• Ingen resultater fundet

Hygiene factors

5.1 The focus groups and hypotheses formation

5.1.3 Hygiene factors

H5: “Charity” explains the dependent variable of “Motivational Factors” better than “Sub Norm

Motivational” does.


If light users are even to consider going to a church-related activity, they will need that activity to be approved by their peers.

Another independent variable that had an impact on “Hygiene Factors” was concerned with the level of religiousness connected with an activity. This was mentioned by several of the respondents and was perhaps more important for them to have fulfilled, than to have peer approval. In other words, it was the most negative association the respondents had.

When the respondents were asked, why they do not use the church more than they do, the most common explanation was, that they do not consider themselves religious.

Being religious was defined by the respondents as believing the words of the Bible to be true, and thus accepting the words as facts. None of them seemed to believe the Bible to be true, but some of them would show a greater harm towards it than others. When discussing the role of this religious aspect, each focus group was divided into two kinds of opinions. These opinions were defined by how literal the respondents would interpret the words of the Bible, when expressed by a pastor at church. The discussion revealed that the more literal a respondent would interpret these words, the less relevant he or she would perceive TNCOD to be, and the more negatively they would rate it.

The group of respondents, who would take the words literal, defined the religious aspect as a premise of TNCOD you have to accept, in order to find it relevant to join the activities at church “I think that the church has some great values, but it still lies between the lines […], that you have to accept the premise at some point.” (Jesper, FG 2, 53:23)


Whether it is more or less explicit, the aspect is always present for these people, when thinking about TNCOD, because they see it as one of the building blocks that the organization is founded on, and they therefore find it difficult to ignore. Further, when the aspect is made explicit it seems to offend them, because they do not believe in it, and thus find it difficult to accept. Explicitness of the religious aspect means that emphasis is put on delivering the exact words of the Bible, without interpreting them into a modern day context. Just as it was defined in the in-depth interviews.

The other group of respondents also perceived the religious aspect as a central factor of TNCOD,

but they were not as offended by it. If they experience the aspect to be too explicit, they will simply

find it boring to listen to, because they then cannot relate to it: “I think it is really boring to go to

church. It does not really give me anything to listen to a pastor, who might refer a little too much to

some old testaments and not so much to something I can find useful.” (Emma, FG 1, 03:53).

Hence, whether the respondents are offended by the religious aspect or simply find it boring, the common denominator for both opinions is that the religious aspect is seen as a barrier that keeps them from using the church more than they do.

Further, the more explicitly this aspect is made at TNCOD, the less relevant the organization will be perceived by the light users. The religious aspect is therefore a negative association, and when it becomes too explicit, the personal attitude formed by the individual respondents towards TNCOD is negative. They all agreed that if TNCOD is to attract them to activities, less emphasis should be put on the religious aspect by TNCOD in these activities. This independent variable will be named

“Less Religious Focus” in the structural model. The seventh hypothesis is then:


If light users are even to consider going to a church-related activity, they will need this activity to have less focus on the religious aspect.

To sum up the dependent variable of “Hygiene Factors” as well, it seemed that the independent variable of “Less Religious Focus” was a need that was most important for the light users to have fulfilled. Even though “Sub Norm Hygiene” also seemed to be important for some, “Less Religious Focus” was generally something that the respondents saw as the greatest determinant for whether they would be more open towards the church not. It would be interesting to test the level of influence each of these constructs has on “Hygiene Factors”:


“Less Religious Focus” explains the dependent variable of “Hygiene Factors” better than

“Sub Norm Hygiene” does.

In that way, it is assumed that the collections of independent variables, explaining “Motivational Factors” and “Hygiene Factors” respectively, will increase the likelihood that the light users will attend a church-related activity. Thus, the two dependent variables of “Motivational Factors” and

“Hygiene Factors” have an influence on the last dependent variable, which will be named “Likely To Go To Church”. This provides two more hypotheses:


If church-related activities are based on the fulfillment of “Motivational Factors”, it will make the light users more likely to attend these activities.

H10: If church-related activities are based on the fulfillment of “Hygiene Factors”, it will make

the light users more likely to attend these activities.

Lastly, it would be interesting and relevant to test whether “Motivational Factors” are better than

“Hygiene Factors” to explain the likelihood that the respondents would attend a church-related activity. According to the above stated theory of Herzberg, this is the case, when referring to job satisfaction. Yet, whether it is applicable to determine “Likely To Go To Church” must be investigated as well. The final hypothesis is then:

H11: “Motivational Factors” explains “Likely To Go To Church” better than “Hygiene Factors”


The structural model will therefore entail five independent variables and three dependent variables. Figure 2 illustrates this.

Figure 2. Dependent - & independent variable w. hypotheses