In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Notes Note to Chapter 1 1. We do not agree with the premise of this question, as it creates a false dichotomy , so we use it only to illustrate a point that we take up further in chapter 5. Notes to Chapter 4 1. M = 1.54, SD = 0.59 versus M = 1.96, SD = 0.95, t = 2.26, p < .05. 2. M = 6.35, SD = 3.07 versus M = 4.10, SD = 1.81, t = 3.1, p < .01. 3. With a possible range of 0 to 39, our respondents’ mean score was 14.01 for males and 17.15 for females. This observed difference was more than what would be expected by chance. 4. Using a scale that ranges from 0 (never) to 4 (almost daily), the frequency of reported discriminatory acts rises from 0.72 to 1.64 for women who cover their hair, compared with their Muslim peers who do not cover their hair. The difference between these two groups of Muslim women was statistically significant at p <.05, meaning that it cannot be explained by chance alone. Notes to Chapter 5 1. r = .38, p < .005. 2. The results showed that the participants had stronger bonds with their Muslim communities (M = 5.80, SD = 0.93) than with the mainstream U.S. community (M = 5.05, SD = 1.15). 222 ❙ Notes to Chapter 5 3. r = 0.33 and r = 0.44, respectively. 4. r = 0.22 and r = 0.20, respectively. 5. χ2 (2, 115) = 9.80, p < .01. Note to Chapter 7 1. Cronbach’s Alphas for the measures ranged from 0.68 to 0.95. ...

Share