSD=1.082), Pamphlets or Brochures (M=3.23, SD=1.104), and Web sites (M=3.08, SD=1.142) credible sources of religious information. All other listed sources had a mean less than 3, which signified “neither credible nor not credible” on a 5-category scale ranging from “not credible” (1) to “very credible” (5).

5. What official Catholic communications are Catholics aware of? A response of “very familiar” or “familiar” was considered to indicate that the respondent was aware of the information source. Regarding print publications, 36.5% of respondents were aware of the National Catholic Reporter 32.5%, of Our Sunday Visitor, 22.4% of America, 17.7% of Commonweal, and 38.7% of the National Catholic Register. For web sites, 53.1% of respondents were aware of www.CatholicOnline.com and 43.1% of AmericanCatholic.org.

6. Are Catholics aware of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)? 68.2% of respondents were aware of the USCCB, out of which 34.3% stated that they turned to the USCCB for information on Church-related topics.

7. Is there a correlation between gender and sources used for religious information?


The following correlations between gender and sources used for religious information were found. It should be noted that these correlations are limited to my sample alone and can not be generalized to a larger population. Females were coded as 2 and males were coded as 1.




Females used pamphlets and brochures more than males (r=.057, p=.039).




Females turned to family more than males (r=.076, p=.006).




Males turned to web sites more than females (r= -.108, p=.000).

Page 15


Males turned to online support/discussion groups more than females (r= -.073, p=.009).




Males turned to priests or deacons more than females (r= -.076, p=.006).

8. Is there a correlation between political affiliation and sources used for religious information? For this correlation, Republicans were coded as 1 and Democrats were coded as 2. A negative r then indicates that Republicans stated they used that particular source more than Democrats.


Republicans used online advertising more than Democrats (r= -.066, p=.018).




Republicans used radio more than Democrats (r= -.070, p=.013).




Democrats used pamphlets and brochures less than Republicans (r= -.067, p=.017).




Republicans used books more than Democrats (r= -.072, p=.010).




Democrats used family less than Republicans (r= -.068, p=.016).




Republicans used priests and deacons more than Democrats (r= -.108, p=.000)




Democrats used Catholic Mass or Sermons less than Republicans (r= -.140, p=.000).

9. Is there a correlation between gender and perceived knowledge on particular religious topics? Issue Abortion Current affairs Death Penalty Ecumenical/Interreligious Affairs Environmental issues Euthanasia Migrants and Refugees Vatican Statements Lay Ministry Evangelization Vocations

r

p -0.166 -0.12 -0.115 -0.152 -0.105 -0.097 -0.106 -0.133 -0.085 -0.082 -0.076

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.006

Page 16 Catholic Social Teaching Cloning Liturgy Stewardship Teaching on homosexuality Hispanic Affairs Teaching on hell, heaven, and purgatory

-0.068 -0.068 -0.068 -0.068 -0.067 -0.058

0.014 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.036

-0.056

0.043

For this correlation, male is coded as 1 and female is coded as 2. A negative r indicates that as females are less likely to state that they are knowledgeable about the particular topic, or alternatively, that males are more likely to state that they are knowledgeable about the particular topic.

10. Is there a correlation between political affiliation and perceived knowledge on particular religious topics? For Republicans, the following topics surfaced as significant: Issue Abortion Church Movie Reviews Environmental Issues Migrants and Refugees Natural Family Planning Vocations Sacraments Stewardship Teaching on homosexuality Teaching on hell, heaven, and purgatory Liturgy Hispanic Affairs Marriage and Family Lay Ministry Bishops

r

p

0.109 0.132 -1.07 -0.100 0.103 0.114 0.093 0.08 0.077 0.076

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.007

0.069 -0.066 0.059 0.057 0.055

0.014 0.018 0.036 0.042 0.049

Page 17 A negative r indicates that Republicans significantly stated that they were not knowledgeable about that particular topic, while a positive r indicates that Republicans significantly stated that they were knowledgeable about that topic.

For Democrats, the following topics surfaced as significant: Issue Abortion Church Movie Reviews Cloning Ecumenical/Interreligious Affairs Evangelization Lay Ministry Liturgy Natural Family Planning Sacraments Stewardship Teaching on hell, heaven, and purgatory Vocations Bishops Teaching on homosexuality Catholic Social Teaching Euthanasia Vatican Statements Catechism Marriage and Family Environmental Issues Contraception Current Affairs

r

p -0.147 -0.110 -0.112 -0.105 -0.135 -0.115 -0.120 -0.138 -0.117 -0.099

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

-0.111 -0.065 -0.096 -0.093 -0.087 -0.087 -0.086 -0.075 -0.076 0.075 -0.061 0.059

0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.029 0.037

A negative r indicates that Democrats significantly stated that they were not knowledgeable about that particular topic, while a positive r indicates that Democrats significantly stated that they were knowledgeable about that topic.

Page 18

Bivariate Pearson correlation between political affiliation and perceived knowledge on particular topics, controlling for gender: Topic Abortion Bishops Campaign for Human Development Catechism Catholic Social Teaching Church Movie Reviews Cloning Contraception Current affairs Ecumenical/Interreligious Affairs Environmental issues Euthanasia Evangelization Hispanic Affairs Lay Ministry Liturgy Marriage and Family Migrants and Refugees Natural Family Planning Sacraments Stewardship Teaching on hell, heaven, and purgatory Teaching on homosexuality Vatican Statements Vocations

Republican .117*** .074* ---.137*** -----.099** -.068* -.058* .074* .080** .063* -.096** .108*** .105*** .091**

Democrat -.159** -.093** -.06* -.072* -.089** -.113*** -.115*** -.069* .058* -.092** .074* -.103*** -.142*** --.116*** -.123*** -.085** --.148*** -.123*** -.107***

.074* .090** -.121***

-.105*** -.101*** -.082** -.162***

* p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001

For this correlation, a negative number indicates that people with that particular political affiliation are more likely to state that they are not knowledgeable about that particular issue, while a positive number indicates that people with that particular political affiliation are more likely to state that they are knowledgeable about that particular issue. The more asterisks following the number, the more statistically significant, or strong, the correlation.

Page 19

Discussion As mentioned earlier, it is important to note that any discussion of these results only applies to this particular sample. As a nonprobability convenience sample, the results cannot be generalized to a population beyond the sample itself. The majority of respondents (89.2%) stated that they did look for religious information. The nine sources that respondents considered credible on religious information (Catholic Mass or Sermon, Priests and Deacons, Friends, Family, Books, Web sites, Newsletters, Pamphlets or Brochures, Spouse or Domestic Partner) were the same nine sources they stated that they used to get religious information. This suggests that respondents are in fact using sources that they consider credible. However they may consider the sources credible simply because they use them. Further research should investigate what factors contribute to a respondent considering a source credible and perhaps the frequency with which respondents use different sources they consider credible. What sources younger Catholics use to get religious information is important because it provides a view into what forms of media or contacts the Catholic Church can utilize to reach these younger Catholics. In addition, it is important to see whether young Catholics have a preference toward mass mediated sources over interpersonal sources or vice versa, or a preference toward both or none. My research indicates that the respondents favored both interpersonal sources and mass mediated sources. Further research may seek to evaluate whether source is significant enough a factor that this demographic should be segmented based on source in order to communicate a message more effectively. Regarding sources used, females turned to pamphlets and brochures significantly more than males, while males turned to priests and/or deacons, web sites and online support/discussion

Page 20 groups significantly more than females. Multiple variables could be the cause of these trends, including, but not limited to, time spent on the internet, time and relationship to family, family size, proximity to family, internet speed and accessibility, particular parish conditions etc. Further research would need to be conducted to investigate these trends before applying them in a particular public relations plan. Political affiliation also significantly affected sources used. Republicans turned to online advertising, radio, pamphlets and brochures, books, family, priests and/or deacons, and Catholic Mass or Sermons more than Democrats for religious information. Investigating political affiliation further, Republicans overall stated that they had a high level of knowledge of the issues of Abortion, Church Movie Reviews, Environmental Issues, Natural Family Planning, Vocations, Sacraments, Stewardship, Teaching on Homosexuality, Teaching on hell, heaven, and purgatory, Liturgy, Marriage and Family, Lay Ministry, and Bishops was significant, while the low level of knowledge regarding Migrants and Refugees and Hispanic Affairs was also significant. For Democrats, however, all significant correlations were negative, meaning that they felt they were not knowledgeable on the particular issue. These issues were: Abortion, Church Movie Reviews, Cloning, Ecumenical/Interreligious Affairs, Evangelization, Lay Ministry, Liturgy, Natural Family Planning, Sacraments, Stewardship, Teaching on hell, heaven, and purgatory, Vocations, Bishops, Teaching on homosexuality, Catholic Social Teaching, Euthanasia, Vatican Statements, Catechism, Marriage and Family, Environmental Issues, Contraception, and Current Affairs. Because such a large percentage of the sample was female, a bivariate Pearson correlation for political affiliation, which controlled for gender, was also used; only slightly different results. Controlling for gender, Republicans added Evangelization to their list of issues

Page 21 that they have a high level of knowledge about and Environmental Issues to the those issues they have a low level of knowledge about. This suggests that Republicans may be affected by their knowledge of these issues based on their gender. Democrats added the issue of Current Affairs to the list of issues they had a high level of knowledge about and Campaign for Human Development to those they have a low level of knowledge about. Again, these results suggest that gender may play an important role in issues that Democrats feel knowledgeable or uninformed about. Overall, one of the more interesting trends is that Democrats felt that they were not knowledgeable on many issues. Looking at the previous question on religious sources, we also see that there are no significant positive correlations for any sources for the Democrats. One reason for this may be that Democrats are obtaining their information from a source not listed in the survey. Another reason could be that they tended to underrate their level of knowledge on particular issues. Perhaps both are true, they don’t seek information and they feel uninformed. Yet another reason may be that the sources they use to get information do not provide information on the particular topics that they feel uninformed about. On the other hand, perhaps Republicans tend to overrate their level of knowledge. Further research needs to be done to determine the true meaning of these findings. This research indicates that political affiliation is an important indicator of what issues an individual is knowledgeable about and what sources that individual uses for information. However, further research needs to find specific reasons for why the Democrats do not feel informed, and why both affiliations have significant levels of knowledge or lack of knowledge on particular issues.

Page 22 Overwhelmingly, respondents were not familiar with any of the official Catholic communications listed (National Catholic Reporter, Our Sunday Visitor, America, Commonweal, National Catholic Register). Further research needs to be done to see whether this trend is seen in a random sample. It would also be helpful if future research sought to find specific sources that people in this demographic use for information. A majority of respondents were, however, aware of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. One reason for this may be that USCCB materials are often used at diocesan and parish levels while the previously listed communications are not associated with as far reaching an organization as the USCCB. More research would need to be done to see why this recognition exists. Additionally, even among respondents who were aware of the USCCB, only approximately one-third turned to the USCCB for information. One reason for this may be that the information on the USCCB web site is not organized in a way that the respondent can retrieve it. Another reason may be that while the respondent recognizes the name of the USCCB, and thus is “aware” of the organization, he or she may not actually be familiar with the organization. Again, more research would need to be done to determine the specifics of this relationship.

Page 23

Conclusion The Catholic Church, in communicating with its various publics, has many of the same objectives as other for-profit organizations in that it wants to “get the attention of target publics…stimulate interest in messages content…build a desire and intention to act on the message…and direct the action of those who behave consistent with the message (Cutlip, 2006).” One important demographic for the Catholic Church are young Catholics, ages 18-29, as they are the next generation of adults who will work in parish councils, join the clergy, begin families, and contribute to parish life and the growth and development of the religion. It is important then that the Catholic Church is able to communicate with this increasingly important public. One aspect of effective communicating is tailoring a message to a particular target audience (Cutlip, 1006). In my research, I have found that the demographic of young Catholics, ages 18-29 can indeed be further segmented based on characteristics that lead to significant differences in information-seeking behavior. Specifically, the strong correlation between gender and political affiliation in regard to sources used for information and to perceived knowledge on particular topics warrants further research into whether these characteristics are significant enough to merit the segmenting of this demographic on that basis when the Church focuses on communicating a message to this group of young adult Catholics. However, segmenting on gender and political affiliation aside, the results of this study indicate that there are sources which the Catholic Church controls and can utilize immediately in order to communicate with its young adult demographic. These sources include Catholic Mass and Sermons, Priests and Deacons, and pamphlets and brochures. My results indicated that the Catholic young adults in my sample considered these sources credible and used these sources for

Page 24 information. So, as the Church begins to form and implement a communications plan, it can also begin opening lines of communication with priests and deacons, homilists, and communications offices that produces pamphlets and brochures, so that once a message is crafted, these sources can immediately begin to communicate it. Recommendations for Further Research While limited in its scope and application, this study denotes multiple areas for further research. First, it suggests that further studies into the impact of gender and political affiliation may be important to learning what information the Church should be providing to its younger Catholics, as well as what venues should be used, specific to their particular characteristics. As previously stated in my discussions section, further research exploring what factors contribute to a respondent’s perceived credibility of a source should also be investigated. Other interesting areas of exploration also arise. For one, how knowledgeable are respondents on key issues, as determined by the Church. Perhaps a short quiz or exam could be used as a basis for determining a definite knowledge level. More definite results in this area would be helpful for the Church in determining its specific communications goals and priorities with this demographic. Another important follow-up study could investigate specific sources that young Catholics go to for information. While this study sets forth broad categories of religiousinformation sources, the Church will increase its effectiveness at communicating if it has knowledge of what specific friends, family members, priests and deacons, books, etc., young Catholics are using for their information. Overall, I recommend that any further studies be probabilistic studies in order that the results can be generalized to the larger young adult population. As initial studies progress, I

Page 25 recommend continuing to focus on gathering data about the information-seeking behaviors of this demographic and what topics they are interested in, in order that when the Church needs to communicate, or has information that this demographic is interested in, that the communication process is smooth and effective. A strong focus should be made to segment the demographic into specific areas because it is very diverse. While this sample was primarily composed of single college students with access to internet, this description does not apply to the demographic as a whole. Segmenting is key to specifying a message that will resonate with this demographic, above the “noise” of other information. Post Hoc Analysis In addition to the variables mentioned in my results, the questionnaire did collect data on other variables that may be relevant to a discussion of this study. One large trend not mentioned in the results is that the majority of respondents (81.2%) participate in Church activities, not including Mass, in a given month. In addition, 73.9% of respondents attended Mass at least once a week, with 20.4% stating that they attend Mass more than once a week. These respondents showed interest in the research and took the time to respond, despite no clear benefit. From these facts, it is possible to consider the respondents in my particular study as highly committed Catholic young adults. Further research must be conducted to see whether highly committed Catholic young adults can be considered influences, or opinion leaders, to their peers. The open-ended questions in my questionnaire may also indicate further areas of inquiry. One open-ended question asked, “What are some barriers to finding religious information?” The two predominantly listed barriers were the problem of determining a source’s credibility and a source’s bias. Further research into how Catholic young adults determine credibility and perceive bias can help the Church use sources that associate, in the minds of this demographic, with a

Page 26 high standard of quality. Another commonly listed barrier was lack of comprehension of information that was available. A basic study may be necessary to investigate what the average educational threshold of this demographic is, and, if it is highly spread out, whether the demographic should be segmented based on education. It may also be necessary to investigate how secular academic education translates into knowledge of Church terminology, perhaps those with higher education may still need to obtain religious information that is communicated in lay terms. Weaknesses of the Study While extremely limited in its specific results, this study helps set the stage for inquiry into further research questions regarding this demographic segment of the Catholic Church. Prior to creating and implementing a public relations plan to better maintain and establish relationships with this target public, sufficient significant and generalizable research must be conducted that can help narrow down this broad demographic into more narrower strategic publics. The more specific these strategic publics are, the more targeted the message will be and the more likely the plan will achieve its intended goals. There are also some specific criticisms that I have of the questionnaire used for this study. For one, questions asking about the three criteria for qualification should have been included at the beginning of the survey (being over the age of 18, a Catholic, and a resident of America); this would have greatly helped in eliminating the responses of unqualified respondents. Also, multiple tests for consistency should have included and made certain to not have any double-barreled questions. Also, one question contained several issues and asked for how informed the respondent felt about that issue. In retrospect, however, I realize that many of these issues, such as

Page 27 environmental issues, current affairs, evangelization, and youth ministry, are multifaceted or vague, so I cannot objectively determine how knowledgeable the respondent really is, based on their response. In addition to creating a more concrete way of determining knowledge on a particular issue, such as including a shirt quiz, I would narrow down the issue list to maybe 5-10 key issues, just to ensure the respondent does not get tired or stop answering the questions. In the initial questions on sources and credibility, I used “family”, “friends”, and “spouse/domestic partner” as two categories of information. Looking back at the results I realized that because different people have different relationships with these three categories of people, that their respondents may not be predictable or consistent. In the future, I may want to ask about the participant’s relationship to his or her friends, family, and spouse or domestic partner, before asking about them as sources, in future surveys.

Page 28

Catholic information-seeking behavior Thank you for your interest in this survey. Please take a moment to review the document below before you decide whether or not to participate. Sincerely,

Maria Frederick [email protected] 469-964-6619 You are being asked to participate in a research study. The person in charge of this research, Maria Frederick, is available via email to answer any questions you may have. Your participation is entirely voluntary. You can refuse to participate without penalty or loss of benefits. You can stop your participation at any time and your refusal will not impact current or future relationships with UT Austin or participating sites. To do so, simply dispose of this form and survey. The purpose of this study is to explore Catholic information-seeking behavior. If you agree to be in this study, you will answer questions about yourself, your media use, and your beliefs concerning seeking religious information. Total estimated time to participate in the study is 10 minutes. Risks of being in the study: The potential risk associated with this study is believed to be quite low. The main risk is that we are asking participants to think about topics that they may find uncomfortable (religion). A close-ended survey is the most straightforward and objective methodology available to us for accessing this information and related beliefs. Benefits of being in the study: There are two discernible benefits. One is personal satisfaction in contributing to scientific research and the other is taking a moment to think about how you gather information about religion. Confidentiality and Privacy Protections: The data resulting from your participation will contain no identifying information that could associate you with it, or with your participation in any study. The records of this study will be stored securely and kept confidential. Authorized persons from The University of Texas at Austin and members of the Institutional Review Board have the

Page 29 legal right to review your research records and will protect the confidentiality of those records to the extent permitted by law. All publications will exclude any information that will make it possible to identify you as a subject. Contacts and Questions: If you have any questions about the study please contact Maria Frederick. Her contact info is at the top of this page. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, complaints, concerns, or questions about the research please contact Lisa Leiden, Ph.D., Chair of The University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, (512) 471-8871 or email: [email protected].

Note: As you move through the questionnaire, please do not go back and look at your previous answers - I am most interested in your initial responses to the questions. For the purposes of this survey, the term “Church-related topics” refers to doctrinal, political, educational, social, moral, and other topics relating to the Catholic Church. 1) In a given month, how often do you look for information on Church-related topics? Never

Once or twice

More than once or twice

Fairly regularly

Regularly

2) I turn to the following sources for information on Church-related topics. Strongly Disagree Television advertising Online advertising Print advertising Television Radio Newspapers Pamphlets or Brochures Newsletters Books Spouse/Domestic Partner Family Friends Web sites Online support/discussion groups Talking with Priests/Deacons

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Page 30 Catholic Mass or Sermon 3) Please name any other sources you use to obtain information on Church-related topics. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________

4) Do others come to you for information on Church-related issues (yes or no)? __________

5) How credible are the following sources regarding Church-related topics Not credible

Somewhat credible

Neither credible nor not credible

Credible

Television advertising Online advertising Print advertising Television Radio Newspapers Pamphlets or Brochures Newsletters Books Spouse/Domestic Partner Family Friends Web sites Online support/discussion groups Talking with Priests/Deacons Catholic Mass or Sermon

6) Please indicate how you feel about the following statements. Strongly Disagree I know where to look for information on Churchrelated topics.

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Very credible

Page 31 I generally feel wellinformed about Churchrelated topics. The amount of information on Church-related topics available to me is adequate. It is difficult to talk with Priests/Deacons/Sisters/other religious about Churchrelated topics. When I want to, I am easily able to locate information about Church-related topics I care about. My Catholic community encourages me to find additional information regarding Church-related topics. It is very difficult to find accurate information on Church-related topics. 7) What barriers have you encountered when looking for information on Church-related topics? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________

8) What Church-related topics are you interested in. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ 9) How informed do you feel about the following topics? 1 (uninformed) Abortion Bishops Campaign for Human Development Catechism Catholic Social Teaching Church Movie Reviews Cloning

2

3

4

5

6

7 (informed)

Page 32 Contraception Current affairs Death Penalty Ecumenical/Interreligious Affairs Education Environmental issues Euthanasia Evangelization Hispanic Affairs Lay Ministry Liturgy Marriage & Family Migrants & Refugees Ministry in other countries Missions in the US Natural Family Planning Sacraments Sex abuse scandal response Stewardship Teaching on hell, heaven, and purgatory Teaching on homosexuality Vatican Statements Vocations Youth Ministry 10) Please indicate how familiar you are with the following Catholic information sources. Very familiar

Familiar

Somewhat Familiar

Not familiar

National Catholic Reporter Our Sunday Visitor America Commonweal National Catholic Register www.CatholicOnline.com www.AmericanCatholic.org 11) Do you use any other Catholic information sources? If so, please list them. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Page 33 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ 12) Have you heard of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)? Yes

No

12a) If yes, please answer the following: I turn to the USCCB for information when it comes to Church-related topics. Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

13) How often do you participate in Church activities, not including Mass, in a given month? Church activities include, but are not limited to, meetings, preparing for events, bible studies, and religious education. Never

Once or twice

3-5 times

More than 5 times

14) How frequently do you attend Mass? More than once a week

Once a week

1-3 times a month

Monthly

6-11 times a year

Less than 6 times a year

Additional comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ These last few questions help us to know a little bit about you. 15) What is your gender? __________(male or female) 16) What is your age?_______years old 17) What ethnic/racial groups do you most identify yourself with (you can choose more than one)? Asian: Origins in any of the original peoples of

Page 34 the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam American Indian or Alaska Native: Origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) Black/African American: Origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: Origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands Hispanic or Latino origin: Cuban, Mexican, Chicano, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race White, Anglo, Caucasian: Origins in the white racial groups of Europe 18) What state do you live in? ___________________________ 19) What is your marital status? Single

Married

Divorced or separated

Widowed

20) How many children in your household are under the age of 18? ____________________ 21) What is the highest level of education you have attained to date? 8th grade or less Some high school I graduated from high school or received a GED certificate Some technical school Technical school graduate or associate’s degree Some college College graduate (bachelor’s degree) Post-graduate studies or professional degree (M.A., M.S., Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc.)

22) Which political party do you most identify with? Republican

Democrat

Independent

Green

Socialist

Other

Page 35

If you selected “other” please specify:___________________________________________________________ 23) These days we hear the words "liberal" and "conservative" talked about a lot. How would you describe your own political leanings, socially speaking? Liberal

Somewhat Liberal

Middle of the Road

Somewhat Conservative

24) What is your primary type of Internet connection? 14.4K Modem (or slower 28.8K to 56K Modem ISDN T-1/T-3/Fractional T-1 Cable Modem / DSL Don't Know/ Don't have an access to the internet Other (please specify) If you selected “other” please specify:_________________________________________________________ 25) On a typical day, how much time do you spend online recreationally (do not include time spent during work)? Up to 15 minutes

Up to 30 minutes

Up to an hour

Up to 2 hours

Up to 3 hours

Up to 4 hours

Up to 5 hours

5 or more hours

26) On a typical day, how much time do you spend listening to the radio? Up to 15 minutes

Up to 30 minutes

Up to an hour

Up to 2 hours

Up to 3 hours

Up to 4 hours

Up to 5 hours

5 or more hours

Up to 5 hours

5 or more hours

27) On a typical day, how much time do you spend watching TV? Up to 15 minutes

Up to 30 minutes

Up to an hour

Up to 2 hours

Up to 3 hours

Up to 4 hours

28) On a typical day, how much time do you spend reading the newspaper? Up to 15

Up to 30

Up to an

Up to 2

Up to 3

Up to 4

Up to 5

5 or more

Conservativ

Page 36 minutes

minutes

hour

hours

hours

hours

hours

hours

29) What is your best estimate of your household's total combined income for the year, before taxes? (Please include income such as salaries, bonuses, profits, rentals, interest, dividends, Social Security, pensions, etc) Under $25,000 $25,000 - $29,000 $30,000 - $39,000 $40,000 - $49,000 $50,000 - $59,000 $60,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,000 $100,000 - $124,000 $125,000 - $149,000 $150,000 - $174,000 $175,000 - $199,999 $200,000 or more

Thank you very much for participating in this research project! The purpose of this project is to investigate how Catholics in America search for religious information and then come up with communication strategies for the Church. In the end, I hope that these strategies will help in future Church communication campaigns and help Catholics access information about the Church. For more information about this project, please contact Maria Frederick at [email protected]. Thank you for your help and have a great day! Sincerely, Maria Frederick

Page 37

Bibliography Burrell, Thomas J. "Make It Personal." Advertising Age 71 (2000). "CARA Says Recent Mass Attendance Steady." America 31 Jan. 2005: 4-5. The Catholic Church in America--Meeting Real Needs in Your Neighborhood. Dept. of Communications. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006. Cutlip, Scott M., Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom. Effective Public Relations. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc, 2006. Davidson, James D. "Challenging Assumptions About Young Catholics." National Catholic Reporter 30 Sept. 2005: 22. Demographics of Internet Users. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2006. 21 Apr. 2007 . Dillman, Don A. Mail and Internet Surveys: the Tailored Design Model. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sonds, Inc., 2000. Evans, Donald L., J. L. Price, and William G. Barron. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Foley, Leonard. Vatican II: the Vision Lives On. Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Cincinnatti, 1993. Fulton, Justin D. Washington in the Lap of Rome. Boston: W. Kellaway, 1888. Harris Study No. 21662. Harris Public Opinion Survey. New York, NY: Harris Interactive, Inc., 2004. Horrigan, John, and Lee Rainie. When Facing a Tough Decision, 60 Million Americans Now Seek the Internet's Help. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: PewResearchCNTRPublications, 2006. 7 Mar. 2007

Page 38 . Jones, Arthur. "Young and Yearning for God." National Catholic Reporter 29 Aug. 2003. Kohut, Andrew, Kim Parker, Scott Keeter, Carroll Doherty, and Michael Dimock. How Young People View Their Lives, Futures, and Politics: a Portrait of "Generation Next" Pew Research Center. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center for the People & the P, 2007. Kung, Hans. The Catholic Church: a Short History. New York: Random House, Inc, 2001. McDaniel, Carl, and Roger Gates. Marketing Research. 6th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2005. Paul, John. "Christifiedeles Laici." Vatican. 30 Dec.-Jan. 1988. Vatican. 9 Mar. 2007 . Pogorelc, Anthony J., and James D. Davidson. "American Catholics: One Church, Two Cultures?" Review of Religious Research 42 (2000): 146-158. Poorman, Mark L. "After the Scandal: Young, Catholic, and Curious." Commonweal 19 Nov. 2004: 23-24. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 5th ed. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2002. Rainie, Lee. "Digital 'Natives' Invade the Workplace." Pew Internet & American Life Project 28 Sept. 2006. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. . "USA Quickfacts." 23 Mar. 2007. U.S. Census Bureau. 18 Apr. 2007 .

Page 39

Biography Maria Frederick was born in Silver Spring, Maryland in 1986 to wonderful parents who nurtured her creativity, spirit of learning, and love of life. She moved to Flower Mound, Texas in 2004 and is growing to like this state, especially for its sweet tea and even for its football. She is an active member of the University Catholic Center at UT, and is currently president of Catholic Longhorns for Life. After college, Maria will begin working with the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops as a Communication Coordinator.