~‘. In P “by". x. v, ‘ \ ¢_ , .< ‘13.. I K - 1‘} .v ‘ ““3 cilaéwm ~Q ,, in 1‘? “ -17 “as; .'.-.-. o-r-a 5% ." ( .5" x. i 3‘; ."rzru < again” ._ . rm; .1“ .u m , , (9 c‘i-‘f a. M. 13".. ‘. $21" ‘ ’ ‘v: 'ff-w. I . > . \ I " . . ~- ”A . V -' -:x".“* «339%: _ _ $51“ v A 7' ' ‘ , K n .H "fin“ \X,‘ vVi a. I 4.. ' .; "‘v-\~ w. c‘ AW? FAY \. 1“. '1 H 1' \- ~ .- r - ' ‘ ficfit'h-‘E‘ “‘1“ 0‘ J’L .5)"; ~ 9 .35“: 2 2. 4 . V n y: 4v pun-1,5. .1 ,’ 44‘;- , r .; H P‘!‘ r; u’“ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ » N m s o: 7 0 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled RELIGIOSITY AND ITS FRUITS: DIFFERENCES IN TRAIT ANXIETY AND EXPERIENCES OF HASSLES presented by Marita D. Bernardo ' has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. degree in Psychology Q; / Major professor Datvef 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution '4" I I “ha. a 2- u=--sr'w=.-,-.. _—~-.- u_'- - -- --— - - MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. \l ,l/rde997 7‘57 ' RELIGIOSITY AND ITS FRUITS: DIFFERENCES IN ‘ TRAIT ANXIETY AND EXPERIENCES OF HASSLES By Marita D. Bernardo A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1988 5554(087 ABSTRACT RELIGIOSITY AND ITS FRUITS: DIFFERENCES IN TRAIT ANXIETY AND EXPERIENCES OF HASSLES By Marita D. Bernardo This study investigated the relationship between religiosity, trait anxiety and experiences of hassles. One hundred sixty-three college students answered a set of questionnaires including Ellison's Spiritual Well-Being Scale (with the subscales Religious Well-Being and Existential Well-Being), and Spiritual Maturity Index, the trait anxiety subscale of Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Kanner, et al.'s Hassles Scale. Correlational analysis showed that religious well-being and spiritual maturity are inversely related to trait anxiety, and to the frequency and intensity of reported hassles. Partial correlational analysis showed that religious well—being and spiritual maturity were directly related to intensity, but not to frequency of hassles. Religion's existential function was evident in the correspondence between high religiosity scores and high Existential Well-Being scores. It was this existential aspect of religiosity that was directly related to trait anxiety. Also included in this study are descriptive analyses of religious behaviors, social sources of support, and gender differences in reported hassles. To all those living their religion, bearing good fruit. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, for their graciousness and support, for being very giving of their time, and most of all, for helping make this project an enjoyable endeavor. I appreciate their individual contributions: Dr. Ralph Levine, whose suggestions and comments on statistical analyses helped make the numbers come alive. Dr. Ellen Strommen, whose detailed comments and questions on an earlier draft made me rethink and clarify conceptual issues. Dr. Elaine Donelson, for her patience in reading revisions of revisions. Her thoroughness has improved each one. I thank her also for her generosity with her time and resources. And I thank her especially for giving me the freedom to make this project my own. I would like to thank a friend, Merlinda Ingco, for sharing her computer, and especially her computer skills. I thank the Department of Psychology for providing much needed financial support. And lastly, I express my gratitude to the following churches and organizations who graciously opened their doors to this researcher: His House East Fellowship, PeOple's Church, River Terrace Christian Reformed Church, University Baptist, University Reformed Church, University Seventh-day Adventist Church, and University United Methodist Church. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlates of Life Stress . . . . . . . . . Definition of Religiosity . . . . . . . . . . . Religiosity and its Correlates: Review of the Literature Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Description of Instruments . . . . . . . . Summary of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS Research Participants . . . . . . . . . . . Materials 0 O O O I O O O I O O O O O 0 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analyses of Hypotheses . . . . . . . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3a . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3b . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 5 . . . . Hypothesis 6 Other Findings . . . . . . . . . Religious Behaviors . . . . . . . . Value of Single-Item Measures of Religiosity . . . Comparing Data of Participants from Subject Pool and Religious Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Role of Existential Well-being in the Religiosity- Trait-anxiety Relationship . . . . . . . . Sources of Support and Their Rankings . . . . . Hassles Most Frequently Mentioned . . . . . Page vii ix H 18 l8 19 20 24 24 24 26 30 37 37 39 39 43 44 46 48 59 6O 6O Page DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Gender Differences . . . . . . . . . 69 Trait— —anxiety, Religiosity, and Hassles . . . . . . . 71 Religiosity and Religious Behaviors . . . . 77 Comparison of Participants from Subject Pool and from Religious Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Appendix A Spiritual Well-Being Scale . . . . . . . 85 Appendix B Spiritual Maturity Index . . . . . . . . 87 Appendix C: Hassles Scale . . . 89 Appendix D: Additional Questions to the Hassles Scale . . 93 Appendix E: Reference for State- Trait Anxiety Index . . . 96 Appendix F: Demographic and Religious Activity Questionnaire . . . . . . . 97 Appendix G: Permission to use RWB and SMI . . . . 99 Appendix H: Letter to heads of churches and religious organizations . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Appendix I: Cover letter . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Appendix J Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Appendix K: Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Appendix L Feedback Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Class level of research participants . . . . . . . . 18 2 Reliability coefficients for RWB, SMI, EWB, STAI, Hassles Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3 t-test of mean scores of males and females on the variables: Age, Hassles Frequency, Hassles Intensity, RWB, SMI, STAI . 25 4 Zero-order correlations between sex, age, STAI, Hassles Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5 Zero-order correlations between sex, age, STAI, Hassles Frequency, Hassles Intensity, STAI, EWB . . . . . . . 27 6 Partial correlations between religiosity, anxiety and stress variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7 Zero—order correlations between RWB, SMI, Responsibility over Occurrence, Responsibility over Outcome, Control over Occurrence, Control over Outcome . . . . . . . . . 32 8 comparison 0f r2 and Etaz between the religiosity measures, RWB and SMI, and Responsibility over Occurrence, Responsibility over Outcome, Control over Occurrence, and Control over Outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 9 RWB mean scores according to no vs. moderate vs. strong Responsibility over Occurrence, Responsibility over Outcome, Control over Occurrence, Control over Outcome . . . . . 34 10 SMI mean scores according to no vs. moderate vs. strong Responsibility over Occurrence, Responsibility over Outcome, Control over Occurrence, Control over Outcome . . . . . 34 11 Analysis of pair—wise contrasts in RWB and SMI scores of participants reporting no vs. moderate vs. strong Responsibility over Occurrences of hassles . . . . . . 36 12 Zero-order correlations between STAI and "Responsibility over Occurrence", "Responsibility over Outcome", "Control over Occurrence", "Control over Outcome" . . . . . . 37 TABLE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 t-test of mean RWB and SMI scores between subjects reporting help-seeking vs. no help—seeking behavior . t-tests of mean RWB and SMI scores between subjects who perceived positive outcomes and those who did not perceive positive outcomes from negative events . . . Church affiliation . . Frequency of church attendance while in college Self-ratings of religiosity . . . . . . Responses to "How important is God in your life?" Zero-order correlations between frequency of church attendance, church membership, self— -religiosity, importance of God, renewed faith, RWB, SMI . . . . . . . . t-test analysis of mean scores of participants from subject pool and religious groups on: RWB, SMI, EWB, Hassles Intensity, Hassles Frequency, STAI . . . . . . . Correlations between RWB, SMI, Hassles Frequency, Hassles Intensity, STAI, EWB (Subject Pool, N=110) . . . . Correlations between RWB, SMI, Hassles Frequency, Hassles Intensity, STAI, EWB (Religious Groups, N=53) . . . Variability of RWB and SMI scores of subject-pool and religious group participants . . . . . . . Partial rrelations between RWB, SMI, EWB, STAI . . . Responses to "Which source(s) did you approach for help/ advice/support?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses to "Which source(s) contributed to the outcome of these events? (If more than one, please rank according to most important) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top ten hassles reported by participants and percentage of subjects reporting occurrence of each . . . . . . Top 10 hassles reported by men, and percentage of subjects reporting occurrence of each . . . . . . . . . T0p 10 hassles reported by women, and percentage of subjects reporting occurrence of each . . . . . . . . . . Page 38 40 44 45 45 46 47 49 51 52 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 Means and standard deviations of Hassles Frequency and Hassles Intensity Scores of Kanner's subjects, by age, and of the current study's college sample . . . . . . viii 67 FIGURE Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution of RWB of SMI of RWB of SMI LIST OF FIGURES with EWB with EWB with EWB with EWB Distribution of RWB with EWB from religious groups only). Distribution of SMI with EWB from religious groups only). ix SCOIES SCOIBS SCOIES SCOIES scores SCOIES (Total Sample) (Total Sample) (Subject Pool only) (Subject Pool only) (Participants (Participants Page 41 42 53 54 55 56 INTRODUCTION Early in the history of psychology, the psychology of religion was alive and thriving. One of its major contributors, William James (1902) emphasized that religion can be known by the "fruits" rather than the "roots" of religious experience. This study attempted to examine some possible "fruits" of the religious experience. A personality factor, anxiety, and experiences of "haSsles" are two factors that this researcher hypothesized to be related to religiosity. The relationship between religiosity, anxiety, and experiences of hassles was of particular interest because of their contributions to psychological well-being. Existing literature have much to say about each. Correlates of Life Stress High degrees of life stress may adversely affect the physiological and psychological functioning of an individual. For example, Lustman, Sowa and O'Hara (1984) have shown that highly stressed college students reported significantly greater levels of anxiety, depression and somatic discomfort. Other studies have related symptoms of psychological disorders with high life stress. Chattoptedhyay and Das (1983) showed that neurotics compared to normals had higher stress scores. Some disorders have been directly attributed to experience of stressful life events (Cooke & Hole, 1983). Eckenrode (1984) suggested that 1 2 major life events may influence psychological health status by altering patterns of daily living. Physical health seems to be affected as well by stress. Life event stress was found to be related to physical illness (Duckitt & Broll, 1982). Lustman, Sowa and O'Hara (1984) found that highly stressed college students reported greater somatic discomfort. These effects may be due to the influence of stress on neurochemical, hormonal, and immunological functioning (Sklar & Anisman, 1981). Most of the studies mentioned above defined stress according to the experience of significant life events. It was not life events by themselves, but the perception of them as either positive or negative, that was related to stress (Sarason, Johnson & Siegel, 1978). Life events perceived as negative were found to be related to psychological disorders (Nelson & Cohen, 1983), symptoms and physician visits (Byrne, 1983; McFarlane, Norman & Streiner, 1983), and reports of distress (Zautra & Reich, 1983). Positive events on the other hand were associated with increases in psychological well-being (McFarlane, Norman & Streiner, 1983; Zautra & Reich, 1983). Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer & Lazarus (1980) proposed that daily "hassles" are a better indicator of stress than are major life events. They defined hassles as the "irritating frustrating distressing demands that to some degree characterize everyday transactions with the environment." These "microstressors" acting cumulatively, and in the absence of compensatory positive experience, can be potent sources of stress (McLean, 1976). A person's ineffective coping with these minor stressors contribute to their negative impact on physical and mental health. 3 People differentially perceive certain experiences as "hassles.” Trait anxiety has an effect on this perception. Spielberger (1983) defined trait anxiety as "relatively stable individual differences in anxiety-proneness, i.e. to differences between people in the tendency to perceive stressful situations as dangerous or threatening . . ." (p.1). Given this definition, then one would predict that a person high in trait anxiety would perceive stressful events more severely than those low in anxiety. Payne's (1983) study supported this relationship. Definition of Religiosity Religiosity, i.e., the importance of religion to an individual, may affect both anxiety and perception of hassles. Batson and Ventis (1982) defined religion as "whatever we as individuals do to come to grips personally with the questions that confront us because we are aware that we and others like us are alive and that we will die" (p.7). Religion then functions to provide answers to existential questions brought about by this awareness, such as who we are, and what are the meaning and purpose of our lives. The primary function of religion then is to provide answers to life. James (1902) defined religion as the "feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine" (p.42). Although James's definition is more limited than Batson's and Ventis's in that it assumes belief in a god, or god-like figure, the definition to be made for this study also will emphasize a belief in a divine. Scholars may argue that religion is not equivalent, nor limited, to a belief in God. Batson's and Ventis's definition indeed indicates that there are other ways of understanding one's 4 existence other than through a belief in a deity. But it must also be true that a culture that has a personal awareness of a God of creation, whose norms have been shaped across generations either directly, or indirectly, by a belief in God, would very likely search for, and hopefully find answers to existential questions in this belief. In this culture, "religion" and "belief in God" are so closely linked that it would serve no useful purpose to make a distinction for people in this culture. It may not be "scholarly", but to most people, religion and belief in God are one and the same. With this premise in mind, I used in part James's definition to suit the predominantly Judeo-Christian beliefs of the participants in the study. Central to these beliefs is the belief in a personal God. Therefore for the purposes of this study, religiosity is the extent to which one's perception of the self, and life itself, are affected by the individual's perceived relationship with a deity. A person high in religiosity would therefore behave and iterpret experience according to what his or her relationship with God dictates. Because of this close relationship between a person's religiosity and how one feels and acts, logically a relationship between religiosity and psychological functioning must exist. Religiosity and its Correlates: Review of the Literature Argyle and Beit-Hallahmi (1975) proposed possible relationships between religiosity and mental health.: 1. religion contributes to psychopathology, 2. religion contributes to well-being, and 3. religion is used by disturbed people for help with their problems. 5 Various conceptions and empirical investigations support each of these possible relationships. Freud (1933) described the "neurosis" of religion, originating from the helplessness of children and " surviving into maturity of the wishes and needs of childhood" (p. 147). Ellis (1980) proposed turning away from religion as the solution to emotional problems. Several empirical studies supported a general relationship between religion and psychopathology. Martin's and Nichols's (1962) summary of nearly a dozen studies of the 1950's showed religious believers as being emotionally distressed, conforming, rigid, prejudiced, unintelligent, and defensive. Rokeach (1960) described believers, compared to nonbelievers, as more tense, anxious, and symptomatic. Graff and Ladd (1971) described the less religious as being more self- accepting, more spontaneous, more inner—directed and less dependent than subjects with a high level of religiosity. Fehr and Heintzelman (1977) found a positive relationship between religious orthodoxy and authoritarianism. Batson and Ventis (1982) surveyed 67 studies relating amount of religious involvement with different concepts of mental health. They found a negative relationship between religious involvement and three mental health concepts: personal competence and control, self-acceptance and actualization, and open-mindedness and flexibility. However, there is also support for the second possible relationship, that religiosity contributes to well-being. Carl Jung asserted that among his thousands of patients in the second half of life (i.e. over 35 years), "there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook in life"(1933, p.229). 6 Among the religiously commited, James (1902) has described a "new state of assurance", an "assurance of safety and a temper of peace, and in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affections.” This new state of assurance allows the individual to deal more positively and effectively with a wider range of experiences and people. Empirical studies supporting such a philosophical position are not lacking. The same review mentioned above (Batson & Ventis, 1982) found a positive relationship between religious involvement and absence of psychological illness. Stark (1971) found a negative relationship between religious involvement and mental illness, neurotic distrust, and psychic inadequacy. Martin's (1984) study showed that religious involvement appeared to be effective as a deterrent to suicide. Participation in organized church activity decreased as psychological impairment increased (Lindenthal, Myers, Pepper & Stern, 1970). Two studies comparing religious versus nonreligious college students found that among males, the religious were significantly less depressed (Brown & Lowe, 1951), less schizophrenic and less psychopathically deviant (Mayo, Puryear & Richek, 1969) than the nonreligious. And lastly, Lindenthal, et a1.'s (1970) study supported the third possible relationship, that religion may be used by disturbed people for help with their problems. They found that as psychological impairment increased, subjects were more likely to turn to prayer. These contradictory findings seem to stem from the differences in the psychological and religious measures used. Bergin (1983) has criticized how some designs already show a bias in the way they define religious phenomenon such that they "axiomatically preempt the possibility 7 of healthy religion." For example, in cases where measures of mental health include openmindedness and flexibility, one can see how strict adherence to one's faith as a religious measure can then negatively correlate with mental health. Baker and Gorsuch (1982) and Baton and Ventis (1982) criticized simplistic definitions of religiosity that may result in an inaccurate measure of the concept. Church attendance, for example, has been used as a measure of religiosity. By itself, it is a poor measure. It is no assurance of anything religious. One's role as a religious person transcends mere participation in organized religious activity. As will be shown later, one basic conceptualization of spiritual maturity is the absence of the need for institutional structure to express one's faith. A bias appears in studies using church attendance. Among four studies using attendance as a measure of religiosity, only one had a favorable implication: there was a positive correlation between "religious commitment" and junior and senior high school G.P.A. (Koubek, 1984). Two found a positive relationship between religiosity and psychological illness: fearfulness and anxiety (Wilson & Miller, 1968), and hysteria scale of the MMPI (Brown & Lowe, 1951). And although one study attributed decrease in church attendance to psychological impairment, this did not imply decrease in religiosity because more personal religious behaviors, such as praying, increased (Lindenthal et al., 1970). Attendance alone may be misused as a measure of religiosity. For example, there are cultures where church attendance is deeply embedded within the sociocultural context. While we may expect the religious to be regular church attenders, the converse is not necessarily true. Among all church-goers, there may be a vast range of levels of religiosity. Subjects in religiosity studies have been categorized as believers versus nonbelievers, religious versus nonreligious. And yet religiosity is not an all-or—none concept. It is not a matter of whether one is or is not religious. Rather, it involves both a quantitative aspect, the "degree", and also a qualitative aspect, the form or kind of religiosity. This researcher finds religiosity a very important factor that may affect how one reacts to stress. Religion undeniably constitutes some part of a person's identity since it has an existential function. In this study's definition, a relationship with a deity may affect how one interprets and acts out experience. Again, it is a matter of degree. In one extreme, a person may feel that there is no God, and behaves accordingly. In the other extreme, there is the person who lives around a central figure of a divine. One would expect therefore that such a belief would affect not only who we are, but "how" we are. One such interesting relationship is that of anxiety and religion. Several studies have linked anxiety for the religious compared to the non—religious (Argyle & Beit—Hallahmi, 1975; Dittes, 1969; Rokeach, 1960; Wilson & Millera, 1968). On the other hand, other studies showed lowered anxiety for the religious (Entner, 1977; Tansey, 1976). Again, the problem of simplistic definitions of religiosity comes to mind. Oftentimes, several aspects of religiosity have been ignored. Aspects like firmness in beliefs, but differentiated from dogmatism, and the kind of religious orientation 3 person has, are very important factors related to religiosity. The latter has been found to be an important distinction that 9 must be made when defining religiosity. Allport (19581 described two different orientations that vary according to function and centrality of religion in an individual's life. He classified religion into extrinsic and intrinsic orientations. The extrinsically-oriented individual is one who: " . . . uses religion for [his/her] own end . . . The embraced creed is lightly held or else selectively shaped to fit more primary needs . . . The extrinsic type turns to God, but without turning away from self. The person does not serve his religion; it is subordinated to serve him." On the other hand, the intrinsically-motivated " . . . find their central motive in religion. However strong their other needs, they are perceived as having less significance than their need to live in faithfulness to their religious commitment. They endeavor to internalize religious values and to follow them fully." (Allport & Ross, 1967) One may be able to see such a difference in the practice of prayer. An intrinsically-oriented person will view prayer as an intrinsically worthwhile act. Thus, this individual prays consistently and continuously as a means of maintaining a close relationship with his or her God. Prayer for an extrinsically—oriented person may instead function as a "self-serving technique for manipulating some practical result In essence, God is treated as a cosmic Santa Claus" (Myers, 1978). When investigators made such distinctions, then it became clearer why various studies have previously presented contradicting results. It was the intrinsic orientation that was positively related to mental health. Baker and Gorsuch (1982) and Sturgeon and Hamley (1979) found extrinsic religiousness to be positively correlated with trait anxiety. The inverse was true of intrinsic religiousness. 10 Batson's and Ventis's (1982) review of 36 studies that distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations likewise showed similar trends. There were positive correlations between intrinsic religiosity and freedom from worry and guilt, and personal competence and control. These two mental health measures were negatively related to extrinsic religiosity. Gorsuch and Smith (1983) have found that the religious people were the "optimists" in their study. They found that religious individuals feel themselves more in control and able to achieve their desired outcomes by effort with the help of God. By combining personal initiative and divine responsibility, they saw good outcomes as more likely to occur than did the less religious people. Kahoe (1974) found intrinsic religious orientation to be positively related to internal locus of control, responsibility, and intrinsic motivation. If a function of religion is providing answers to existential questions, religion may free an individual from worry. Knowing that God has a design for one's life may give a person direction and move one to increased personal initiative and effort. And this, accompanied by the knowledge that one is on a powerful deity's side and that God is on one's side, may be empowering. One relationship, however, appeared paradoxical, that a belief in a deity that controls one's life actually fosters a sense of personal control. Meadow and Kahoe (1984) postulated that perhaps the "faith that God orders one's life may foster internal locus of control by helping one feel free from the effects of general external factors." 11 Purpose of the Study This brief review shows that there are relationships between religiosity, anxiety, and stress. It is the purpose fo this study to investigate how these factors are related to one another. Religiosity and anxiety have been found to be correlated. Likewise, anxiety and life stress were found to be correlated. Could a relationship between religiosity and life stress be inferred? Do religiosity and anxiety have independent effects on the experience of hassles? This study is primarily interested in the college population. The college years offers many experiences which a student may find quite stressful. Competition, a system of evaluations, living away from home for the first time, high costs of education are some potential stressors for the college student. The religious experience may also change in college. Perhaps it is in college, where a child less directly influenced by parents may choose, for example, the kind of church or religious doctrines most personally suitable. It may also be in college where a person might experience a turning away from religion. Feldman (1969) and Ford (1960) have found that college students were less likely to endorse religious beliefs than are people of the same age who have not gone to college, although the students' attitudes after they have graduated and entered the "adult world" tend to become more orthodox and conservative. Also pervasive in the literature, as seen in Batson's and Ventis's review (1982), is the finding that women are more involved in religion than men. Would this finding hold among this groups of college students? In the current study, religiosity was measured in terms of religious well-being and spiritual maturity. Religious well—being is 12 considered the "vertical" dimension of the more general concept of spiritual well-being (Moberg, 1971). Spiritual well-being was defined H by the National Interfaith Coalition on Aging (1975) as the affirmation of life in a relationship with God, self, community and environment that nurtures and celebrates wholeness." Religious well-being therefore is an individual's sense of well—being in relation to God. The "horizontal" dimension of spiritual well-being refers to existential well-being, i.e. well-being derived from a sense of life purpose and satisfaction, with no reference to anything specifically theistically religious. Although these two dimensions are distinct form each other, an overlap is possible. A person, for example, whose life is focused on a relationship with his or her God would find life purpose and satisfaction in this relationship. In this case, religious well-being and existential well-being would be strongly related. Description of Instruments The two subscales of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (Ellison, 1983) were used (Appendix A). The Religious Well—Being (RWB) subscale was used as one measure of the independent variable, religiosity. This measure was not tied down to specific religious systems or denominations. It was intended, however, to be used for religions which conceive of a god in personal terms. The Existential Well-Being (EWB) subscale was used as a measure of a dependent variable, life satisfaction and sense of life purpose. Both subscales have high reliability ahd validity (Ellison, 1983). According to the normative data, test—retest reliabilities for RWB and EWB respectively were r=.96 and r=.86. Coefficient alphas were .87 13 and .78. In Ellison's sample, the RWB subscale highly correlated with Allport's intrinsic religious orientation (r=.79, p less than .001). EWB had a high correlation with a Purpose in Life instrument (r=.68, p less than .001). Another instrument used as a measure of religiosity was Ellison and Paloutzian's Spiritual Maturity Index (SMI, Appendix B). This instrument was originally constructed for the use of Christian respondents (Ellison, 1983). The items were revised for this study such that all references to Christ of Christianity have been removed or altered to fit no particular belief systems. Still, as in the Spiritual Well-Being scale, it can only be used for religions with a concept of a personal god. The items retained represented seven basic conceptualizations of spiritual maturity out of Ellison's original 18: 1. does not need institutional structure nor social support (agreement) to maintain faith and practice, 2. religious beliefs/practices are a spontaneous and consistent part of everyday life, 3. not narrow-minded/dogmatic but has firm beliefs, 4. has definite purpose and goals for life that are spiritually focused, 5. has a close relationship with God/identiy- service of God, "negatives" of life as part of God's plan, and 6. able to accept 7. perceives movement toward spiritual maturity. Kanner, et al.'s (1980) Hassles Scale was used to measure life stress (Appendix C). This scale consisted of a list of 117 hassles generated using the areas of work, health, family, friends, the environment, practical considerations and chance occurrences as guidelines. 14 Each item was rated according to frequency of occurrence and severity. Three summary scores for each Hassles Scale were originally generated: frequency, cumulated severity, and intensity. The frequency score was the simple count of the number of items checked. Scores could range from 0-117. Intensity was the index of how strongly or intensely the average hassle was experienced: Intensity = sum of severity rating/frequency, with each item checked as a hassle rated on a 1-3 severity scale (1=somewhat severe, 2=moderately severe, 3=extreme1y severe). Cumulated severity was the sum of the severity rating for all hassles checked. Since this highly correlated with frequency, and was therefore redundant, Kanner, et a1. recommended that this summary score not be used. Therefore, for this study, two measures of stress were used: Hassles Frequency (HSFreq) and Hassles Intensity (HSInt). The Hassles Scale was used as a measure of stress rather than a life events scale. Kanner, et a1. (1980) found hassles to be a more powerful predictor of mental illness than life events. They did a regression analysis of the contribution of these two factors to stress (as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist). They found that not only were hassles a more powerful predictor of symptoms, but that life events did not add significantly to the first order correlation. This suggested that whatever variance in stress that was due to life events was already accounted for by effects of hassles. When the order was reversed and life events was used as the first predictor, they found that hassles still added significantly as the second step of the regression, and in most cases still accounted for more variance than life events. Monroe (1983) likewise gave support to this. He found that total 15 frequency of hassles was highly correlated with psychological symptoms. Additional questions were added to the Hassles Scale (Appendix D). These questions dealt with assigning responsibility to and feeling of control over the hassles. Presence of support and possible later attitudes toward the events were also investigated. These questions were added to test the hypothesis that high religiosity is related to increased sense of responsibility and control over events, to relate later attitudes toward the hassles with one concept of spiritual maturity (i.e. of being able to accept "negatives" as part of God's plan), and to see if social support systems are inherent within religious contexts. It is hypothesized that assuming responsibility and having the feeling of control over events would be positively related to religiosity and negatively related to anxiety. Highly religious people, confident of the personal help from their God would be more willing to be responsible for, and more likely to control their own lives. This sense of personal control combined with the help of a deity should lessen anxiety. Sources of support were also investigated to see if they varied with differences in religiosity. Would there be differences in amount or availability, and sources of support? A highly religious person hypothesized to be low in anxiety and stress may be so because of a social support system inherent in certain religious groups. And lastly, attitudes about hassles were assessed. For the hassles, or negative evnts, would individuals possibly see something positive about them? It is hypothesized that those high in religiosity would be more likely to see positive outcomes from initially negative events. They may see the negative events as all part of their God's "great plan." 16 The anxiety measure used was Spielberger, et al.'s (1983) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Appendix E). Only the "trait anxiety" subscale was used. Trait anxiety referred to "relatively stable individual differences in anxiety proneness, i.e. to differences between people in the tendency to perceive stressful situations as dangerous or threatening and to respond to such situations with elevations in the intensity of their state anxiety reactions." (Spielberger, et al., 1983) The state anxiety subscale was not used since it measures fluctuating reactions taking place at a given time. Summary of Hypotheses In summary, the study primarily investigated probable relationships between religiosity, life stress and anxiety. The following hypotheses were made: 1. There are gender differences in religiosity, with females scoring higher on the religiosity measures. There is an inverse relationship between religiosity and a. anxiety, and b. life stress. Individuals scoring high in the religiosity measures will have lower anxiety scores, less frequent occurrence of hassles and/or less severe ratings of experienced hassles. In terms of perceived control over and responsibility for life events, it is hypothesized that 3. individuals high in religiosity will be more likely to assume responsibility and control over life events, b. increased sense of control and responsibility is associated with lower trait anxiety 4. 17 In dealing with hassles, help-seeking behavior in terms of number and sources of support may vary with varying religiosity. While variations in help-seeking behaviors are predicted to exist, directions of variations will be explored and no specific predictions are made. Outcome perceptions of severely experienced hassles will be more positive for those high in religiosity. That is, highly religious people would be more likely to perceive positive outcomes from negative events. There is a positive relationship between existential well-being and high religiosity. METHODOLOGY Research Participants Participants included 163 college students. One hundred and ten, 58 women and 52 men, were undergraduates enrolled in introductory Psychology courses. With the consent of the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, they were recruited from the Michigan State University human subject pool. Fifty-three participants, 29 women and 24 men, were recruited from churches and religious organizations around the MSU campus. The total sample was composed of 87 women and 76 men. Mean age was 19.92 years. Table 1 shows composition according to class level. Table 1 Class level of research participants Class level Absolute frequency Percentage Freshman 72 44.2 Sophomore 40 24.5 Junior 29 17.8 Senior 10 6.1 Graduate 12 7.4 TOTAL 163 100.0 18 19 The participants recruited from the subject pool were students in Introductory Psychology courses. And while these students were more likely of lower class levels, there is always a wide variety with regard to majors in these types of courses. Thus it is safe to assume that this set of participants was not radically different from the average MSU undergraduate. The participants recruited from the religious groups may not be representative of the college population. Based on studies on decreased religious behaviors by college students, this group is different by virtue of their relatively more active involvement in religion. The purpose of their inclusion was to obtain a subset of students who are potentially higher in religiosity than the average student. Their being "nonrepresentative" of the college population was a deliberate attempt to assure that the sample had a broad range on religiosity scores. Materials A total of 6 instruments were adminsitered to each subject: the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (Appendix A), Spiritual Maturity Index (Appendix B), Hassles Scale (Appendix C) with additional questions (Appendix D), Trait anxiety subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Appendix E), and a questionnaire measuring demographic data and religious activity (Appendix F). Two questions in the demographic questionnaire were taken from Embree (1977): "How important is God in your life?" and "Check the one statement that best describes you (as a religious or non religious person). The Spiritual Maturity Index and Spiritual Well-Being Scale were used with permission from Dr. Craig Ellison (Appendix G). The Hassles Scale was published in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine (Kanner, et 20 al., 1980). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was used with permission from Consulting Psychologists Press; commercial forms were purchased. Reliability coefficients for the instruments used are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Reliability coefficients for RWB, SMI, EWB, STAI, Hassles Scale Instrument Coefficient alpha RWB (Religious Well-Being Subscale) .96 SMI (Spiritual Maturity Index) .86 EWB (Existential Well-Being Subscale) .90 STAI (trait-anxiety subscale) .89 Hassles Scale (composite of the two .34 scores: Hassles Frequency, Hassles Intensity) Procedure Letters were sent to heads of organizations and churches on or around the MSU campus to obtain permission to recruit subjects (Appendix H). Because of their sheer number, and also to control for vast differences between radically different religious groups, only Christian and Christian-related groups were approached. Recruitment of subjects from these groups was necessary to ensure an adequate representation of people higher in religiosity than expected of Introductory Psychology students. For those organizational heads who gave consent, arrangements were made as to the method of distribution of materials most agreeable to the organizations. A packet containing 21 a cover letter (Appendix I), instructions (Appendix J), a consent form (Appendix K), feedback sheet (Appendix L), instruments, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and postcard were distributed in three ways: 1. Packets were delivered to the heads of the groups to be distributed. Designated representatives, such as youth pastors, were requested to read the cover letter and instructions to their college—student group members by way of introduction. 2. The researcher was invited to talk to the youth groups and personally request voluntary participation. Packets were given to those who volunteered. 3. Heads of religious groups gave the researcher a list of college students who are members of their group; packets were mailed to randomly selected subjects. A total of 175 packets were distributed in these three ways. Fifty-three, or 30.3% were returned. For these participants, typed instructions (Appendix J) accompanied the questionnaires. They were requested to return the completed packets two weeks after receipt. For all participants the order of presentation of the instruments were counterbalanced. The STAI, Hassles Scale with additional questions, SWB, and SMI were presented in different orders. The demographic and religious activity questionnaire, however, was always presented last. This was done to ensure that subjects' responses to the items on affiliation, church involvement and self-perception of religiosity would not affect how they respond to the other instruments. With participants recruited from the subject pool, group sessions 22 were held. Each session consisted of approximately 20 subjects with approximately equal numbers of males and females. The following instructions were given verbally to the subject pool participants: "This study investigates eXperiences of individuals with daily hassles, or with minor irritating events, and how they deal with these hassles. Your participation involves answering a set of questionnaires. It will take you approximately 30—45 minutes to answer all the questionnaires." Subjects were given consent forms to read and sign before proceeding with the session. Before handing out the questionnaires, additional instructions were given: "Please answer the questionnaires given to you. Each is accompanied by instructions. Read those carefully before you begin each one. Please respond honestly. Your responses should honestly describe you and/or your experiences. Do not put your name on any of the questionnaires. If you would like to know the results of the study, write your name and mailing address on the card accompanying the questionnaires. You may hand them to me after you are finished, or mail them at a later date. Your name on the card cannot possibly be matched with the questionnaires you answer, and your responses will remain anonymous." A written equivalent was in the cover letter to the religious group participants (Appendix I). Written instructions were given to the religious group participants with basically the same kind of information as was verbally given to the subject pool participants, except for additional instructions on returning the packets to the researcher (Appendix J). Written feedback describing general concepts and purpose of the experiment was given to the participants in two ways: 1. subject pool participants were given a feedback sheet upon completion of the questionnaires, and 2. a feedback sheet was included in the packet given to religious group participants. It was the last item in the packet. 23 Ideally, there should have been no methodological differences between the two groups. A larger sample from the subject pool alone may have eliminated the need for recruiting from religious groups. However, since recruitment from religious groups was done to ensure higher religiosity scores, one has to note methodological differences between these two groups. These differences between the subject pool and religious group participants respectively include: 1. group testing versus individual testing, 2. less time to give responses, and 3. participation for course credit versus purely voluntary participation. Within the religious groups themselves, there were differences in recruitment and packet distribution procedures. It was originally intended that a mailing list be obtained from the religious groups so that recruitment could be done randomly through the mail, away from the religious group environment. However, only one out of the seven groups who agreed to participate allowed such a procedure. The researcher was therefore literally at the mercy of the various religious organizations, each one having a different policy about research participation. Hence as stated above, three different methods were employed to recruit participants from the religious groups and to distribute questionnaire packets to them. RESULTS Analyses of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There are gender differences in religiosity, with females scoring higher on the religiosity measures. There were no significant correlations found between gender and religiosity. The only significant correlations found indicative of gender differences were those between sex and the variables age, STAI, and Hassles Frequency (r=.257, p=.001; r=-.181, p=.02; r=-.218, p=.005 respectively). The women were younger, had higher scores on the STAI, and reported more hassles than the men. Table 3 shows t-tests comparing means of women and men on the variables age, Hassles Frequency, Hassles Intensity, Religious Well-Being, Spiritual Maturity, and Trait Anxiety. Age appeared to be a confounding variable. It was found to have significant correlations with both STAI and Hassles Frequency. Table 4 shows zero-order correlations between the variables sex, age, STAI, and Hassles Frequency. The higher scores in trait anxiety, and reports of more hassles by women may be due to their age rather than gender. To investigate this possibility, partial correlations were computed with age partialled out. Partial rs showed that the correlation between sex and STAI was no longer significant (r= -.120, p=.15). The correlation between sex and Hassles Frequency went down but remained significant (r= -.190, p=.02). Thus, higher trait anxiety scores are associated with younger participants 24 Table 3 25 t—test of mean scores of males and females on the variables: Age, Hassles Frequency, Hassles Intensity, RWB, SMI, STAI Variable Mean Standard Standard df t deviation error Age 19.13 2.12 .22 160 -3.36** 20.88 4.30 .50 Hassles Frequency 28.84 14.43 .53 161 2.83** 22.66 13.16 .53 Hassles Intensity 1.78 .70 .07 161 .43 1.72 .99 .11 RWB 4.72 1.12 .12 157 1.45 4.45 1.26 .15 SMI 4.09 .79 .09 150 .37 4.04 .85 .10 STAI 2.00 .41 .04 156 2.30* 1.85 .44 .05 * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 26 Table 4 Zero-order correlations between sex, age, STAI, Hassles Frequency Sex Age STAI Hassles Frequency Sex 1.000 .257 —.181 —.218 p= .001** .023* .005** Age 1.000 -.126 -.024 .115 .769 STAI 1.000 .455 .OO1** Hassles Frequency 1.000 * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 rather than being a woman, while more reported hassles was associated with being a woman. Because of the insignificant correlations between sex and most of the variables, and a low correlation with hassles frequency, the rest of the analyses will not differentiate between the sexes. Hypothesis_2: There is an inverse relationship between religiosity and a. trait anxiety, and b. life stress, as measured by frequency and intensity of reported hassles. Individuals scoring high in the religiosity measures will report lower anxiety scores, less frequent occurrence of hassles, and less severe ratings of experienced hassles. Zero-order correlations between RWB, SMI, HSFreq, HSInt, STAI, EWB supported the hypothesis. Table 5 shows zero—order correlations between these six variables. 27 Table 5 Zero—order correlations between RWB, SMI, Hassles Frequency (HSFreq), Hassles Intensity (HSInt), STAI, EWB RWB SMI HSFreq HSInt STAI EWB RWB 1.000 .851 -.206 -.221 -.190 .434 p= .001** .009** .005** .018* .001** SMI 1.000 -.201 -.221 -.269 .426 p= .013* .006** .001** .001** HSFreq 1.000 .203 .455 -.304 p= .009** .001** .001** HSInt 1.000 .137 -.091 p= .087 .256 EWB 1.000 * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 Correlations show that both religiosity measures, RWB and SMI, were negatively correlated with Hassles Frequency, Hassles Intensity, and STAI. Thus, the higher the scores on RWB and SMI, the lower the frequency of reported hassles, the less intense the reported experiences of hassles, and the lower the STAI scores. However, it was also evident in the intercorrelations that there is more to the hypothesized relationships than stated above. STAI and Hassles Frequency were moderately and significantly correlated. Further analysis was done to see if the significant relationship between the religiosity measures, RWB and SMI, with Hassles Frequency was a real indication of their relationship, or an artifact of STAI's significant relationship with both. Partial correlations were calculated to determine 28 which of the variables, trait anxiety (STAI) or religiosity (RWB and SMI), had a significant relationship with Hassles Frequency, independent of each others' effects. Correlations between religiosity (RWB, SMI) and Hassles Frequency were calculated, with effects of anxiety (STAI) partialled out. Likewise, correlations between STAI and Hassles Frequency were calculated, with effects of RWB and SMI partialled out. Table 6 shows these partial correlations compared to zero—order correlations. Table 6 Partial correlations between religiosity, anxiety and stress variables Pairs of variables Zero-order r p Partial r p Variable partialled out SMI: HSFreq -.201 .013* -.1106 .188 STAI RWB: HSFreq -.206 .009** -.146 .082 STAI SMI: HSInt -.221 .006** -.211 .011* STAI RWB: HSInt -.221 .005** -.216 .009** STAI STAI: HSFreq .455 .001** .448 .001** RWB, SMI STAI: HSInt .137 .087 .067 .423 RWB, SMI * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 These partial correlations show that while, as predicted, hassles frequency was significantly correlated with the religiosity variables, when effects of trait anxiety were partialled out, the partial correlations were not significant (r= —.1106, p= .188 [RWB]; = -.146, p= .082 [SMI]). Thus partial correlation analysis showed that hassles frequency was directly related to trait anxiety. Subjects who scored higher on the 29 trait anxiety measure were more likely to report more frequent occurrences of hassles, regardless of religiosity scores. The number of reported hassles was not directly related to religiosity scores, and any significant relationships found were most likely due to the confounding effects of trait anxiety. The religiosity measures on the other hand, were significantly related to hassles intensity. In this case, the hypothesized relationship between these variables remained significant even when considering effects of trait anxiety. It was observed that STAI was not significantly correlated with Hassles Intensity (r= .137, p= .087) and thus would have very little effect on the relationship between religiosity and hassles intensity. Partial correlations were calculated to verify this observation. Correlations between RWB, SMI and Hassles Intensity were calculated, with effects of STAI partialled out. Likewise, correlations between STAI and Hassles Intensity were calculated with effects of RWB and SMI partialled out. Results are tabulated in Table 6. Partial correlation analysis supported the above observations. Although there was a low, nonsignificant correlation between STAI and Hassles Intensity to begin with, when effects of the religiosity variables were partialled out, the correlation dropped close to 0.0 (r= .067, p=.423). On the other hand, hassles intensity correlated significantly with the religiosity variables ( r[RWB]= -.221, p=.013; r[SMI]= -.221, p=.005). Even when the effects of trait anxiety were partialled out, the partial correlations were significant ( r[RWB]= -.211, p= .011; r[SMI]= -.216, p= .009). These partial correlations indicate that hassles intensity was directly related to religiosity. That is, subjects who scored higher in 30 the religiosity measures were more likely to report lower severity of experienced hassles. To summarize the results of the analyses of hypothesis 2, it was found that: 1. As predicted, there was a significant inverse relationship between religiosity and trait anxiety, 2. There was also a significant inverse relationship between religiosity and hassles intensity, and 3. There was a positive direct relationship between trait anxiety and hassles frequency. The relationship found between religiosity and hassles frequency was due to the significant relationship between trait anxiety and these two variables. Hypothesis 3a: In terms of perceived control over and responsibility for life events, it was hypothesized that individuals high in religiosity will be more likely to assume responsibility for and control over life events. A correlational analysis of the religiosity variables (RWB, SMI), responsibility variables (responsibility over occurrence and responsibility over outcome of hassles), and the control variables (control over occurrence and control over outcome of hassles) showed no significant correlations between the above variables. The "responsibility" and "control" variables were measured according to responses to single-item questions asking, "How much control do you feel you had over these events' occurrences?", "How much control do you feel you had over the outcome of these events?". "How responsible do you feel over the occurrence of these events?", and "How responsible do you feel over the outcome of these events?" Forced-choice responses were available, and 31 participants were asked to check one of the choices, "no", "moderate", or "strong" control or responsibility. These questions were answered based on three hassles that they rated as extremely severe. Only the first hassle mentioned was considered for analysis. Table 7 shows zero- order correlations between the religiosity measures and responses to the control/responsibility questions. Based on this analysis, the hypothesis that individuals high in religiosity will be more likely to assume responsibility and control over life events was not supported. There were no significant correlations between RWB and SMI, and feelings of control and responsibility over occurrences and outcomes of hassles. However, investigation of the raw data hinted at a non-linear relationship between these variables. Eta squares were calculated to determine if a non-linear relationship exists between these variables that was not evident in zero-order correlations. Table 8 shows r squares and eta squares between the religiosity measures, RWB and SMI, and the variables "Responsibility over Occurrence", "Responsibility over Outcome", "Control over Occurrence", and "Control over Outcome". Eta squares show that there is a significant non-linear relationship between religiosity and feeling responsible over occurrences of hassles. None of the other eta squares were significant. To investigate the above relationships further, one—way analyses of variance H II in RWB and SMI scores of participants who reported no , versus "moderate", versus "strong" control and responsibility over occurrences and outcomes of hassles were also done. Tables 9 and 10 show these analyses. For the significant religiosity-responsibility over occurences relationship, contrasts were done between pairs (i.e. "no" versus 32 Table 7 Zero-order correlations between RWB, SMI, Responsibility over Occurrence (RespOcc), Responsibility over Outcome (RespOut), Control over Occurrence (ContOcc), Control over Outcome (ContOut) RWB SMI RespOcc RespOut ContOcc RWB 1.000 .851 -.067 -.054 -.O99 p= .001** .431 .527 .240 SMI 1.000 -.069 -.060 -.111 p= .426 .487 .195 RespOcc 1.000 -.670 .602 p= .001** .001** RespOut 1.000 .485 p: .001** ContOcc 1.000 p: ContOut ContOut -.035 .680 -.110 .202 .423 .001** .611 .001** .473 .001** 1.000 * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 33 Table 8 Comparison of r2 and eta2 between the religiosity measures, RWB and SMI, and Responsibility over Occurrence (RespOcc), Responsibility over Outcome (RespOut), Control over Occurrence (ContOcc), and Control over Outcome (ContOut) Variable Pairs r2 p eta2 p RWB - RespOcc .004 .431 .067 .009** SMI - RespOcc .005 .426 .068 .005** RWB - RespOut .004 .527 .067 .058 SMI — RespOut .004 .487 .027 .166 RWB - ContOcc .041 .240 .0003 .977 SMI - ContOcc .012 .195 .020 .268 RWB - ContOut .001 .680 .015 .358 SMI - ContOut .012 .202 .034 .105 * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 34 Table 9 RWB mean scores according to no vs. moderate vs. strong Responsibility over Occurrence, Responsibility over Outcome, Control over Occurrence, Control over Outcome Mean RWB Scores RespOcc RespOut ContOcc ContOut No 4.39 4.37 4.52 4.48 Moderate 4.92 4.82 4.56 4.67 Strong 4.19 4.30 4.53 4.30 F ratio 4.89 2.92 0.02 1.03 F probability .009** .058 .977 .358 Table 10 SMI mean scores according to no vs. moderate vs. strong Regponsibility over Occurrence, Resppnsibiligy over Outcome, Control over Occurrence, Control over Outcome Mean SMI Scores RespOcc RespOut ContOcc ContOut No 3.90 3.94 3.98 4.03 Moderate 4.29 4.16 4.11 4.11 Strong 3.78 3.87 3.81 3.74 F ratio E? 1.82 TB? 373— F probability .005** .167 .268 .105 * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 35 "moderate", "moderate versus strong", "no versus strong"). Participants who assumed moderate responsibility over occurrences of hassles had significantly higher mean RWB and SMI scores than those participants who reported either strong or no responsibility. There was no significant difference between the RWB and SMI scores of those who reported "no" and "strong" responsibility over occurrences of hassles. Table 11 shows analysis of contrasts between the three groups ("no" versus "moderate" versus "strong" responsibility over occurrences of hassles) in RWB and SMI scores. These findings only partially supported the hypothesis. There were no significant relationships between the religiosity measures and "responsibility over outcome", "control over occurrence", and "control over outcome". The only significant relationships were those between "responsibility over occurrence" and SMI and RWB. Analysis showed a non-linear relationship. Consistent with the hypothesis, those who felt moderate responsibility had higher religiosity scores than those who felt no responsibility. However, contradicting the prediction, those who felt moderate responsibility also had higher religiosity scores than those who felt strong responsibility. There was a marginally nonsignificant trend toward higher RWB scores among those who indicated moderate responsibility over outcome. There were also slight, nonsignificant trends toward higher SMI scores among those who reported moderate responsibility over outcome, control over occurrence, and COHtI‘Ol over outcome. Table 11 36 Analysis of pair-wise contrasts in RWB and SMI scores of participants reporting no vs. moderate vs. strong Responsibility over Occurrences of hassles Responsibility over Occurrence (contrasts) RWB score N t df t prob. "No" versus 4.39 44 -2.17 137 .032* "Moderate" 4.92 51 "Moderate" 4.92 51 3.00 137 .003** versus "Strong" 4.19 45 "No" versus 4.39 44 .79 137 .429 "Strong" 4.19 45 Responsibility over Occurrence (Contrasts) SMI score N t df t prob. "No" versus 3.90 43 -2.35 132 .020* "Moderate" 4.29 46 "Moderate" 4.29 46 3.17 132 .002** versus "Strong" 3.78 46 "No" versus 3.90 43 .76 132 .447 "Strong" 3.78 * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 37 Hypothesis 3b: Increased sense of responsibility and control over the occurrence and outcome of events is related to lower trait anxiety. There were no significant differences between levels of responsibility and control and STAI scores. Investigation of the data showed no clear trends as to the direction of scores. Table 12 shows zero-order correlations between STAI and "responsibility over occurrence", "responsibility over outcome", "control over occurrence", "control over outcome." Table 12 Zero-order correlations between STAI and "Responsibility over Occurrence", "Responsibility over Outcome", "Control over Occurrence", "Control over Outcome" STAI r P Responsibility over Occurrence -.084 .323 Responsibility over Outcome .055 .519 Control over Occurrence -.042 .623 Control over Outcome -.112 .188 Results do not support the hypothesis that people who have a greater sense of responsibility and control have lower trait anxiety. Hypothesis 4: In dealing with hassles, help-seeking behavior may vary with varying religiosity. While searching for variations in help-seeking behavior was of interest, no predictions were made as to how these variations might occur. One area of exploration was the relationship between 38 religiosity scores and seeking versus not seeking help from others for hassles that were rated most severe. Help-seeking behavior was measured in terms of a "Yes—No” response to the question, "Did you ask for help/advice/support from others?" This referred to the first hassle (out of 3 mentioned) that participants rated as very severe. A t-test was done to compare mean RWB and SMI scores between subjects who reported seeking help from others and those who reported they did not seek help. Table 13 shows this analysis. Table 13 t-test of mean RWB and SMI scores between subjects reporting help-seeking vs. no help-seeking behavior Pooled variance estimate Help-seeking @n Mean standard standard t-value df 2—tailed deviation error prob. RWB No 36 3.81 1.22 .20 —4.24 138 .000** Yes 104 4.76 1.13 .11 SMI No 35 3.62 .67 .11 .11 -3.35 133 .001** Yes 100 4.14 .81 @ total n does not equal 163 because of missing values * p less than .05 ** p less than .01 39 Of those who had complete data on the RWB, SMI, and questionnaire, only a small number of subjects reported not seeking help from anyone about hassles they experienced. The t-test analysis above shows that subjects who sought help, advice, or support from others scores significantly higher on the religiosity measures, RWB and SMI. Hypgthesis 5: Outcome perceptions of severely experienced hassles will be more positive for those high in religiosity, i.e. highly religious people would be more likely to perceive positive outcomes from negative events. A t-test analysis compared RWB and SMI mean scores between participants who answered positively to the question "Did something positive come out of these events? (or do you feel something positive will result from these negative events?)" and those who answered negatively. There were no significant differences. Those who perceived positive outcomes did not have higher religiosity scores (RWB and SMI) than those who did not perceive positive outcomes. Table 14 shows mean RWB and SMI scores and t-values of the participants who answered positively and negatively to the above question. Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship between existential well-being and high religiosity. Zero-order correlations supported the hypothesis (r[RWB-EWB]= .426, p=.001; r[SMI-EWB]= .455, p=.001). Those who scored high on the religiosity measures were also more likely to score high on existential well-being. An investigation of the scatterplots show that this is an incomplete picture (see Figures 1 and 2). The distribution of scores show the presence of several outliers at the low end of the range of religiosity 40 Table 14 t-tests of mean RWB and SMI scores between subjects who perceived positive outcomes and those who did not perceive ppsitive outcomes from negative events Did something positive come out of these events? @n Mean standard standard t—value df t deviation error prob. RWB Yes 77 4.53 1.23 .14 .34 137 .738 No 62 4.46 1.22 .16 SMI Yes 74 4.04 .84 .10 .89 132 .373 No 60 3.91 .74 .10 @ total n does not equal 163 because of missing values Figure 1 Distribution of RWB with EWB scores (Total Sample) 41 H mnzwwm 03a mo.m ~.m nm.¢ n.m mN.m 0.N mo..— min mwm.m mho.¢ mN~l~ mhn.m m~m.~ n»~.~ WwonH mho. ellllollllolllloIIIIoIIllollllsltlloIll!otlllellllollllolllleIlilollllollllvllllolo H H H H H H H H H H . H H H .npn.n H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H . .mh.m H H HH H H H H H H H H a H H H H H . H H H ¢m~H.¢ ., H H. Hm H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H. H . H HH H H H ¢m.¢ H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H. H H H. .H. H H H H N H H H . m N H H H H H H H omsmo¢ H H H N H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H N H H a HH NN H H H HH H H H H H o smmom H HH H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H MN HH H H H H o H ~H omNOom H H H H H H mN H H H H _ H 0 HN .0 H H ¢IIUI¢Illlollllollllollltollllollln.llIIoiI||¢IIII.ulllollllovlllellloollllollllolo mzu azq mum Lula Figure 2 Distribution of SMI with EWB scores (Total Sample) 42 OI~b¢§—.I—-.¢a—a.ocua>ooo Q ‘0-‘0~ p 3.. use . , r~a a n‘. 0 n 00“"."-'9-'-l0"‘ICOII-".IIII'"‘-‘-.ll'lulv‘allnl'.nu|-'6D'UIO'I'IO‘l|"'lll-0"‘l.l"l. H » mzd IFHZ mam .g -< .-¢ O —.u4~u§.—.—tho< r—d .—.>on. 0" .5-1.‘00c“_§~4‘HH muonaoa NHHSMHICOZ .HN m N H . . . . . . . . . msofiumeHno Hafioom .m N I! O O 0 O O I O O O O O :mHUHHSU m N H 0 O O 0 O O I O mHO££wflmc maommHQSOH-fi 0 N wcfi>m£ usonm maOHmwooa .oN m N H . . . . . mwcHHu wGHmOH no wawomHmmfiz .H N H . . moHuHHHHHmcommou hama ooe .mH ouo>om mHmEouuxo .m N H . . . . mwsuo mo om: Hmoomuom .mH ouo>mm xHoumuoooa .N N H . . . . . . . . Honoon NO on: .NH ouo>mm umnBoEom .H mMHmmmm N H . . . . . . . none 00» wcwxoam .oH whHmm>mm N H . . . . . . . . . .ouo .Houms .ufl oHouHo Roz om .nucoa ummH .zuHoHuuooHo :o cBoo wafiuuso .mH :H usooo no: mam mammm: m HH .nucoa umma onu aw so» How soon was monmms onuufio onu Ho Home mmm>mm Bo: m no .N.H m mcHHoHHo ha mumowoGH .ooHouHo 50% maoufi onu mo uawfiu onu do mucosa: map on HooH ooze .SHGoE ummmionu CH 30% ou woodman: o>m£ N H . . . . xmcoe 30> moBo oaooEom .mH umnu monmmn on» oHouHo .umufim .oonmmn Hoom one coupon m sowz3 cw mkms mo “ocean m mum BOHon moumflH N H O O O O O O O O O O O O O 30% LDHB o>HH p.5moom 0:3 oaooSom How >uHHHHHmaommou HmHocmcwm .qH ouo>om NHoBouuxm .m ouo>om mHoumuovoz .N .moEHu home no 3mm “sooo one honH .moHuHooHHHHw ouo>om umnsoaom .H mmHmm mmonaxm on NuHHHHmoH .Nq H . . . . . . mmmNOHHSm HHHs amHHouH .mo N N H . . . . . . . mmxmomaa Hmonuumna NHHHm .os H . . coflumoovo m.:mncHH:o wanonmonm .qo m N H . . . . . . . . . . huwnsoom Hafioomofim .m¢ H . . . . conumnonnwnom woonnonnwfioz .mo m N H . . . . . . . . conuonoonwcoo mo nmmm .qq H . . . . . . . . manom uoo wsfiHHHm .No m N H . . . onmo :uHmoH now woaoa swooam noz .mq H . . . . . . . . . mucmamuanma ou=< .Ho m N H . . . . . . . . . . . . . sHmeoH NsHmm .Nq H . . . . . . . . . . . dawn monummz .00 m N H . . . . . . . muoovfloom usonm monooooo .Hq H . . . . . . . . . mHmma wannmamnm .mm m N H . . . . . . . . . . . unmsou maH>mm .oe H Nm3m new oou mm>HHMHon no mocofinm .mm m N H . . . . . . . . mood: co mafia none 009 .mm H . . . . . oHaooa swooao wonoom uoz .Nm m N H . . . . . . . . . . >omaaoo wouooaxosa .wm H Honooow an nuHmon unonm mcnmooou .om m N H . . . . . . . . moonumannouow >ome 00H .Nm H mEoHnona Hmowmmnm Eonm wawuasmon m N H . . . . . . boom now hoaofi stoao uoz .om omo5u amnu nocuo mSoHnona Hoaxom .mm m N H monunmmooos onmmn now kudos nwooco uoz .mm H . . . . . . . . mEoHHona Hmonmhna m N H . . . . . . mnoanB SOHHoH oHHH u.:oa .qm Eonw qumon pogo mEoHHona Hmsxom .qm m N H . . . . mowuso Hno3 uconnoo oHHH u.aom .mm H newswona wonuuow nuns moHuHooHHHHQ .mm m N H . . . . . . . xnoz no uso no HHonHmH .Nm H . . . . . . . . cowuoomon mo nmom .Nm m N H . . . . . . ucoaonnumn noonm manooaou .Hm H . . . . . . . mocmnmoamm Hmonmzsm .Hm m N H . . . . . Nufinsoom H0n unonm monooaoo .om H osoeumonu Hmonwoa unonm monoocoo .om m N H . . . . . . HownmCHv moamoounama mac: .mN H . . . . ooHumoHoos Ho muoommo oon .mq m N H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oEHu H . . . . . . . . . mmocHHH Hmonmzam .mq onus m 30% mafi>fiw mucoHHo no mnofionmso .wN mno>mm NHmEonuxm .m onm>om NHoBonuxm .m onm>om hHmumnoooz .N mmHmmom NHmumnmwoz .N mmHmmom umn3oaom .H ono>mm umczoaom .H wHHmm>mm wHHmm>mm 91 F) O) O} O) W) O) O) O) V) U) W) F) O) O) O) O) O) O) OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ C] v-—-l v—J v-'J r—J I—J r—J I—d v—-J I—J F-J v—-J F4 0—4 0 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ Oi Oi OJ —4 —4 Hi —i —i N H . . . NHHEmH now mafia swoooo uoz . . . mononnw nuw3 moHuHaonmwa nomn>noa=m no mmon Bonn wmammmm . omozm wonuuow usonm monoocoo . . . . . . . . . . monmEuanz . . . . . . . . . . nonumoa one . . mBoHnona AUONnomv Hmsnumcoz . . moonmnooo ummm no>o muonwom on on um:3 no>o wouoHHmcoo Hoom .muoHHwaoo nocon ozone mcnmocoo . . anoco Hmcomnoa swoooo uoz . . . . . . . . . . cOHmH>oHoH o o o o o o o o ow 0U gums 30% mNCHSH can on on oEHu nwsoco noz . . . . . ufiwnos uaonm manooooo . . . . . . . . mEoHHona Hmon . . . . . . . . . . . . mammoo .mHHme oaumEfianm SuHB manaonfi O O C O I C O I . O d.~0fium“mqmm no oono>nw new; mBoHnonm . . . . . . . mwcHuomE zsma 00H ono>ow zHoEonuxm .m ono>ow Naoumnoooz .N mMHmmom uNLBofiom .H wflHmm>mm .qu .moH .NoH .HoH .ooH .mm .mm .Nm .om .mm .qm .mm .Nm .Ha .om .mw .mw .Nm .ow F) O) V) W) O) F) W) F) F) O) W) F) U) W) F) F) OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ H . . o o o o o o . . WMHUHHHQN wGfiHHQQm no .wonunns .wowomon nun3 mHnsonH H mnom owcmno on mGONmHooo uaonm mmnnnoz H . . . . . . . . . moonuommmnummmnv now H o o o o o o o o o o o o o mmonmucfimgvom no mwcofinw LuHB mwaHHmou Hmwocmofim monmwcmum :ww: mcwuooe uaonm manooooo . . . . . . . . . . HnoB wanwooHHmnocs . . . . . . . . . om on mwonnu >cma ooH moHuHHHnHmcoamon NHHSMH nuns vowMOHnm>o . . . . wannmon no onoom moHuHsowmen o o o o o o o o o o “OK/OH nun“; mamnfinopm HHHHHHH o o o o o o . o o o o o o o o MHQQHQONA coco nowaaom mcomnoa Haas maoHnonm . . . . . . amnoHnno nook Hun3 mEoHnonm . . . . . . muoonma woflwm Hafiz msmHnonm . . . . . . . domHm swoono wanunmw uoz . . . . . . . . umon nwoocm wanuuow uoz mooow :oEEoo mo moofinm wcnmnm . . . . mcowuocnw memon uaonm monoocoo o o o o o o o o o o o o UMUflOHQUflm mafimm —4 —J —4 —4 —J —4 —J —4 O O . O O . . . . . moHuHHHnw Hwowmanm wchHHoon ono>om NHoEonuxm .m ono>om hHonmnoooz .N mMHmmmm nonzoaom .H wHHmm>mm .mw .qw .mw .Nw .Hw .ow .mm .wm .NN .©N .mm .qm .mN .NN .HN .oN .mo .wo .mo 92 umH HH H423 m: HHmH .Om HH NMHZ< QmmmHZ m3 m>¢m mmmmmmm m NNOJNNNN N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . coaunHHom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . onwwmne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oEHno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . omHoz . . . . . . muao>o mSo: noonm monoocoo monoconchE oEo: monmnso no xnozwnmw v—JI—JI—Jv—JI—‘lI—Jv—J O O . O O O O 0 O O O O O O SOHummHomH com nowadamnnoucm now manu stoao uoz H . . . . mmxmn no .mocmaumm>:n .Nunmaonm H O C O 0 O O O O O C O O O O C C mhmfiuo Eonw COHHNCNEHnomHo woo concomonm Hoo....ooooooouowHHHnmnHOH~m H O O O O O O O O O O O O aOfiummHUmH vs“ nomaonmunouco now mecca swoono uoz H . . :oHnmnnoamcmnn now kudos nwoooo uoz H . . . . . . . . wEoHHonm connmunoamsmne onm>mm AHoEonnxm .m ono>om NHoumnomoz .N mMHmmom udfiBoaom .H MHHMM>mm .NHH .cHH .mHH .qHH .mHH .NHH .HHH .oHH .moH .on .NoH .ooH .moH APPENDIX D 93 APPENDIX D Hos no mo> noBmcmv Nmnofiuo Eonw nnoaaam\oon>om\aHon o>nooon so» own "Azwnooam omooHav nonuo wow mnonfioa Honano mwaofinm 383 ococ Nnnoaa=m\oofi>om\mHm£ now Homonaam 50% can Amvmonsom Lowfiz A0: no mo» noBmcmv Nmnonuo Bonn onoaa:m\oon>om\mHos now Mom :0» wna Honnnoo wconum Honncoo onwnoooa Honncoo o: Nonno>o mmonn no oEoonao onn no>o mm: 30% Hoom 00% 0o Honncoo Lose 30: Honuaoo wconnm Honncoo onmnooos Honucoo o: Nooconnsooo .muno>o ommnu nm>0 on: 30% Hoow 50% 0o Honnaoo 3058 30m .m "noBmom oumnnaonamm onu Hooco uao>o some nom .30Hon mxamHH can :H Eonu oanB .onnmcconnmozw wcflooooona man an ono>om zHoEonuxo mm ooumn 00> nmnu mnao>o m omoonu 94 A03 no 00% ntmcm Nmnco>o 0>Hnmmmc omonn Bonn uH3mon HHHB o>nnnwoa wcflnnoaom Hoow 30% on nov Nmuao>o 0>Hnmwoc woman no u3o 0500 o>nnHmOQ wafinnoaom oflm oHnflmnoamon %chonnm oHHNmGommon %Houmnoooa oHHHmaommon no: Nonao>m woman Ho oEoon3o 0:0 no>o Hoom 30% 00 oHHHmaoamon 30m oHHHmaoamon %chonnm oHHchommon %Honmnomoe mHnHmaoamon no: Nmn30>o omonn Ho mooonn3ooo osn no>o Hoom 30% 0o oHHHmcoamon 30m A%Hnooam ommonv nonuo H50 mnonaoe non3no mononnm NHHamH 030: Anamnnoaan umoEiH .ncmnnanH umos on mononooom xcmn ommoHa .030 mono onos HHV Nmnco>o woman no maoou3o can on omn3nflnucoo Amvoon3om sonnz 95 Nmu30>o omocn Eonw nH3mon Ammo nov own moEoon3o 0>Hnnmoa owns .®* on mo% oonmzmcm 30% NH .oH "ma u30>m "Ne noo>m ”Ha nco>m APPENDIX E 96 APPENDIX E The State—Trait Anxiety Inventory cannot be reproduced without written consent from Consulting Psychologists Press. For more information about the instrument, please write: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 577 College Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 APPENDIX F 97 APPENDIX F Sex: Age: Major: Class level: freshman sophomore junior senior graduate level 1. While a student at college, do you go to church? 2. If yes, how often? less than once per month once a month once every two weeks once a week more than once a week 3. Are you a member of a church? 4. What is the name of your church? 5. What is the basic affiliation of your church? (please check one) Catholic Jewish Buddhist Muslim Protestant (please specify): Other (please specify) 6. How would you best describe your church? evangelical charismatic traditional other (please specify) 7. Do you attend special meetings at your church? If yes, how often? I attend at least one special meeting regularly I attend special meetings only occasionally I never attend special meetings 8. Check the one statement that best describes you.* I am a very religious person. I am more religious than most persons. am about as religious as the next person. am not a very religious person. do not consider myself to be a religious person. HHH 98 9. How important is God in your life? * I don't believe in God. I think I believe in God, but he doesn't affect my life much. I think I would do certain things that I now don't because of my belief in God. God is the center of my life. 10. Would you describe yourself as one with a renewed/rediscovered or newly discovered faith/religious beliefs? 11. If yes, how long has it been since this renewal/discovery? less than 1 month 1 month - 6 months 6 months — 1 year more than a year (if more than a year, please put down number of years) * taken from Embree (1977) APPENDIX C 99 APPENDIX C \ Alliance Theological Seminary HP Office of Urban Ministries Nyack College Nyack,Nem/York 10960 tmephone(914)3584710 Permission for use and reprinting of articles and indexes by Craig W. Ellison: Permission is granted to individuals requesting the use of the Spiritual Well-Being and/or the Spiritual Maturity Indexes for research purposes providing written summary of research results are promptly sent to Dr. Craig Ellison and proper credit is given in any publication of said research. Commercially prepared copies of article reprints, scales and indexes are not available. Copyright acknowledgement should be placed visibly on any material copied. [7, 07338 W. £11,183?! Alienate l ‘1 sCi’i‘WaW I.MLJ\ bvuLflJL LHNLA,PL Y.1u303 Craig W. Ellison, Ph.D. Director of Urban Programs Psychologist, Professor [swb.req] 11/85vm APPENDIX H 100 APPENDIX H Dear : I am a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University. I am currently working on my master's thesis. The topic of interest is the effects of anxiety and religiosity on life stress (abstract attached). Participants in this study include college students from the Psychology Department's human subject pool. In addition, I would like to recruit college students who are members of verious churches or religious organizations. This is necessary to ensure a sampling of subjects potentially higher in religiosity than the average student. In this regard, I ask if I may recruit students from you church/ organization. The students will be asked to complete several questionnaires (copies of the questionnaires are also attached.) Participation is voluntary, all results will be treated with strict confidence, and anonymity of subjects will be preserved. It will however by necessary for me to code each questionnaire according to source of respondent so as to keep a record of the organizations from which the respondents were recruited. However, the names of these organizations/churches will not be mentioned in the text. I am also attaching a copy of the consent form the subjects will be receiving, a precautionary measure to protect the rights of the students as subjects. If you need more information, I would be willing to discuss my study and answer any questions you might have. I would very much appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Marita D. Bernardo APPENDIX I 101 APPENDIX I Dear . I am a graduate student in psychology at Michigan State University. I am currently gathering data for my master's thesis and I would like to solicit your help in this regard. My thesis investigates experiences of individuals with daily hassles (minor irritating events), and how they deal with these hassles. Your participation involves answering the enclosed set of questionnaires. It will take you approximately 30-45 minutes to answer all the questionnaires. All responses will be anonymous. If you agree to participate, please read the instructions attached to the set. If you have any questions, please feel free to call: Marita D. Bernardo 355-3251 (home) 353-5193 (office) I would appreciate your help very much. Sincerely, Marita D. Bernardo APPENDIX J 102 APPENDIX J INSTRUCTIONS Please read the consent form on the following page. Sign your name if you agree to participate. Please answer the questionnaires in this set. Each is accompanied by instructions. Read those carefully before you begin each one. Please respond honestly. Your responses should honestly describe you and/or your experiences. Do not put your name on any of the questionnaires. A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed. Please return all questionnaires and the signed consent form by . If you would like to know the results of the study, write your name and mailing address on the postcard accompanying the set, and mail it separately. Your name cannot possibly be matched with the questionnaires you answer. Your responses will remain anonymous. Thank you very much for your cooperation. APPENDIX K mmamm=. ' .— 1. 103 APPENDIX K CONSENT FORM I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted by Marita D. Bernardo under the supervision of Dr. Elain Donelson, professor. This research will require that I answer a set of questionnaires. The set includes questionnaires measuring experiences of "daily hassles". It also contains questionnaires measuring other personal variables. It will take approximately 30—45 minutes to complete all the questionnaires. This study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participation will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanations of the study after my participation is complete. Signed: Date: APPENDIX L 104 APPENDIX L FEEDBACK ON "HASSLES" Hassles are defined as the "irritating, frustrating, distressing demands that to some degree characterize everyday transactions with the environment" (Kanner, et al., 1980). These hassles can be potent sources of stress (McLean, 1976). This study seeks to identify factors which may be related to perceived stressfulness of these hassles. Some of the factors investigated are anxiety proneness sense of sell-being, religious beliefs and behaviors, sources of social support. Studies have shown contradictory findings in the relationships between anxiety, stress, and religiosity. The differences may be due to how religiosity was measured. This study uses two questionnaires focusing on one's relationship with God as an indicator of religiosity. Suggested Readings: Batson, C.D. & Ventis, W.L. (1982). The religious experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Duckitt, J. & Broll, T. (1982). Life event stress, social support and health. Humanitas: Journal for Research in the Human Sciences, 8(4), 377-383. (From Psychological Abstracts, 1984, 11(4), 931). Ellison, C.W. (1983). Spiritual well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11(4), 330-340. Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C. & Lazarus, R.J. (1980). Comparison of two modes of stess measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(11), 1—39. McLean, P. (1976). Depression as a specific response to stress. In I.G. Sarason & C.D. Spielberger (Eds). Stress and anxiety, Vol.3, Washington D.C.: Hemisphere. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G.W. (1958). The person in psychology. Boston: Beacon Press. Allport, G.W. & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and _Brejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog ’.2’ 432-443. Argyle, M. & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The social psychology of religion. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Baker, M. & Gorsuch, R. (1982). Trait anxiety and intrinsic-extrinsic religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2, 119-122. Batson, D. & Ventis, W.L. (1982). The religious experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Bergin, A.E. (1983). Religiosity and mental health: A critical reevaluation and meta-analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 170—184. Brown, D.G. & Lowe, W.L. (1951). Religious beliefs and personality characteristics of college students. Journal of Social Psyghology,'§§, 103-129. Byrne, D.G. (1983). Personal determinants of life event stress and myocardial infarction. Psychotherapy and Psyghosomatics,.gg (1-4), 106-114. (From Psycholggical Abstracts, 1984, Z}, 3097). Chattopadhyay, P.K. and Das, M.(1983). Stressful life events and psychopathological episodes. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 10,227-231. (From Psychological Abstracts, 1984,11, 3066). Cooke, D.J. & Hole, D.J. (1983). The aetiological importance of stressful life events. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 397-400. Dittes, J. (1969). Psychology of religion. In G.Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds). Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol.5. London: Addison-Wesley. Duckitt, J. & Broll, T. (1982). Life event stress, social support and health. Humanitas: Journal for Research in the Human Sciences, 8, 377-383. (From Psychological Abstracts, 1984,_ZI, 931).- 105 106 Eckenrode, J. (1984). Impact of chronic and acute stressors on daily reports of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 907—918. Ellis, A. (1980). Psychotherapy and atheistic values: A response to A.E. Bergin's "Psychotherapy and religious values." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 635-639. Ellison, C.W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 21, 330-340. Ellison, C.W. & Paloutzian, R.F. (1979). Religious experience and quality of life. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York. (from Ellison, C.W. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 330—340). Entner, P. (1977). Religious orientation and mental health. Dissertation Abstracts International, 28(4-B), 1949. Fehr, L. & Heintzelman, M. (1977). Personality and attitude correlates of religiosity: A source of controversy. Journal of Psychology, 22(1), 63—66. Feldman, R.A. (1969). Change and stability of religious orientation during college. In H.N. Malony (Ed), 1977, Current perspectives in the psychology of religion, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B.Eerdmans Publ.Co. Feldman, R.A. & Newcombe, T.M. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Ford, T.R. (1960). Status, residence and fundamentalist religious beliefs in the Southern Appalachians. Social Forces, 39, 41-49. Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. translated by J. Strachey, New York: W.W.Norton & Company. Funk, R.A. (1956). Religious attitudes and manifest anxiety in a college population. American Psychologist, 11, 375. Gorsuch, R.L. & Smith, C.S. (1983). Attributions and responsibility to God: An interaction on religious beliefs and outcomes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2g, 340-352. Graff, R. & Ladd, C. (1971). POI correlates of a religious commitment inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 502-504. Hadaway, C.K. (1980). Denominational switchings and religiosity. Review of Religious Research, 21, 451-461. James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience. New York: Longmans Green. 107 Jung. C.G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanich. Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C. & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(11), 1-39. Kobasa, 8.0. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11. Lindethal, J., Myers, J. Pepper, M. & Stern, M. (1970). Mental states and religious behavior. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 9, 143-149. Lustman, P.J., Sowa, C.J. & O'Hara, D.J. (1984). Factors influencing college student health: Development of the Psychological Distress Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(1), 28-35. Malony, H.N. (1977). Current perspectives in the psychology of religion. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B.Eerdmans Publ.Co. Martin, W.T. (1984). Religiosity and U.S. suicidal rates, 1972-1978. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(5), 1166-1169. Martin, C. & Nichols, R. (1962). Personality and religious belief. Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 3-8. Mayo, C.C., Puryear, H.B. & Richek, H.G. (1969). MMPI correlates of religiousness in late adoelscent college students. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 149(5), 381-385. McFarlane, A.H., Norman, G.R. & Streiner, D.L. (1983). The process of social stress: Stable, reciprocal and mediating relationships. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, g£(2), 160-173. McLean, P. (1976). Depression as a specific response to stress. In I.G. Sarason & C.D. Spielberger (Eds). Stress and anxiety, vol.3. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. Moberg, D.O. (1971). Spiritual well-being; Background and issues. Washington,D.C. White House Conference on Aging. Meadow, M.J. & Kahoe, R.D. (1984). Psychology of religion: Religion in individual lives. New York: Harper and Row. Monroe, S.M. (1983). Major and minor life events as predictors of psychological distress: Further issues and findings. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6(2), 189-205. Myers, D.G. (1978). The human puzzle: Psychological research and Christian belief. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers. 108 National Interfaith Coalition on Aging (1975). Spiritual well-being: A definition. (cited by Ellison, C.W. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11(4), 330-340. Nelson, D.W. & Cohen, L.H. (1983). Locus of control and control perceptions and the relationship between life stress and psychological disorders. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11(6), 705-722. Payne, D.S. (1983), Trait anxiety moderation of the effects of life stress on state anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 300-307. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. New York: Basic Books. Sarason, I.G., Johnson, J.H. & Siegel, J.M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(5), 932-946. Sklar, L.S. & Anisman, H. (1981). Stress and cancer. Psychological Bulletin, 69(3), 369-406. Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R., Vagg, A.R., & Jacobs, G.A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, Ca: Consulting Psychologists Press. Stark, R. (1971). PsychOpathology and religious commitment. Review of Religious Research, 11, 165—176. Sturgeon, R.S. & Hamley, R.W. (1979). Religiosity and anxiety. Journal of Social Psychology, 108(1), 137-138. Tansey, M. (1976). Religious commitment and anxiety level as a function of ego strength. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(3-B), 1452. Wilson, W. & Miller, H. (1968). Fear, anxiety and religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1(1), 111. Trent, J.W. & Medsker, L.L. (1968). Beyond high school: A study of 10,000 high school graduates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Zautra, A.J. & Reich, J.W. (1983). Life events and perceptions of life quality: Developments in a two-factor approach. Journal of Community Psychology, 11(2), 121-132. ‘I11111111111111f