Religiosity 1
RUNNING HEAD: RELIGIOSITY AND OLDER ADULTS
Religiosity and its Effect on
Psychological Well-being in Older Adults
Steve Miller
Florida International University
Religiosity 2
Abstract
There has been numerous studies designed to assess the effects of religion on the
psychological well-being of older adults. However, reviewing the literature reveals that
currently the empirical work is inconsistent and often contradictory on this issue. The
current study is designed to examine the effects of religiosity on psychological well-being
in older adults. Psychological well-being will be assessed using scales for loneliness,
self-esteem, and depression. The classification of Allport and Ross’s intrinsic and
extrinsic religiosity (1967) will be used. One hundred subjects age 65 and older will be
recruited from a local senior center that services the community. Specific planned
contrasts will be implement based on the specific hypothesis. The specific hypotheses
are: 1.) Individuals who are purely intrinsically religious will have more positive scores
on the psychological well-being measures than those who are purely extrinsically
religious. 2.) Individuals who are indiscriminately proreligious will have more positive
scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who are purely intrinsically
religious. 3.) Individuals who are purely extrinsically religious will have more negative
scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who are indiscriminately
antireligious.
Religiosity 3
Religiosity and its Effect on
Psychological Well-being in Older Adults
The positive effect of religiosity on the psychological well-being of older adults is
an area of research that has gained considerable attention in recent years. However, in
the short history of psychological research, religiosity has been considered by many
researchers as a negative manifestation of an underlying pathology. Freud (1952), in his
controversial book Totem and Taboo, depicted religion as the foundation of neurosis.
However, this negative view of religion was not taken by all researchers at the time.
Jung (1933), explained that “neurosis must be understood as the suffering of a human
being who has not discovered what life means for him” (p. 260). Furthermore, Viktor
Frankel (1975) clearly stated the importance of finding meaning in one’s life and that
religion may assist in supplying purpose and meaning.
The conflicting views in the theoretical literature about the effects of religion on
the human psyche are common in the empirical literature as well. In a number of studies,
religiosity was found to have a positive correlation with physical health (Levin, &
Vanderpool, 1992) longevity, and life satisfaction (Gartner, Larson, & Allen, 1991).
Furthermore, several studies indicated that religion correlated with several behavioral
outcomes such as overall happiness (Poloma, & Pendelton, 1990) the inhibition of
premarital sexual behaviors (Hong, 1983; Miller & Olson, 1988) and marital adjustment,
(Roth, 1988; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). Other studies examined the positive
effects of religion on coping with crisis such as divorce (Harvey, Barnes, & Greenwood,
1987; McGloshen & O’Bryant, 1988). Pargament & Brant (1998) contend that religion
can lead to explanations when other explanations are not convincing. Other reviewed
Religiosity 4
studies revealed a negative correlation between religiosity and negative outcomes of
stress (Krause & Van Tran, 1987), drug use (Bell, Wechsler & Johnston, 1997; Adlaf, &
Smart, 1985), alcohol use (Amoateng & Bahr, 1986; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis,
1993; Kendler, Gardner & Prescott, 1997; Patock-Peckman, Hutchinson, Cheong &
Nagoshi, 1998), suicide attempts (Lester, 1988; Mandel, 1984; Batson, et al., 1993), and
delinquency (Batson, et al., 1993).
However, as with the theoretical literature, several reviewed studies found no
empirical support for the common belief that religion may be a basis for positive
psychological outcomes. In a review of numerous empirical studies, Sanua (1969)
indicated that many studies failed to demonstrate an association between religion and
mental health, deviancy, and social pathology. Furthermore, no association was found
between religiousness and perceived stress (Schafer & King, 1990) nor religiousness and
happiness (Lewis, Lanigan, Joseph, & Fockert, 1997).
The current review of the literature will be divided into four sections. The first
section will introduce Allport and Ross’s (1967) religious classification of intrinsic and
extrinsic religiosity and its impact on identifying an operational definition of religion in
the scientific study of religion. The second section will examine the relationship between
religiosity and feelings of loneliness in several populations. The third section will
analyze the effects of religiosity on self-esteem and the apparent inconsistency in the
related research. And finally the fourth section will examine the effects of religiosity on
depression. The latter three sections will attempt to analyze the effects of religion on the
mentioned psychological well-being variables specifically within the older adult
Religiosity 5
population. Reviewing the literature will reveal that currently the empirical work is
inconsistent and often contradictory on this issue.
Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity
In order to reduce the empirical and conceptual difficulties facing research on
religion researchers must apply a more precise measure that will reflect the differing
religious dimensions (Bergin, 1994). There are several religious classifications that have
been used in the scientific study of religion. However, of all approaches to the empirical
study of religion, Gordon W. Allport’s concept of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity had
the most impact (Meadow & Kahoe, 1984). Using this classification can assist in
eliminating the apparent inconsistencies in the association between religion and
psychological well-being (Gartner, Larson, & Allen, 1991).
In explaining the difference between an intrinsic religion and an extrinsic religion,
Paloutzian (1996) illustrated that intrinsic motivated faith is one that is internalized. It
becomes part of the biological system of that individual. In contrast, the extrinsically
motivated person is one who is involved in religion for external reasons. For this
individual, religion is not internalized and is followed only when an external benefit, such
as social desirability, exists.
Religiosity and loneliness
Research on the relationship between religiosity and loneliness has established a
relationship between the two primarily in adult and elderly populations. In an
investigation by Johnson & Mullins (1989) interviews were conducted with 131 residents
of an apartment community for senior citizens with a mean age of 76. Loneliness was
measured using the revised UCLA loneliness Scale (Russell et al. 1980). Religiosity was
Religiosity 6
measured based on two dimensions of religiosity. The first, being the subjective aspect
of religion, which included items regarding frequency of prayer and importance of
religion. The second dimension of religiosity measured was the social dimension, which
included items pertaining to church membership and frequency of attendance at religious
services. Individuals with higher involvement in the social aspects of religion
significantly exhibited less loneliness. However the subjective dimension of religiosity
was not related to loneliness.
The relationship between loneliness and spiritual well-being was studied by
Miller (1985), using a sample of 64 chronically ill adult patients and 64 randomly
selected healthy adults. Loneliness was measured using the Abbreviated Loneliness
Scale and religiosity was measured using the Spiritual well-being scale, the existential
well-being scale and the religious well-being scale (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). The
results supported the hypothesis that there is a negative correlation between loneliness
and spiritual well-being in both the healthy and the chronically ill individuals.
However, the positive effect of religion on loneliness was not established in all
reviewed articles. The effect of religion on loneliness was researched by comparing a
sample of students from the University of Sydney to a sample of students from Sydney’s
Catholic College of Education (O’Connor, 1994). Loneliness was measured using the
revised UCLA loneliness Scale (Russell et al. 1980). Results exhibited no differences
between the groups on the measure of loneliness.
Religiosity and self-esteem
In a study comparing a sample of 351 Evangelical Christians with a general
sample of 1115 adults, Aycock and Noaker (1985) assessed self-esteem using the Coping
Religiosity 7
Resources Inventory for stress (Matheny, Curlette, Aycock, Pugh, & Taylor, 1981). The
results did not reveal group differences with regard to self-esteem levels. The author
suggests that the inability of the Christian group to evidence higher self-esteem levels
than the non-Christians may by due to the inadequacy of a mere acceptance of God to
produce changes in the self conceptual life of a believer.
In one of the only articles using the intrinsic extrinsic modal of religious
orientation Nelson (1990) investigated the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on
self-esteem in a sample of older adults. Sixty-eight individuals ages 55 or older were
administered several inventories inquiring about self-esteem and religiosity. Religiosity
was measured using an alternate form of the Allport and Ross religious orientation scale
(Gorsuch and Venable, 1983). Self-esteem was measured using the Rosenberg Selfesteem Scale (1965). The results indicated a negative correlation between self-esteem
and intrinsic religious ordination (r = -.38; P = .001). Extrinsic religiosity was not
significantly related to self-esteem.
Religiosity and Depression
In one of the only studies using the intrinsic extrinsic modal of religious
orientation in conjunction with depression, Nelson (1990) investigated the effects of
intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on depression in a sample of older adults. Sixty-eight
individuals ages 55 or older were administered several inventories inquiring about
depression and religiosity. Religiosity was measured using an alternate form of the
Allport and Ross Religious Orientation Scale (Gorsuch and Venable, 1983). Depression
was measured using the Geriatric Depression Scale (Brink, Yesavage, Lum, Heersema,
Abey, and Ross, 1982). The results indicated a negative correlation between depression
Religiosity 8
and intrinsic religiosity (r = -.23; P = .026). Extrinsic religiosity was not significantly
related to depression.
In sum, the literature is inconclusive in regard to the correlation between
religiosity and loneliness, self-esteem, and depression. A large number of reviewed
studies revealed a positive correlation between religiosity and self-esteem, and a negative
correlation between religiosity and loneliness and religiosity and depression. However,
several researchers argued that this apparent relationship has not been demonstrated in
many studies. In addition, further research is necessary to establish any further
conclusions. Furthermore, the literature seems to indicate that applying the religious
classification of Allport and Ross’s (1967) intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity to
psychological research may assist in reconciling the difficulties in the literature.
Proposal
The current study seeks to examine the effects of religiosity on psychological
well-being in older adults. The classification of Allport and Ross’s intrinsic and extrinsic
religiosity will be used. However, since research has found that intrinsic and extrinsic
religion is not on a unidimentional continuum, (i.e. individuals were not either intrinsic or
extrinsic) the current study will classify religiosity within a fourfold system (Hood,
1978). Individuals who agreed with the extrinsic statement and with the intrinsic
statement will be labeled as “Indiscriminately proreligious”. Individuals who agreed with
the intrinsic statement but disagreed with the extrinsic statement will be classified as pure
intrinsic. Those who agreed with the extrinsic statement but disagreed with the intrinsic
statement will be labeled as pure extrinsic. And those disagreeing with both types of
statements will be classified as “indiscriminately antireligious”.
Religiosity 9
Hypothesis 1. Individuals who are purely intrinsically religious will have more positive
scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who are purely extrinsically
religious .
Based on the previous literature it is hypothesized that those individuals who are
purely intrinsically religious will score higher on the self-esteem measure and lower on
the loneliness and depression scale than those who are purely extrinsically religious. An
intrinsic religious orientation will be correlated with positive outcomes of well-being,
which will be manifested by the higher scores on the self-esteem measure and lower
scores on the loneliness and depression scale.
Hypothesis 2. Individuals who are indiscriminately proreligious will have more positive
scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who are purely intrinsically
religious.
It is hypothesized that individuals who are high on both intrinsic and extrinsic
religiosity, the indiscriminately proreligious, will have more positive scores on the
psychological well-being measures than the purely intrinsically religious group. The
indiscriminately proreligious group will score higher on the self-esteem measure and
lower on the loneliness and depression scale than those who are purely intrinsically
religious. Having an extrinsic religion and having an intrinsic religion, in combination,
will provide added benefits than having only an intrinsic religion.
Hypothesis 3. Individuals who are purely extrinsically religious will have more negative
scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who are indiscriminately
antireligious.
Religiosity 10
It is hypothesized that individuals scoring high on extrinsic religiosity will have
more negative scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who score low
on both intrinsic and extrinsic measures. Those scoring high on extrinsic religiosity will
have lower self-esteem scores and higher loneliness and depression scores than the
indiscriminately antireligious. This hypothesis is based on a similar finding in regards to
religiosity and prejudice. Allport (1962) found that individuals who were truly devout, or
intrinsically religious, and individuals who had no religious affiliation at all were found
not to be prejudiced. However, the individuals who were irregular attenders of religious
activities, or extrinsically religious, were the most prejudiced. The same is hypothesized
in regard to the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on psychological well-being
outcomes.
Method
Sample:
One hundred subjects age 65 and older will be recruited from a local senior center
that services the community at large. The denominations of the participants will be
evenly distributed since the community center does not service a specific denomination
over another.
Procedure:
Research assistants will ask for volunteers during activities at the community
center. Participants will complete a consent form followed by the following measures.
Measures:
Religiosity. To assess intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity the Allport and Ross’s Religious
Orientation Scale (1967) will be used. This scale is a twenty-item scale, which includes
Religiosity 11
10 intrinsic items and 10 extrinsic items. On each item a score of 1 indicates the most
intrinsic response and a score of 5 indicates the most extrinsic response. A sample item
from the extrinsic subscale is: “What religion offers me most is comfort when sorrows
and misfortune strike. a.) I definitely disagree (1), b.) I tend to disagree (2), c.) I tend to
agree (4), d.) I definitely agree (5)”. A sample item from the intrinsic subscale is: “My
religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life. a.) this is definitely
not so (5), b.) probably not so (4), c.) probably so (2), d.) definitely so (1)”.
Loneliness. The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. (Russell et. al., 1980) will be used to
assess loneliness. This scale is a 5-item likert format short form, which includes items
such as: “Do you feel lonely?”. A higher score on each item indicated higher loneliness.
Self-esteem. To assess self-esteem the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965) will be used.
This scale is answered on a 4 point scale in which, 1=Strongly agree, 4= strongly
disagree. Sample items include: ”I feel useless at times” and "I take a positive attitude
toward my self”.
Depression. The most commonly used scale to assess depression in the geriatric
population is the Geriatric Depression Scale. (Brink et. al., 1982) which is a thirty-item
self-rating scale. Sample items include: “Do you have trouble concentrating?”, “do you
enjoy getting up in the morning?” and “Do you feel your life is empty?”. A positive
feature of this scale is that the scale is a true-false response format, which makes it easier
for older people to respond to the items.
Proposed analysis
The preliminary analysis will include a one-way MANOVA with the multiple
outcome measures of loneliness, self-esteem, and depression. The MANOVA will
Religiosity 12
identify and compare four distinct cells including those individuals who are
“Indiscriminately proreligious”, individuals who are “purely intrinsic”, those who are
“purely extrinsic”, and those who are “indiscriminately antireligious”. Once the four
cells are identified and the MANOVA is implemented the results will be used for specific
planned contrasts, which will be performed based on the specific hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1. Individuals who are purely intrinsically religious will have more positive
scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who are purely extrinsically
religious. The first planned contrast will be between the group of individuals who agreed
with the intrinsic statement but disagreed with the extrinsic statement or the purely
intrinsic and the group who agreed with the extrinsic statement but disagreed with the
intrinsic statement or the purely extrinsic.
Hypothesis 2. Individuals who are indiscriminately proreligious will have more positive
scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who are purely intrinsically
religious. The second planed contrast will be performed between the group of individuals
who agreed with the extrinsic statement and with the intrinsic statements or the
“Indiscriminately proreligious” and the group of subjects who agreed with the intrinsic
statement but disagreed with the extrinsic statement or the purely intrinsic group.
Hypothesis 3. Individuals who are purely extrinsically religious will have more negative
scores on the psychological well-being measures than those who are indiscriminately
antireligious. The final contrast to be performed will be between the group who agreed
with the extrinsic statement but disagreed with the intrinsic statement or the purely
extrinsic and those disagreeing with both types of statements or the “indiscriminately
antireligious”.
Religiosity 13
Since the planed contrasts are non-orthogonal the Bonforoni method will be
implemented for determining the significance level. Hence, the per-comparison (PC)
significance level will be the Family Wise (FW) significance level divided by the number
of contrasts, which in the current study is .05/3. Furthermore, since the variances of the
four groups are most probably unequal the assumption of unequal variances will be taken.
Therefor, the statistical output will be analyzed using the unequal variance portion.
Religiosity 14
References
Adlaf, E. M., & Smart, R. G. (1985). Drug use and religious affiliation, feelings,
and behavior. British Journal of Addiction, 80, 163-171.
Allport, G. W. (1962). Prejudice: Is it societal or personal? The Journal of Social
Issues, 18, 120-134.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Amoateng, A. Y., & Bahr, S. J. (1986). Religion, family and adolescent drug use.
Sociological Perspectives, 29, 53-76.Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception
profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Aycock, D. W., & Noaker, S. (1985). A comparison of the self-esteem levels in
Evangelical Christian and general population. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 13,
199-208.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P. A., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the
individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford.
Bell, R., Wechsler, H., Johnston, L. D. (1997). Correlates of college student's
marijuana use: Results of a US national survey. Addiction, 92, (5), 571-581.
Bergin, A. E. (1994). Religious life-styles and mental health. In Brown, L. B.
(Ed.), Religion, personality, and mental health (pp. 69-93). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brink, T., Yesavage, J., Lum, O., Heersema, P., Abey, M., & Ross, T. (1982).
Screening tests for geriatric depression. Clinical Gerontologist, 1, 37-43.
Frankl, V. (1975). The unconscious God. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Freud, S. (1952). Totem and Taboo. New York: Norton.
Religiosity 15
Gartner, J., Larson, D. B., & Allen, G. D. (1991). Religious commitment and
mental health: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
19, 6-25.
Gorsuch, R. & Venable, G. (1983). Development of an “age universal” I-E scale.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 181-187.
Harvey, C. D., Barnes, G. E., & Greenwood, L. (1987). Correlates of morale
among Canadian widowed persons. Social psychiatry, 22, 65-72.
Hong, S. M. (1983). Gender, religion, and sexual permissiveness; Some recent
Australian data. The Journal of Psychology, 115, 17-22.
Hood, R. W., Jr. (1978). The usefulness of indiscriminatly pro and anti categories
of religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17, 419-431.
Johnson, D. P., & Mullins, L. C. (1989). Religiosity and loneliness among the
elderly. The Journal of Applied Gerontology, 8, 110-131.
Kendler, K. S., Gardner, C. O., & Prescott, C. A. (1997). Religion,
psychopathology, and substance use and abuse: A multimeasure, genetic-epidemiologic
study. American journal of Psychiatry, 154, (3) 322-329.
Krause, N. & Van Tran, T. (1987). Stress and religious involvement among older
blacks. Journal of Gerontology, 44, 504-513.
Lester, D. (1988). Religion and personal violence in the U.S.A. Psychological
Reports, 62, 618.
Levin, J. S., & Vanderpool, H. Y. (1992). Religious factors in physical health and
the prevention of illness. In K. I. Pargament, K. I. Maton, & R. E. Hess (Eds.), Religion
Religiosity 16
and prevention in mental health: Research, vision, and action (pp. 41-64). New York:
Haworth Press.
Lewis, C. A., Lanigan, C., Joseph, S., & de Fockert, J. (1997). Religiosity and
happiness: No evidence for an association among undergraduates. Personality and
Individual Differences, 22, 119-122.
Mandel, C. L. (1984). Suicide: A human problem. Educational Horizons, 62, 119123.
Matheny, K. B., Curlette, W., Aycock, D. W., Pugh, J. L., & Taylor, H. F. (1981).
Coping resources inventory for stress. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia State
University, Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Atlanta.
McGloshen, T. H., & O’Bryant, S. L. (1988) The psychological well-being older
recent widows. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 99-116.
Meadow, M. J., & Kahoe, R. D. (1984). Psychology of religion: Religion in
individual lives. New York: Harper & Row.
Miller, B. C., & Olsen, T. D. (1988). Sexual attitudes and behavior of high school
students in relation to background and contextual factors. The Journal of Sex Research,
24, 194-200.
Miller, J. F. (1985). Assessment of loneliness and spiritual well-being in
chronically ill and healthy adults. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1, 79-85.
Nelson, P. B. (1990). Intrinsic/Extrinsic religious orientation of the elderly:
Relationship to depression and self-esteem. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 16, 29-35.
Religiosity 17
O’Connor, K. V. (1994). Religious experience, loneliness, and subjective wellbeing. In L. B. Brown (Ed.), Religion, personality, and mental health (pp. 144-153). New
York: Springer-Verleg.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and
the quality of life. In Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of
current theory, research and therapy (pp. 224-236). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Paloutzian, R. F. (1996). Invitation to the psychology of religion (2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Pargament, K. I., & Brant, C. R. (1998). Religion and coping. In Koenig, H. G.
(Ed.) Handbook of religion and mental health (pp. 111-128). San Diego, CA: Academic
press.
Patock-Peckham, J. A., Hutchinson, G. T., Cheong, J., Nagoshi, C. T. (1998).
Effect of religion and religiosity on alcohol use in a college student sample. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 49, (2), 81-88.
Poloma, M. M., & Pendelton, B. F. (1990). Religious domains and general wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 22, 255-276.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Roth, P. D. (1988). Spiritual well-being and marital adjustment. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 16, 153-158.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness
scale: Concurrent and discriminate validity evidence. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 39, 472-480.
Religiosity 18
Sanua, V. D. (1969). Religion, mental health, and personality: A review of the
empirical studies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 1203-1213.
Schafer, W. E., & King, M. (1990). Religiousness and stress among college
students: A survey report. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 336-341.