J Relig Health

DOI 10.1007/s10943-014-9849-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

The Relationship Between Religiosity and Internet

Pornography Use

Mary B. Short • Thomas E. Kasper • Chad T. Wetterneck

Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Internet pornography (IP) consumption has increased, resulting in functioning

and psychological problems. Thus, understanding what variables affect IP uses is needed.
One of the variables may be religion. College students (N = 223) completed questions on
IP use and religion. About 64 % ever viewed IP and 26 % currently viewed IP, at a rate of
74 min per week. IP use interfered with their relationship with God and spirituality.
Religious individuals were less likely to ever or currently view IP. Intrinsic and extrinsic
religiosity and alignment of spiritual values were associated with ever use. Results suggest
that religiosity matters in IP use and further research is needed.

Keywords Religion
Sexuality
Internet pornography

Introduction

Internet pornography (IP) is a billion-dollar industry that continues to attract an increasing

number of users (Stack et al. 2004). The growth of the industry is not only due to an
increase in Internet usage, but also is credited to the ‘‘Triple A Engine’’ that encompasses
IP. This ‘‘Triple A Engine’’ includes anonymity, accessibility, and affordability (Cooper
et al. 2000a). Overall, IP is anonymous because many individuals perceive their online
activity to be unknown; it is accessible because there are millions of pornographic Web
sites (as much as 50 % of all Internet traffic is associated with sex-related material)
(McNair 2002); and it is affordable because the many competing pornography sites help
reduce pricing, even as much as to offer free pornography (Carroll et al. 2008).
Current estimates indicate that IP is the most frequently searched topic online (Cooper
et al. 2000a), with sex-related material tallying approximately 25 % of total search engine
requests (Ropelato 2012). Furthermore, around 40 million US adults view online

M. B. Short (&)
T. E. Kasper
C. T. Wetterneck

University of Houston-Clear Lake, 2700 Bay Area Blvd, Houston, TX 77058, USA
e-mail: shortmb@uhcl.edu

123
 J Relig Health

pornographic material on a regular basis (Ropelato). More specifically, research shows that
men, between the ages of 18 and 25, use IP the most frequently (Buzzell 2005). However,
both genders and nearly all age groups are exposed to IP (Adams et al. 2003; Sabina et al.
2008).
Exposure to and repeated use of IP, and other sexual pursuits on the Internet, has led to a
host of reported problems. One study found that 8 % of individuals were characterized as
having problematic features (i.e., compulsions or addictions) for their online sexual
behaviors (Cooper et al. 1999). Individuals who access IP can sometimes begin to express
sexually deviant behavior, which can lead to a risk of potentially harming others (Durkin
and Bryant 1995). Excessive use may relate to social isolation/loneliness (Yoder et al.
2005) and other psychological difficulties (i.e., paraphillia; Leiblum 1997). Further,
spending too much time on IP may interfere with family bonding and other important daily
activity, such as work (Leiblum). In addition, too much IP use may suggest other under-
lying issues such as depression, anxiety, and obsessive–compulsive disorders (Young
2008).
Apart from its potential negative effects, IP use may also have some positive
benefits. Overall, IP allows for more candid online conversations that offer users an
opportunity to learn and explore their sexuality in a way that is perceived harmless and
secure (Leiblum 1997; Newman 1997). IP also offers new options for romantic and
sexual enactment (Cooper et al. 2002). For homosexuals, the Internet is a useful source
for building virtual communities in regard to sexual interests and topics (Cooper et al.
2000b).
Outside of the positive effects, reasons for IP use include curiosity, desire for
sexual arousal, excitement, pleasure, emotional avoidance, and the enhancement of
offline sexual encounters (Goodson et al. 2000; Reid et al. 2011). Other reasons for
use include distractions, education, coping, exploring sexual fantasies, socializing,
buying sex materials, meeting sexual partners, and support for sexual concerns
(Cooper et al. 2002). For example, women can address their sexual concerns by
exchanging suggestions and answers with others who have similar issues (Ragan and
Martin 2000).
Beyond the individual reasons for IP use, use may also be influenced by social/cultural
relationships, such as political affiliation, economic status, and cultural community (Stack
et al. 2004). For example, people with conservative beliefs generally support conventional
behaviors (Peek et al. 1982), which may not endorse IP use. Thus, those that belong to
conservative groups may be less likely to use. One study suggests that people who are
linked by a conventional society and hold stability and meaningfulness in their job inhibit
sexually deviant behaviors (Sampson and Laub 1990).
Although research has examined some of these social variables, there are still others
that need to be examined, including issues associated with values/morals and religion
(Stayton and Pillai-Friedman 2009). Some of these morals may come from religious
beliefs. For example, IP use may be regarded as an act of lust and sin under some
religious philosophies. Therefore, engaging in certain behaviors (i.e., IP viewing) may
be against one’s religion. However, these behaviors may or may not be against a
person’s personal beliefs. Either way, there is conflict, with having behaviors or beliefs
that are incongruent with one’s religion. This conflict may then produce other prob-
lems. If these inconsistencies exist, two results may arise (avoid using or incur prob-
lems from IP use).
With regard to the avoidance of use, individuals, who ‘‘follow’’ those religious values,
may avoid using IP (Nelson et al. 2010). In fact, research shows religiosity to negatively

123
J Relig Health

correlate with pornography use. Nelson et al. (2010) found that individuals who do not use
pornography have higher levels of recent and past religious practices and past family
religious practices (i.e., family prayers), lower levels of depression, and a better under-
standing of who they wanted in a dating relationship than those who used pornography.
Those with strong predictors of IP use were shown to have weak ties to religion and
unsatisfactory marriages (Stack et al. 2004). Goodson et al. (2000) found religiosity to be a
negative predictor of feeling entertained and aroused by pornography. Overall, research
shows religiosity to negatively correlate with pornography acceptance and use (Carroll
et al. 2008).
With regard to religious individuals, many report problems associated with IP use. For
example, Christian couples in committed relationships have been found to struggle with
fidelity when their significant other has excessive IP use (Laaser and Gregoire 2003).
Although persons with greater levels of religiosity may demonstrate less behaviors asso-
ciated with sexual addiction, for those who do use IP, high levels of religiosity are asso-
ciated with more problems (Abell et al. 2006).Other research has shown that individuals
with a strong religious background report issues associated with IP use, including sex
addiction and sexually compulsive behaviors (Bridges et al. 2003; Davies 2003; Gardner
2001; Levert 2007). Further, some research on specific religions has shown that individuals
in those religions have problems associated with IP use. For example, in a survey of
religious leaders, 40 % of Evangelical Protestant clergy members in the United States
struggle with pornography (The Leadership Survey 2001).
Given the research, more information is needed to understand how religiosity plays a
role in individuals’ IP use. Even though some research has examined religiosity overall
(Baltazar et al. 2010), other research is needed on specific aspects that may be related to
religiosity, including religious affiliation and variables within overall religiosity (intrinsic/
extrinsic). This study will hope to expand on previous research by exploring new areas not
previously studied, specifically areas associated with religious affiliation and level of
religiosity.

Methods

Subjects

Participants included 223 individuals, ranging in age from 18 to 57 years. The mean age of
participants was 25 years (SD = 7.96), with 85.2 % being female. A large portion of the
participants was heterosexual (93.3 %). Over half of participants were Caucasian (56.1 %);
Hispanics, African American, and other ethnic backgrounds were 25.6, 12.6, and 5.8 %,
respectively. Less than 5 % of participants reported receiving therapy for sex-related issues
and 31.4 % received therapy for other non-sex-related issues.
With regard to religious affiliation, even though we would have liked to compare across
denominations and religious views, there was not enough participants to do this compar-
ison. Therefore, participants were dichotomized into two groups: religious and non-reli-
gious. The religious participants included Catholics and Protestants. The non-religious
included Spiritual, Agnostic, and Atheist. Sixteen participants were taken out of our sample
due to low frequencies of the endorsed religion. Using this dichotomy, 72.2 % were
religious (44.8 % Protestant and 27.4 % Catholic) and 27.8 % were non-religious (14.3 %
Spiritual, 9.9 % Agnostic, and 3.6 % Atheist).

123
 J Relig Health

Procedures

Individuals participated in an online study either from the university participant pool or
from announcements made in classrooms at an upper level university in the southwest.
Interested participants were provided a link to the study. For those in the participant pool,
the link was provided for them through this pool. Once they accessed the study, the
participants reviewed the consent form and acknowledged their understanding and will-
ingness to participate. The consent informed participants that the questions would be
sensitive and personal. Further, participants were informed that they could discontinue
their participation at any time during the study. From those recruited classrooms, students
were directed to the survey using the same survey link. If the participants did not agree to
the consent, the study ended.
After acknowledging consent, participants completed the survey, which took approxi-
mately 30 min. At the end of the survey, participants were given extra credit. If partici-
pants opted for extra credit and were a student at the university, they were redirected to a
separate survey link and asked to enter their name, so extra credit points can be given to
that student. All of this identifying information was saved to a separate file through the
secure administration in order to avoid linking personal information to the survey answers.
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of
Houston-Clear Lake.

Measures

The survey included information regarding demographics, IP use, questions regarding

functioning in life domains, and standardized religiosity measures.

Demographics

Demographics included age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and whether the individual
received previous therapy experiences.

Effects on Functioning

Participants were asked to answer questions associated with whether or not IP use inter-
fered with the individual’s life domains. These life domains included marriage, other
relationships, job/school, spirituality, finances, sleep, health, belief in God, religious par-
ticipation, and membership to religious affiliation. They were asked whether IP use
interfered with each of these domains by either answering ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No.’’

The Duke University Religiosity Index (DUREL)

The DUREL (Koenig et al. 1997) measured religious beliefs and religious involvement.
The DUREL is a five-item measure consisting of three subscales: religious attendance,
private religious activity, and intrinsic religiosity. Intrinsic religiosity comprises three of
the five items. ‘‘How often do you attend church or other religious meetings?’’ accounted
for religious attendance (DUREL Attendance); ‘‘How often do you spend time in private
religious activities, such as prayer, mediation or Bible study?’’ accounted for private
religious activities (DUREL Activity); and ‘‘I try hard to carry my religion over into all
other dealings in life.’’ accounted for intrinsic religiosity (DUREL Intrinsic). DUREL

123
J Relig Health

Attendance and DUREL Activity were rated on a six-point scale from 1 (more than once/
week) to 6 (never), with higher scores indicating less religious involvement. DUREL
Intrinsic was rated on a five-point scale from 1 (definitely true of me) to 5 (definitely not
true), with higher scores indicating less intrinsic on religion. The scale has high intra-class
correlation (.91) and high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha’s = .78–.91; Koenig and
Bussin 2010). In this study, internal consistencies were .91 for the total subscale score and
.93 for the intrinsic subscale.
The DUREL is designed to measure the three subscales independently and reverse score
all items before analysis. This scale has not been totaled in previous studies, but it was for
the purpose of our study (DUREL total). Items were not reverse scored for this study, an
overall score was calculated, and the lower the score, the higher the level of religiosity.

Intrinsic/Extrinsic Measurement: I/E-R and Single-Item Scales

The Intrinsic/Extrinsic Revised (I/E-R; Gorsuch and McPherson 1989) measured intrinsic
and extrinsic orientations toward religion. This scale consisted of 14 items, where par-
ticipants rated each item on a 5-point scale from 0 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly
agree. Extrinsic items were subdivided in two categories: personally oriented (Ep) and
socially oriented (Es). ‘‘I pray mainly to gain relief and protection’’ accounted for Ep and
‘‘I go to church because it helps me to make friends’’ accounted for Es. Lastly, ‘‘I enjoy
reading about my religion’’ is an example of intrinsic orientation (I). Scores will assess
participant’s extrinsic and intrinsic involvement with religion. The internal consistencies
for each of the scales: Ep, Es, and I are .57, .58, and .83, respectively (Gorsuch and
McPherson). In our study, the internal consistencies for each of the scales Ep, Es, and I are
.83, .86, and .61, respectively.

Value Living Questionnaire

The Value Living Questionnaire (VLQ; Wilson et al. 2010) measured a two-part instru-
ment that assessed valued living. For the first section, participants were asked to rate the
importance of 5 life domains overall on a 10-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all important
and 10 = extremely important. Originally, the VLQ is comprised of 10 life domains. For
our study, the following 5 life domains were chosen because we believed only certain
domains would be affected by IP use. These life domains were (1) family relations, other
than marriage or parenting (family), (2) marriage/couples/intimate relations (marriage), (3)
friends/social relations (friends), (4) spirituality, and (5) citizenship/community life
(community). In this part, participants rated each domain according to their own personal
sense of importance. In general, this would examine how much participants valued each
life domain.
The second section used the same 10-point Likert scale with the same life domains. For
this section, participants rated each domain how they have been consistent during the past
week. Scores assessed whether or not the participant’s actual activities and valued behavior
patterns were consistent. Responses will be observed under one factor (composite) from
the three factors: ‘‘importance,’’ ‘‘consistency,’’ and ‘‘composite.’’ Importance and con-
sistency together calculate a valued living composite that quantifies, which individual lives
their particular values. Composite scores are the product of the importance and consistency
ratings. The inter-item consistencies of the Importance and Consistency Scales show
(a1 = .79, a2 = .83), respectively (Wilson et al. 2010). In our study, the internal consis-
tencies of the Importance and Consistency Scales show (a1 = .79, a2 = .79), respectively.

123
 J Relig Health

IP Use

For IP use, participants were asked to answer either ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ to two questions. First,
they were asked whether they ‘‘Ever’’ viewed IP over the course of their life. Second, they
were asked whether they were ‘‘Currently’’ viewing IP, specifying if they have viewed
‘‘fairly recently.’’ If either of these two conditions were answered with a ‘‘Yes,’’ participants
were asked about the frequency of their IP use, measured by minutes per week. Participants
were also asked what type of IP they viewed, including nudity, hard-core, soft-core, violent,
and fetishes. For this question, the participants were asked how often they viewed each of
these types of IP on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = always). However, for data
analysis, the ratings were combined to (never, occasionally, and frequently).

Statistical Methods

Independent sample t tests, chi-squares, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were cal-
culated for the relationship between IP use and religiosity measures.
Chi-squares were used in examining religious affiliation (religious and non-religious)
and IP use (ever/current). Ever and current IP use was run separately to examine whether
there was a significant difference in the absence or presence of IP use between these two
groups. Several independent sample t tests were run. First, t tests were used to examine
whether or not the level of religiosity, as measured by the standardized questionnaires (The
DUREL, I/E-R measures, and VLQ), had an effect on IP use (ever and current). Again,
ever and current were run separately to determine whether IP use differed by the level of
religiosity, variables associated with religiosity, and values. Second, t tests were used to
examine whether the frequency of IP use (minutes/week) differed by religious affiliation.
Further, in terms of frequency of use, a Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to
examine the association between frequency of IP use and level of religiosity, as measured
by the standardized questionnaires.

Results

Whole Sample Descriptors

Effects on Functioning

When asked whether IP interfered in certain life domains, participants reported that IP
interfered with their relationship with God the most (16.1 %), their spirituality second
(14.3 %), while sleep and religious participation came next (6.3 %) and (4.9 %), respec-
tively. Interference in other life domains was reported \4 % in the remaining areas; this
included marriage, other relationships, job/school, finances, health, belief in God, and
membership to religious affiliation.

The DUREL

Overall, the average DUREL total score was 15.63. From the subscales, the mean score for
the DUREL Attendance was 3.70, indicating that most individuals attend church-related
meetings closer to a few times a year than a few times a month. The mean score for the
DUREL Activity was 4.01, indicating that most individuals privately spend their religious

123
J Relig Health

activity once a week. The mean score for the DUREL Intrinsic was 2.64, indicating that
most individuals are between being unsure and tending to being sure about their religious
beliefs and experiences.

I/E-R

From the whole sample, means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for I, Ep, and Es
were 2.18 (.90), 2.09 (1.17), and .84 (.92), respectively. The means for I and Ep indicate
that an overall intrinsic motivation and personal extrinsic variables were somewhat
important to peoples participation in religion, whereas the mean for Es indicates that
individuals do not participate in religion for social reasons.

VLQ

From the whole sample, scores from each life domain were slightly higher from the factor
‘‘importance’’ than scores from the factor ‘‘consistency.’’ This indicated that actions were
moderately consistent with each value. Means and standard deviations for each factor can
be seen in Table 1.

IP Use

When reviewing IP use, 63.7 % reported ever viewing IP and 26 % of the total sample
reported currently viewing IP. For those who currently use IP, the average minutes of IP
use per week was 73.5 min. Nearly 44 % of current individuals occasionally viewed IP
types such as nudity while 14.3 % never viewed and 4.9 % frequently viewed nudity.
Hard-core pornography was occasionally viewed (36.7 %), while 11.7 % never viewed and
14.4 % frequently viewed. Soft-core was occasionally viewed (46.2 %), while 11.2 %
never viewed and 5.4 % frequently viewed. Nearly 55 % never viewed violent pornog-
raphy, while 6.7 % occasionally and 1.3 % frequently viewed. About 50 % never viewed
fetish, while 10.8 % occasionally and 2.2 % frequently viewed.

Variables Associate with Ever Use

Overall, comparisons were examined between ever use (yes/no) and variables associated
with religiosity (religious affiliation and the standardize measures). Overall, religious
affiliation was found to be significant (v2(1) = 7.64, p = .006), with non-religious indi-
viduals ever using IP more than religious individuals.
With regard to the standardize measures, many variables were found to be associated
with use (See Table 2). In general, difference between ever and never using IP was found
for all the DUREL scores. For the DUREL total, individuals that endorsed being more
religious were less likely to have ever used IP (t(219) = 3.45, p = .001). For the subscales
of the DUREL, individuals who endorsed being more intrinsically religious
(t(219) = 2.98, p = .003) engaged in more religious attendance (t(219) = 2.87, p = .005)
and those were more active in their religion (t(219) = 3.47, p = .001) were less likely to
have ever used IP.
When examining the I/E-R, significant differences were found between ever and never
using IP on the I subscale (t(211) = -3.40, p = .001) and the Ep subscale (t(211) =
-2.85, p = .005). This illustrates individuals that endorsed more religiosity for intrinsic

123
 J Relig Health

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of importance, consistency, and valued living composite scores by
item
Domain Importance Consistency Composite

M SD M SD M SD

1. Family 8.82 1.87 7.75 2.17 70.41 26.14

2. Marriage 8.86 1.95 7.27 2.92 67.07 32.35
3. Friends 8.26 1.93 7.26 2.32 61.74 26.01
4. Spirituality 7.57 2.79 6.28 2.82 50.60 31.39
5. Community 6.64 2.34 5.65 2.79 40.07 26.71

Table 2 Means of variables associated with ever and current IP use

Variables Never used Ever used No current use Current use
M M M M

DUREL
DUREL Total 2.73 3.34** 3.12 3.61*
DUREL Intrinsic 2.30 2.82** 2.52 3.19**
DUREL Attendance 3.29 3.94** 3.84 4.07
DUREL Activity 3.46 4.31** 4.18 4.43
I/E-R
Intrinsic 2.45 2.02** 2.15 1.84*
Extrinsic personal 2.39 1.92** 2.07 1.71
Extrinsic social .97 .77 .89 .60
VLQ
Composite Family 72.45 69.23 70.94 66.82
Composite Marriage 67.79 66.64 67.43 65.54
Composite Friends 66.05 59.24 60.46 57.54
Composite Spiritual 61.94 44.04** 49.16 36.82*
Composite Community 44.60 37.44 38.39 36.11

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

and personal reasons were found to be less likely to have ever used IP. No significant
difference in IP use was found from the Es subscale (t(211) = -1.16, p = .12).
When examining the VLQ, the only subscale score that was significant was Composite
Spiritual (t(211) = -4.16, p = .000). This score indicates that individuals that endorsed living
more spiritually in their everyday lives were less likely to have ever used IP. No significant
difference was found from the following VLQ subscales: Composite Family (t(211) = -.87,
p = .39), Composite Marriage (t(211) = .25, p = .80), Composite Friendship (t(211) =
-1.85, p = .07), and Composite Community (t(211) = -1.90, p = .06).

Variables Associated with Current Use

Overall, comparisons were examined between current use (yes/no) and variables associated
with religiosity (religious affiliation and the standardize measures). Overall, religious
affiliations was not found to be significant (v2(1) = 2.07, p = .15).

123
J Relig Health

With regard to the standardize measure, many variables were associated with IP use (see
Table 2). For the DUREL total, individuals that endorsed being more religious were less likely
to currently use IP (t(138) = 2.267, p = .025). For the DUREL Intrinsic, individuals that
endorsed being more intrinsically religious were less likely to currently use IP. (t(138) = 3.12,
p = .002). No significant difference in IP use was found for the DUREL Attendance
(t(138) = .83, p = .41) and the DUREL Activity (t(138) = .85, p = .40) subscales.
When examining the I/E-R, significance differences in IP use were found on the
I subscale (t(131) = -2.05, p = .043); thus, individuals, who endorsed more intrinsic
religiosity were less likely to currently use IP. No significant differences in IP use were
found on the subscales Ep (t(110) = -1.79, p = .08) and Es (t(123) = -1.86, p = .07).
When examining the VLQ, the only Composite Spiritual (t(124) = -2.35, p = .02)
was significant for current IP use; individuals that endorsed living more spiritually in their
everyday lives were less likely to have ever used IP. No significant differences were found
for the following VLQ subscales: Composite Family (t(118) = -.93, p = .35), Composite
Marriage (t(122) = -.34, p = .73), Composite Friendship (t(122) = -.62, p = .53), and
Composite Community (t(123) = -.49, p = .63).

Religiosity Variables and Frequency of Use

With regard to frequency of use (minutes/week), a t test was conducted to examine the
effects of the absence or presence of religiosity (religious and non-religious) on frequency
of IP use. Overall, there was no difference between religiosity and frequency of use
(t(140) = 1.69, p = .09); however, on average, non-religious individuals viewed IP more
often (97.82 min/week) than religious individuals (61.60).
When examining other measures, correlations were conducted between frequency of use
(minutes/week) and measure-associated religiosity (The DUREL, I/E-R, VLQ). Only a few
variables were found to be associated with frequency of use. Both the DUREL total
(r(140) = .18, p = .035) and the DUREL Intrinsic subscale (r(140) = .17, p = .048) were
significant. Only one subscale (I) on the I/E-R was significant (r(135) = -.18, p = .039).
When examining the VLQ, only Composite Family was significant (r(135) = -.26,
p = .003). Thus, participants with higher DUREL scores (less religious), less intrinsic
religiosity, and less family values used IP more often.

Religious Affiliation Associated with IP Use

Given that the results showed that religiosity was associated with less IP use, further analyses
were used run to examine whether there was specific difference in the religious group
(n = 161). More specifically, t tests were conducted to examine whether there were differences
on religiosity measures by use (ever and current). Overall, in the religiously affiliated group,
both current and ever IP use differed by only one measure (Composite Spiritual). More spe-
cifically, individuals, who endorsed living in congruence to their spiritual values, were less
likely ever use IP (t(155) = -3.4, p = .001) and currently use IP (t(89) = -2.07, p = .04).
All other variables (The DUREL, I/E-R, VLQ subscales) were not associated with IP use.

Discussion

The present study examined the relationship between religiosity and religious affiliation
and IP use. Overall, the current study found that those who endorsed more religiosity used

123
 J Relig Health

less IP (current, ever, and frequency). This is understandable given that previous research
on attitudes toward pornography have found strong links between high religiosity and
condemnation of pornography use (Hayes 1995; Sherkat and Ellison 1997). However, in
this study, there were mixed results across measures of IP use. More specifically, most
measures of religiosity were associated with at least one measure of IP use (current, ever,
or frequency); however, not all measures of IP use were significantly associated with all
measures of religiosity. For example, extrinsic religiosity was associated ever using IP, but
it was not associated with currently using or the frequency of IP use. Also, religious
affiliation had a significant difference with ever IP use, but not with current IP use. Thus,
this study is fairly inconsistent with earlier findings where religiosity was not found to have
a significant inverse relationship with ever viewing IP (Abell et al. 2006; Baltazar et al.
2010). It is important to note that from these past studies as well as this study, each used
different measures of religiosity. Also, this study measured multiple methods of IP
involvement (i.e., current, ever, and frequency) as well as examined non-religious indi-
viduals. Future research may need to develop a comprehensive measure of religiosity as
well as consider ways in which IP involvement should be examined.
In addition, only extrinsic personal religiosity (e.g., when religion offers comfort in
times of stress) showed significant difference between those who never used as compared
those have used. On the other hand, there was no significant difference between never and
ever user on the measures of extrinsic social religiosity (e.g., going to church to spend time
with friends). Thus, people may attend religious activities to be with their friends and loved
ones, but do so despite their religious beliefs. Therefore, the decision to use IP may become
a personal, intrinsic choice that is not socially driven. Given these mixed results, it
appeared that religiosity is a complex construct for many individuals (DeHaan et al. 2011;
Lefkowitz et al. 2004).
When examining other specific aspects of religiosity, the results showed that intrinsic
religiosity was associated with all measures of IP use, that is, those that were more religious
reported less IP use (current, ever, and frequency). From this finding, it may be that lifelong
experience in a religion may establish a strong rejection toward IP use. For example, people
who have more contact and affiliation with their religion may receive more information
regarding the institution’s ‘‘stand’’ on IP use. Further, religious groups may have seminars,
scripture readings, or sermons related to these topics, either promoting chastity and purity or
condemning negative sexual behavior (i.e., IP use). This may lead to internally following
religious rules and teachings as reasons not to use IP. Thus, internalizing these rules and
beliefs may determine what lies behind individuals’ approach in life to never use IP.
In regard to the VLQ, both the Composite Family and the Composite Spiritual domains
were associated with some measures of IP use. These results are unsurprising. If individuals
live according to their spiritual and family values, then they are probably not going to engage
in behavior (IP use) that goes against those values. In fact, when examining the use in just
religious individuals, the composite score on spirituality was the only significant difference
between users and nonusers. Therefore, it appears that when individuals do not adhere or
behave according to their spiritual values, they are more likely to engage in IP use. In another
way, it could be that increasing IP use leads to one feeling like religion is either less important
or they are less committed to behaviors in that domain. Thus, it is important to understand
why this ‘‘incongruency’’ exists, especially related to IP use. It could be that people who look
at IP use ‘‘in general’’ lead less spiritually valued lives, or it could be that those that look at IP
use do not agree with the values associated with religion/spirituality. Either way, future
research needs to examine these values, especially related to religiosity, to understand why
people use, since most people are religious.

123
J Relig Health

In addition, when examining the participants’ relationship with God, it appears that the
use of IP interfered with this relationship and one’s own spirituality. In this study, par-
ticipants reported that IP use interfered the most with their relationship to God. Perhaps
religious individuals experience feelings of scrupulosity when their behaviors (i.e., IP use)
do not align with their values (i.e., chastity), because IP use is deemed to be unacceptable
by their ‘‘intrinsic’’ faith and religious affiliation. Research examining the relationship
between religion and scrupulosity is limited. However, one study found that people who
were religiously affiliated were higher in scrupulosity than people who had no religious
affiliation (Nelson et al. 2006). In addition, another study found that the correlation
between pornography consumption and lower levels of happiness is strongest with reli-
gious attendees (Patterson and Price 2012). Future research should investigate whether IP
use relates to the level of scrupulosity in religious individuals.
Although this study revealed that more religiosity related to less IP use implying that it
could be a protective factor for IP use, more research is needed to investigate how reli-
giosity is related to the reason for use. Overall, it is unclear why religious individuals view
IP. It may be similar to the typical reason for use (e.g., pleasure and curiosity); however, it
may also be due to issues related to religiosity. More specifically, having pornography
prohibited by one’s religion may create a diathesis in the religious individual, where they
seek pornography out more because it is prohibited and taboo. Currently, very little
research has examined this. However, one study, in Evangelical Christians, found that
relief from life pressures and stress was the most common reason for use in these indi-
viduals; however, even though they used, they reported that being caught was their biggest
fear (Huson 2005).
From these findings, a number of limitations should be discussed. First, the present
study included only self-reported assessment measures. Thus, self-serving biases might
inhibit honest responses to sensitive questions. For example, respondents may develop
the tendency to report less IP use in order to avoid internal shame. Second, the DUREL
is recommended to use only as separate scales (and not to total all subscale scores) since
each scale may cancel each other’s effect out of the calculation (Koenig et al. 1997).
Thus, interpreting respondents’ scores on religiosity may not be as accurate as intended
by the authors. Also, the DUREL only provides five items in its measure. To provide
more sensitive information, research should provide a more comprehensive scale to
elaborate all three subscales for the DUREL. Third, the sample consisted of mostly
women, which may limit our sample to better understand IP users between gender and
possibly between users and excessive IP users. In fact, the literature reveals that most IP
users are men (Buzzell 2005). Another concern is the number of statistical analyses
conducted on similar constructs (i.e., aspects of religion and spirituality or valued areas)
without adjusting the alpha to correct for multiple examinations. Given the exploratory
nature of our study, we chose a more liberal approach exploring differences. Lastly, our
religious sample only consisted of Christian-affiliated groups. More religions, such as
Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and others, are needed to give a comprehensive under-
standing of religiosity in regard to IP use. In any case, future research should continue to
focus on the effects of groups who mainly use IP.
One seemingly unusual analysis is measuring ever and current IP use. However, as
behaviors change, so can beliefs. Therefore, it is important to examine ever use because
some people may be influenced and ingrained by parental figures continuing into their
adult lives. However, it would also be important to examine current use because some
people may change their beliefs as they grow and experience life, different from the
influence established by parental figures.

123
 J Relig Health

In conclusion, religiosity (religious affiliation, the DUREL, I/E-R, VLQ) was related to
whether someone currently or ever viewed IP, and it was also related to the frequency of IP
use. Furthermore, given these results, future studies need to examine more closely issues
related to intrinsic, extrinsic, and personal religious factors as they may provide insight
with IP use. It may be helpful to understand what other issues regarding religion influences
IP use in these populations. Lastly, we suggest future research should investigate scru-
pulosity and shame as it relates to religious individuals and IP.

References

Abell, J. W., Steenbergh, T. A., & Boivin, M. J. (2006). Cyberporn use in the context of religiosity. Journal
of Psychology and Theology, 34(2), 165–171.
Adams, M. S., Oye, J., & Parker, S. T. (2003). Sexuality of older adults and the internet: From sex education
to cybersex. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18(3), 405–414.
Baltazar, A., Helm, H. W, Jr., McBride, D., Hopkins, G., & Stevens, J. V, Jr. (2010). Internet pornography
use in the context of external and internal religiosity. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38(1),
32–40.
Bridges, A. J., Bergner, R. M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2003). Romantic partners’ use of pornography: Its
significance for women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 29(1), 1–14.
Buzzell, T. (2005). The effects of sophistication, access and monitoring on use of pornography in three
technological contexts. Deviant Behavior, 26(2), 109–132.
Carroll, J. S., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., Olson, C. D., Barry, C. M., & Madsen, S. (2008).
Generation XXX: Pornography acceptance and use among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 23, 6–30.
Cooper, A., Scherer, C. R., Boies, S. C., & Gordon, B. L. (1999). Sexuality on the internet: From sexual
exploration to pathological expression. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(2),
154–164.
Cooper, A., Delmonico, D. L., & Burg, R. (2000a). Cybersex users, abusers, and compulsives: New findings
and implications. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 7(1–2), 5–29.
Cooper, A., Boies, S., Maheu, M., & Greenfield, D. (2000b). Sexuality and the internet: The next sexual
revolution. In L. T. Szuchman, F. Muscarella, L. T. Szuchman, & F. Muscarella (Eds.), Psychological
perspectives on human sexuality (pp. 519–545). Hoboken, NJ US: Wiley.
Cooper, A., Morahan-Martin, J., Mathy, R. M., & Maheu, M. (2002). Toward an increased understanding of
user demographics in online sexual activities. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28(2), 105–129.
Davies, M. (2003). Clergy sexual addiction: A systemic preventative model. Sexual Addiction and Com-
pulsivity, 10(2–3), 99–109.
DeHaan, L. G., Yonker, J. E., & Affholter, C. (2011). More than enjoying the sunset: Conceptualization and
measurement of religiosity for adolescents and emerging adults and its implications for developmental
inquiry. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30(3), 184–195.
Durkin, K. F., & Bryant, C. D. (1995). ‘Log on to sex’: Some notes on the carnal computer and erotic
cyberspace as an emerging research frontier. Deviant Behavior, 16(3), 179–200.
Gardner, C. J. (2001). Tangled in the worst of the web: What internet porn did to one pastor, his wife, his
ministry, their lives. Christianity Today, 45(4), 42–50.
Goodson, P., McCormick, D., & Evans, A. (2000). Sex on the internet: College students’ emotional arousal
when viewing sexually explicit materials on-line. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25(4),
252–260.
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-Revised and single-item
scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348–354.
Hayes, B. C. (1995). Religious identification and moral attitudes: The British case. British Journal of
Sociology, 46(3), 457–674.
Huson, J. D. (2005). The experience of male undergraduate christian college students with pornography:
How it disrupts the educational process and spiritual formation. Doctoral dissertation, School of
Intercultural Studies, Biola University.
Koenig, H. G., & Bussin, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure
for use in epidemiological studies. Religions, 1, 78–85.
Koenig, H. G., Meador, K., & Parkerson, G. (1997). Religion index for psychiatric research: A 5-item
measure for use in health outcome studies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 885–886.

123
J Relig Health

Laaser, M. R., & Gregoire, L. J. (2003). Pastors and cybersex addiction. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,
18(3), 395–406.
Lefkowitz, S. E., Meghan, G. M., Shearer, C. L., & Boone, T. L. (2004). Religiosity, sexual behaviors, and
sexual attitudes during emerging adulthood. The Journal of Sex Research, 41(2), 150–159.
Leiblum, S. (1997). Sex and the net: Clinical implications. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(1),
21–27.
Levert, N. (2007). A comparison of christian and non-christian males, authoritarianism, and their rela-
tionship to internet pornography addiction/compulsion. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 14(2),
145–166.
McNair, B. (2002). Review of ‘striptease culture: Sex, media and the democratisation of desire’. Sexualities,
5(4), 503–504.
Nelson, E. A., Abramowitz, J. S., Whiteside, S. P., & Deacon, B. J. (2006). Scrupulosity in patients with
obsessive–compulsive disorder: Relationship to clinical and cognitive phenomena. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 20(8), 1071–1086.
Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carroll, J. S. (2010). ‘‘I believe it is wrong but I still do it’’: A
comparison of religious young men who do versus do not use pornography. Psychology of Religion and
Spirituality, 2(3), 136–147.
Newman, B. (1997). The use of online services to encourage exploration of ego-dystonic sexual interests.
Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(1), 45–48.
Patterson, R., & Price, J. (2012). Pornography, religion, and the happiness gap: Does pornography impact
the actively religious differently? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51(1), 79–89.
Peek, C., Witt, D., & Gay, D. (1982). Pornography: Important political symbol or limited political issue?
Sociological Focus, 15, 41–51.
Ragan, P. W., & Martin, P. R. (2000). The psychobiology of sexual addiction. Sexual Addiction and
Compulsivity, 7(3), 161–175.
Reid, R. C., Li, D. S., Gilliland, R., Stein, J. A., Karim, R., & Fong, T. (2011). Reliability, validity, and
psychometric development of the pornography consumption inventory in a sample of hypersexual men.
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 37(5), 359–385.
Ropelato, J. (2012). Topten reviews. Retrieved from http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-
pornography-statistics.html.
Sabina, C., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2008). The nature and dynamics of internet pornography exposure
for youth. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11(6), 691–693.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social
bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 609–627.
Sherkat, D. E., & Ellison, C. G. (1997). The cognitive structure of a moral crusade: Conservative Protes-
tantism and opposition to pornography. Social Forces, 75(3), 957–980.
Stack, S., Wasserman, I., & Kern, R. (2004). Adult social bonds and use of internet pornography. Social
Science Quarterly, 85(1), 75–88.
Stayton, W. R., & Pillai-Friedman, S. (2009). Oh, God: The moral and scriptural implications of sexuality
education and religion. In E. Schroeder, J. Kuriansky, E. Schroeder, & J. Kuriansky (Eds.), Sexuality
education: Past, present, and future (Vol. 1, pp. 228–246)., History and foundations Westport, CT US:
Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
The Leadership Survey. (2001). Pastors viewing internet pornography. Leadership Journal, 89, 1–2.
Wilson, K. G., Sandoz, E. K., Kitchens, J., & Roberts, M. (2010). The valued living questionnaire: Defining
and measuring valued action within a behavioral framework. The Psychological Record, 60(2),
249–272.
Yoder, V. C., Virden, T. B., & Amin, K. A. (2005). Internet pornography and loneliness: An association?
Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 12(1), 19–44.
Young, K. S. (2008). Internet sex addiction risk factors, stages of development and treatment. American
Behavioral Scientist, 51(1), 21–37.

123