Adolescent Religiosity and Psychological Well-Being
Psychological Well-Being, Religious Coping, and Religiosity in College Students Theresa M. Trankle Abstract Through a correlational design, I observed the relationship between psychological well-being, measured on the Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff, 1989); religious coping, measured on the Religious Problem-Solving Scale (Pargament et al., 1988); and religiosity, measured on the Shepherd Scale (Basset et al., 1981) among 40 students (12 men, 28 women, age M = 20.25). By correlating responses to the Psychological Well-Being Scale, the Religious Problem-Solving Scale, and the Shepherd Scale, I found that high levels of religiosity positively correlated with high levels of psychological well-being (r(40) = .48, p < .01 (two-tailed)), and high levels of religious coping positively correlated with high levels of psychological well-being (r(40) = .35, p < .05 (two-tailed)), suggesting that those participants reporting healthy psychological well-being also indicated a rich religious life. Many recent studies have explored the relationship between psychological well-being, religiosity or spirituality, and coping styles in various populations. According to research by Pargament et al., (1988), an individual’s level of religiosity strongly correlated with one’s style of religious coping. Shortz and Worthington (1994) also discovered that levels of religiosity correlated strongly with religious coping and that individuals with higher levels of religiosity employed higher amounts of religious coping. Zinnbauer et al. (1997) defined religiosity as personal beliefs about a higher power, in addition to organizational practices such as church attendance and membership. This definition of religiosity encompasses an individual’s level of spirituality, or feeling of connectedness with a higher power; thus, religiosity and spirituality often describe the same characteristics (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Ross (1990) found that individuals with strong religious beliefs had significantly lower levels of distress than those having weak religious beliefs. Distress or lack of it can be understood as psychological well-being. Ryff (1989) defined psychological well-being as a multidimensional measurement of psychological development and mental health, including such scales as levels of autonomy and positive relations with others. Ellison (1991) described a correlation between religiosity and psychological well-being, finding that participants with strong religious faith reported higher levels of psychological well-being and fewer negative consequences of traumatic life events. Furthermore, Ellison, Boardman, Williams, and Jackson (2001) found that frequency of church attendance and belief in eternal life both positively correlated with higher levels of psychological wellbeing. Finally, in order to assess levels of spirituality and religiosity, Basset et al. (1981) devised an instrument (The Shepherd Scale) to differentiate between Christians and non-Christians according to New Testament descriptions of Christian beliefs and behaviors. Richter (2002) utilized the Shepherd Scale in assessing the relationship between spirituality/religiosity and psychological well-being, and determined that a strong, positive correlation existed between the two constructs. For this study, I assessed the relationship between psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989), religious coping (Pargament et al., 1988), and religiosity (Basset et al., 1981; Ellison, 1991; Richter, 2002; Ross, 1990; Shortz & Worthington, 1994; Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Based on previous research, I hypothesized that levels of religious coping and religiosity would strongly correlate with levels of psychological well-being. The results of this study may shed light on the relationship between one’s religiosity and overall mental health.
29
Adolescent Religiosity and Psychological Well-Being Method Participants The researcher employed convenience sampling to select 40 volunteer participants (12 men, 28 women) ranging in age from 18 to 27 years old (M = 20.25, SD = 1.96). Of the participants, 35 identified themselves as Caucasian, 1 as African-American, and 4 as Other. All participants attended the same small, Christian liberal arts college in the Midwestern United States. Instruments The researcher utilized four surveys in this study, one for each construct. These surveys included the Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff, 1989), the Religious Problem-Solving Scale (Pargament et al., 1988), the Shepherd Scale (Basset et al., 1981), and a demographic survey. The demographic survey consisted of standard questions (age and sex) in addition to items about church affiliation, church attendance, and other self-report items relating to their faith and religious beliefs. Ryff (1989) developed a survey to assess the level of psychological well-being as it relates to the following six areas: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth. For this study, I used only the self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, and purpose in life subsets. This modified paper and pencil survey consisted of 56 Likert scale items, 14 in each of the subsets. Participants circled a number ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree). To compute the overall score, I summed the scores across all items on an interval scale. Possible scores for each subset ranged from 14 to 84, and possible scores for the entire survey ranged from 56 to 336. For this survey, a high score indicated high psychological well-being, and a low score indicated low psychological well-being. The survey developed by Pargament et al. (1988), the Religious Problem-Solving Scale, assessed the participant’s style and degree of religious coping on an interval scale and recognized the following three subscales regarding problem -solving: Collaborative, Self-Directing, and Deferring. This paper and pencil survey consisted of 36 items, each subscale consisted of 12 items, with Likert scale responses ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). This forced choice format required the participant to circle the number corresponding to his or her agreement with the item. I computed the overall score by summing the scores across all the items in each of the three subscales, with a high score indicating a high level of religious coping. Furthermore, the subscale with the largest score indicated which style of religious coping the participant tended to utilize most. Possible overall scores ranged from 36 to 180 with scores in each subscale ranging from 12 to 60. Basset et al. (1981) developed the Shepherd Scale by using New Testament descriptions and characteristics of Christians. This paper and pencil survey assessed the participants from a distinctly Christian view on two dimensions of religiosity: religious beliefs and the Christian walk (Basset et al., 1981). The participants circled their responses on Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (not true) to 4 (true), with scores ranging from 38 to 152. The overall score is computed by summing the scores across all items on an interval scale, with a high score indicating high levels of religiosity. Procedure The study assessed volunteers during a regularly scheduled research night at the college. Each participant received an informed consent describing the nature of the study and detailing the participant’s right to participate. After the participants signed and returned the informed consent, they completed a packet of four surveys: Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff, 1989), the Religious Problem-Solving Scale (Pargament et al., 1988), the Shepherd Scale (Basset et al., 1981), and a
30
Adolescent Religiosity and Psychological Well-Being demographic survey with printed instructions. After the participants returned the completed surveys, they received a written debriefing statement describing the hypothesis of the study, and the researcher answered any questions the participants had relating to the study. Results It was hypothesized that levels of religious coping and religiosity would strongly correlate with levels of psychological well-being. I explored the relationship between religious coping (as measured by the Religious Coping Scales) and psychological well-being by using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (please see the table of correlations between psychological well-being, religious coping styles, and religiosity, at the end of this article, page 33). The results indicated a negative correlation between the Self-Directing Religious Coping style and psychological well-being, r(40) = -.34, p < .05 (two-tailed) and a positive correlation between the Collaborative Religious Coping style and Total Psychological Well-Being, r(40) = .35, p < .05 (twotailed). In addition, the researcher investigated the relationship between religiosity (as measured by the Shepherd Scale) and Total Psychological Well-Being. The results indicated a significant, positive correlation between total religiosity and total psychological well-being, r(40) = .48, p < .01 (twotailed), indicating that high levels of religiosity associated with high levels of psychological well-being. Discussion These results support the hypothesis that religious coping, religiosity, and psychological well-being positively correlate. As the Deferring style of religious coping measures low religious coping usage, the negative correlation between this style and psychological well-being conceptually indicates a positive relationship between religious coping and psychological well-being. This finding is further supported by the positive correlation between the Collaborative style of religious coping, which measures high religious coping usage, and psychological well-being. Finally, the positive correlation between religiosity and psychological well-being, in addition to the correlations between religious coping and psychological well-being, lend support to previous research in this area (Ellison, Boardman, Williams, & Jackson, 2001; Sanchez, this issue; Pargament et al., 1988; Richter, 2002). Despite the overwhelming support for the hypotheses, the results of study may reflect subject desirability in that participants may have responded in a way they thought would be socially acceptable and desirable. It is important to remember that these results cannot be generalized to those beyond the sample due to the convenience nature of the sampling method used in this study. However, further research in a larger, more diverse population would add to the body of knowledge on this topic. Likewise, survey results could be compared between different populations, based on age, education, race, denomination, etc. to determine if differences in psychological well-being, religiosity, and religious coping exist between the different populations. These results are promising. As Ellison stated, “Persons with strong religious faith may redefine potentially negative life events in religious terms as opportunities for spiritual growth or as part of a broader divine plan” (1991, p. 90). Finally, while belief in a divine being or eternal life may not protect individuals from experiencing troubles, feelings of discomfort or depression, or disappointments, these beliefs may make individuals more resilient when faced with worldly trials, disappointments, and major life-changes (Ellison, Boardman, Williams, & Jackson, 2001).
31
Adolescent Religiosity and Psychological Well-Being References Basset, R. L., Sadler, R. D., Kobischen, E. E., Skiff, D. M., Merrill, I. J., Atwater, B. J., et al. (1981). The shepherd scale: Separating the sheep from the goats. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 9, 335-351. Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 80-99. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from the JSTOR database. Ellison, C. G., Boardman, J. D., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). Religious involvement, stress, and mental health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit area study. Social Forces, 80, 215249. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from the JSTOR database. Pargament, K. I., Kennell, J., Hathaway, W., Grevengoed, N., Newman, J., & Jones, W. (1988). Religion and the problem-solving process: Three styles of coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27, 90-104. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from the EBSCOhost database. Richter, R. J. (Summer 2002). Correlation of psychological well-being and Christian spiritual wellbeing at a small Christian liberal arts college in the urban Midwest [electronic version]. CHARIS: A Journal of Faculty Scholarship, 2(1), 39-46. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from http://www.charis.wlc.edu/publications/charis_spring02/richter.pdf. Ross, C. E. (1990). Religion and psychological distress. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 236245. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from the JSTOR database. Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1999). Parental divorce, life-course disruption, and adult depression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 1034-1045. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from the JSTOR database. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. Shortz, J. L., & Worthington, E. L. (1994). Young adults’ recall of religiosity, attributions, and coping in parental divorce. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 172-179. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from the JSTOR database. Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., Belavich, T. G., et al. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 549564. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from the JSTOR database.
32
Adolescent Religiosity and Psychological Well-Being
Table 1 Measures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
Total Psychological Well-Being (PWB)
-
.91**
.84**
.75**
.76**
.35*
-.34*
-.20
.48**
2
Self- Acceptance PWB Subscale
-
.64**
.66**
.65**
.20
-.22
-.22
.30
3
Positive Relations w/ Others PWB Subscale
-
.44**
.64**
.45**
-.46**
.03
.52**
4
Autonomy PWB Subscale
-
.26
.21
-.11
-.46**
.26
5
Purpose in Life PWB Subscale
-
.28
-.33*
.03
.49**
6
Collaborative Religious Coping
-
-.63**
.52**
.66**
7
Self-Directing Religious Coping
-
-.41**
-.51**
8
Deferring Religious Coping
-
.23
9
Religiosity
-
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
33
