an, «IR-«Irv- 5; . 1-7- : {‘b ' M- 77777771'77 arm-7,3,1..-
.-’t.fi‘3§,7§ 37“ ‘ “fit-HQ.” , 7‘ ‘.v,,¢‘ . 05;? 7(77o77 @117 7.777111“. "3 7 777 77 y
1 ,0 ' . . 7.19..-” v ‘7.“ . .13- 31—9141 1‘

11-33:. ~37 1.7.10 ~ «Hm-g .. "Ldfiuyx 251,411,;537 ' I |" '9“

4‘3? 79.9173}: 1 : ’23! .bk‘fifi‘ ” at" 3.: ” Q37“ ("4' 7:51;“ if“?

. , ‘-,.:.»1', .-.. ~‘ ..
4:1. 5. -.'..1 .55.”??? ‘. ',. 3.7-7 .5? 477775;.- 1 .1'--
1 ~-'5 'v ' fr $.77. L..;§:,.1. .1 .a - 3 3.5.7..

1‘ ' r'7

 
 

www-i-ymrmywa
ti;-
'1. i
. I
‘ 4
'21
.31

   
     
 
  
  
    
 

  
  

   

 

 

   

 
  
 
   

       

   

       
     

 

  

 

    
   

Jul-7'? . 2.12247" 1 . ‘2 ' - 7'2'7‘7‘: '. » ,'i.' . -. ‘4'“6‘;
I..-71LJ,77-’7: ’ 7.2:. J 7.11.1.- 73:27:19 ‘: . .' '7’ , , ‘ n ' . . . -.,. . - ' - 2 "17"}. .'.§T‘.r2111‘1,,fi‘{?¢3 . 'b 3W1
_ .,‘ ‘" . ,v a "’2‘ k" _ '1-.-',-V.1-n,qi.-’.,1' 3’ . ‘9" n '77;— 7'17 74-77 o 3. , : ' 03‘ . ". . . " 4 _ ' ._ . , :I- 1 ..‘j‘. 1 :fi’tr’ ' r A" 1‘ % ,’.-
Q19 , ,1. Q. ".9 d Q 1 .v 1 \‘fi. 7’ I: . ,..> , 1 _ ‘ - ‘ .9 , . 1 ’3' 111:4:73 ; v
1%,. 4),.‘u ‘iff-b!” 44,319, 1‘33... , - . 2" ,' '1'3‘. fion“~ 7M .‘7 $3.4 5* ~,,
o v .u u- 7 '7‘ ..770 '77. . 7 77 ' 777
- a 11. ‘- ... ,." 3“.“ ' ‘9‘ '1'. .. '
#1:“.1'15'1'2 ,tf-fifiehgéfléifi: . L777"7«71§~ .1; ~ 6'.”
» "~31 .jr:r.=;.;1‘."-a..‘,,:1;. '»:. 133%.."- .w‘ 1-» 7:7" " flip,»
14' 7' 707xm777u7‘fl7377173 ‘I~'J£fl7éi”l‘2?{q. ' 7 7777 777737777 #77727“? ” 1' figgga‘
. 7‘5:7"7§¢7.{;3fi77}*77‘:7:7 1,0. "lair a, ' ~' ..u- p ¢$¥E7 77777273‘7777’U777777 "1‘79".“ 7-3:}
' .irfifg" 1. .12.“,3 '1" $777" .‘ . - 77a 7717:7‘7 .(‘fi‘gnlé #9393, 11:. 5'1 "Nfifit
V ‘ ' - Q , ‘"\
' 14 “4'79‘1 'x; 03': ' ,3 ..' z I ‘7 .57” 9'- ..:-- -'_.1
0 ’4 ’ .7 i I ‘ fl 5 1' Q77' 1- . . I" ‘ f. .7Et_ , 77." o7 ". x 77
'1 5%;{3'43 '1' mum‘s“? - w... «11".- ~11?" ‘ 4;...1» “.52 .1 . .3313»; "- '
'. 7; f” O :3,— " - "‘_':*‘I ‘ I" 1 -. P o. v: 4' 3. ‘2. 4 ."" . .J r7777 ‘ . ‘1 ’-
74 _a’ 7:::\r. ALT' I 1.7. 7‘... 3‘37. 7:7.‘71. .‘kfi‘ .. ‘ , . , ' ' u '5’ v 37:77 J ' . j. ‘7‘ £77 ,1? I, - {3:0": 7 7
..1 «7' " ,1“ 41'7'1'. «41‘ 0' 711 if" 7 77 '7 7 7 " 77'7“? '53:?" W7.” :1‘7 1"‘7'7‘7‘7‘ "‘5'" 7'1"" “£777 7 ' 7' 4 ' ' 7
" 7 . 7 - v i — --7 7 ‘7 7 7» 7 57 2' 7 ‘. .7; 77 7 7 7. 7‘77777 Q7! 7 v 77 .' .4 .
- ‘ 161.. .'1 .51".~:c’v-3‘:17 1'23: '3 35.1%. . 1' tn'orvgzttm’?‘ I $1:§',."£_1V‘t.$fi?¢’w 1~ '. 1433?," ' . . .7 -’r'
1‘ ""3" ‘. 15"???“ :'+"7'=.£"-"’1':"?’.~' w. 7”»:er 1‘. ' "121': “'rzi'fi'x-L 1; ”F'-'7‘t".'-;}J 1‘ Jam: '.
' ' l 49- 1 ..1 ,_ . _-v,'.. v1 o ..c',a. ., . " ..‘ _ 3" O‘ ' ""-‘
.311: 51.... ,,ff‘1'~.-‘"‘1:?1'7""71131533: ,. .-:."'£.3,}11:e.1113235117.» ‘7'}. fiivtrzfifivfifi .' -. -» .
' 7'31? .. . 7 '1" . "- 1. 1,1,1. ,‘1-1:.1:1_1‘ r". '3‘ 1 WK". ""1133. (55’. . ‘ 1"1‘ ”“F-év'i’fi‘ W "a " c. ‘ 41%;,
' "' '7 ‘-&.-:J t' .» ‘ 'n '73- 1'42' MW." 1‘3"" 7Lu‘3 t“/%-M. '7. '71“‘1>-“l' ‘7 ’ ' '
14 ~” " ' ,2 ‘ 77 ‘7 1". "1°" m.“ if! 7' "’7'3 . ' -‘ “ 1'" 'J' 5"“ "' 9 "71' 51737177
.1. " '. - 3‘3 .. ' "‘ ‘7‘ 1 ‘7 7 - "$77 107771;
1 w 1 7' ' Q
C.

      
  
   

    
   
 
   
 

  

11"; $114.21-
.3.3»

    

31-;

.13.».

 
  
 

  

1‘ 7
. . ., .
1-.-

 
      

  
   
  
 
 

     
 

    
  

 

     
 
  
 
  
       
  

       

    

 

 

    
   
   

   
   

    
 
   
          
   
       
     
       
   
    

 

 

 

 

: A
1 7 f l V o .
_ - 1 1%.. :1 1?. "1157'" 12.» .; .
..fi'f' ' filafirfifi ~ ' fi'i'» 4113:.“
' ~.s;»§':2t.;-.5{1,"1§~111 ' 1,.- =. ,3,» M... ..g‘:
' 21': ' 1' '31 =11" Win" - «:s‘ -'.-
gang; Fgfififi 1~ ,v 1 7777,7371 . . .. Apttfi
.771. 0 ' . " ' "1217 . JIM'; '1 l. ' ., . 7 ' '1‘. W677 . 'w 14". ‘1'7'L'CS'
“"3553" 71.75:... 171(7‘ 1 ’ . '15-'31- - " 7 7 "-71 .77, ' ,, 7 1“. 3317-
: $1,904!" 4:121; ("‘7 E“ f 777%7‘77i'77’77fi‘77 wig. ._ . M 135721,! 1 ' {777 ',~h§£-}‘1 ‘
- tro 1..., 11, t f '1 An; .‘i‘~ "2,1151. “.‘1' '- ,9 ‘ ,. $51. " .-,.
E} 1- 3737;714:711 ‘3‘ . n ' « .J'e‘g- Q . , 1. "751(77'7’7' 21.351633“, 77‘3771‘77fi77777 , .5 ,1
'4 C. 3 u' " I O 7 ' . - - ‘ 71 'l‘ 7 ‘7' .4! L’ .Q ,1’ ~ 7.3-"?
F“ “1};1‘53. 77¢: 7‘777 A} " 7 7: 7 f'filfi ‘1’ 37;“ “Hr " ‘1" 779'77'
‘ " '1'1'. . 5...», $.31 11?. 152., 5;. " ’1"): .1. . 1. a":
W... 1.... :1 ,5... ..a...
. ., Mg . _ . .~ («- 1: .1“. Q_ 32.1,; ‘4‘” J, .
"3‘7 ’3" "1 .1135. ‘ ' " 7.7 V“: .7511?" i~ ‘ 452' MW“?
1‘11}? 1%" 1,31 ‘-'i H L1 2‘“ '7'er 1" .'. '1?" 19‘1“?” 1."
,4, Liflw -~" mg}: 91,31. 1.,1 f. (5151:5123: ward-.16. 1-." ‘3‘ 1i
1- ' "‘7 .7 '7 7771 7 7 'fl 7‘ 77. ‘ 7'." 77 . u n
5' . 1"." as if: 1 1 -":~ '11: .1. 1. 18 ~. «2.11.4.1
g ' ' 7 var} 63:.‘777‘51r‘1177’41 1'3"?“ 7i" ‘ 777* 75712773,“ :71: "‘73:!”‘777fi77fl'7 75,‘ $173733; ’19.:
' g . ' ' '. . ,4 ‘3', o: .5":,;‘(‘ fire 713? r '. ‘L’n‘: C‘ ,._.- 7':7Q77‘7V ' .31"; ”.13.! '1
g ‘ .1' . 7.; 71" ‘ ‘73. ~‘;7'7‘7!7‘,'$7 7:!” :17 1. ’7" 7‘: ‘71 "37‘!" o‘r?”‘b'"1‘77!5'77-7\737 2‘77 J77";
s 3"} 3.1.1:! 5: {1% . ., , 21“,:1‘5' -' 43:. £5,111.13: .731"? 51,! 7157751.; ‘f__- - . 3113:1353 3"“? wfififi§§ér§éi§d§yf§ I}
- ’a».L1.igF‘:'r13‘131"5‘?~.‘3‘11"".¢4;s33...».2: 1‘. 13.15 ‘ :13 $23" -.‘. ,,1‘,.»‘ 1.13:..«1' -‘ , 51:23:23.»: '3:;»1~1:~:11.1p1:;11.§'g,;;1111 .1."
E 11:33,, 113-121 sffig‘gf', '341¢1,,‘§;'" 1» “2:“... 3.3,, 14'" 13”.: 2, 113,11 3. 14's" 2.. 5, «2‘ 1317'»: "1.3:. {$13,573. €33
' 1‘ 1 ’7? - ' 777é777777 '7 " "7, T‘d’ll'.">" ' _'."¢.,-'.;11;-"«’7 "4.1.91le “11; 1.; q ‘57", 1“ '1" ' '7 ’4. 73-"7 Vin-74? 115‘. 1‘ 1“ “I“
. - ,., . -..H-_'.'..' . 1 . .1111. ...~ -.»~ 1,111....
$ 717$"S'75M1h "1"“ ”‘777 777.77.”? 71x17?" '. 55.: £111 ‘ 1- ~ 17-577Q"7£{1%'é§7"h73 ‘11""7'6‘.‘71¢"'7’3572'77 '7‘74'33‘51‘771’fl'b' 737' 7'39‘31'35fi’1'7‘13f‘fié‘7'15} 77"“ 39"";
' . ‘ L... f. ' ‘ " ' . '. . , .. ‘1 ‘ ‘f r 1 . . ' 1' ' n' ‘. Q , . ‘."- . I _
..r , .1‘3'4 . 4 "7 ‘7}, 'f'v :77771‘77 “04.5817. ' g 8. ~ . . . “JJ. ,1,“ I: “ff"! "Q" 3.4344”, 1 , . '8‘9‘ 1 W." '33" Q" -?Q, 1%". 7%?"11" «P !' ’.' ‘Q'g "r 1
1. "$37!.“ E’;!.1‘=LQ4'71§1"'717‘!:77'71 A"? 911.8: "4'2"" " 1".”3 W115- .3. “flag" 4‘95 ' ' .‘v' "11- "AH?" .."'."1L"-'1§"'7‘ ‘ '7 ""5" "51 W "9" .“7" wt “'7“ '7’ '9‘"
1 “N. i ‘7', ~“.‘-.-"-_7~£1’n' '1‘; .L, v::!:’~'1."*1«1.«’."‘3?“' 9"”? fi -;='§.:.1~. ~ 3-. 1 ‘ "gm. $313.1". "‘32; my" 11"" ‘31 r.“ .-'~~.'.‘1‘~ W." " ‘ ‘7‘"
. --: . ~-1- 1 . 1§rp£m ‘ . ' ,V- ’hw'tgmw ~. '1". ' 1? 1.1.« 1 (.2.-'-'- '1" ..§~.;,I.-x¢:"1'1.1":"~777*.-11‘ ' ‘ .11; '3 -‘-!’ "In; .. ‘12
'- 77777777771577 .1; ”19:43 P.‘.2?! 1 15.1 Mg!" 4"; , -. " ‘11-”; '1. q-‘im'fc‘ V7.7 -' '- . -"»’~“1’1= ‘
, h; “M ' riff. ”5. ”1:37? E271 “4,1: 7771:7‘7‘h77 q {I 11- 3'. 111%" u?" 7"“7777‘7‘7 5‘31 “4‘! )‘75'377 '.' jt1 .‘ n, . J _ 1" gay. , u'xg‘g ,
‘7‘ "7‘ "o"; 'L. '1 -‘ .71" "- 731‘1‘74." . ‘y 1‘ ~.-. #177 .375731‘7‘7". ‘53 «'7'- -' .1 1‘41» ‘. -’ 'J-IQuo "“ ”771"" . . 1". 7‘“ ‘1 ”I. {'1- ft‘! " ‘ " H
1! «..L ' 7:347:17 W51: ' ‘ i;;~-¢17;7’7'.J1U"‘ “' 4.1-"- "-Jv a". 1 '5' - Q, I 1;; ""11”" “a. ,ig‘ W '3-
" ‘Q' .11.:15‘ .1. ,1...» 1 .1 ,. » .111. .- +1 ~1'.-'1§?!--.Jcm 1.11." 1.. ...,,,. .1. -«
u 1 . _ , . 1 ‘ 7.717 '1‘“ 14,}... 11": 71: . ’7.‘ . '1"7 qufi._' , 1 t ..‘o q 1!}; -. 1" 3:! 01 u .. l . . .. .
I: ‘7‘317'75777‘7‘7' 3: ‘33,} m | 5”,! ‘7 1- $1,: ‘1‘. £11'3.g1'1777'7"7777‘7731c37\:‘717‘ "7"177f7‘ ,1. “3147.53.135974’ {3:1,};4 't .21; 6.. (Q, ":7‘5774‘77'75777777 7233;! u» -. ,
5 «.1... E'M' 11.2.1.3.512’1 ..1 1, WM. «4-. 1» 1» ... ..x. . .1, ~ - 1 .. .~. .17.»... aka-1 nw. ., . . -
1 , , ‘ 1‘“ 31,51,313... ., 1.1, ”a fi'gfim . .1 . 1 . 5.4.5“, .1 Q) ,1 31$.fi‘3n..y .qu!‘ , . 11...” ,, +5., 1 ,1“,
77$ 3141'» ~ ‘ «a: N" v. '7‘“- ,g"1=‘e'111’1"_ ' '1.“ iv ' '1 " $11.51 {(17 '-" .u‘ _.111,-c-.,." {2.31, £2715?" , $52.3. "11131,,
"' - " 77 ' 1' “' - - '.'.1'-‘!:'~"-‘?1 .. f7“ : '1 -- ‘ .--“. 71.7" 2...
. we, 0 . ., n"- ‘ ~- fl 1, 1;" «1",; ..a' a i. 3‘. 11.. 91,1,
. a '. 1 .' ., 4‘83. '. I ‘n. 3;.” o: .4397 ‘3 .Q I
E‘ " ' 3.121111%;1' ':.«..§11.1.- 111...»...
“ ”(‘11 3:" {VI-f... 1 1 4’ 1-. “‘75 7i, V!" .j- c“ . ‘19... .
. ‘77 y, a .+Q ‘3“ ‘ ... . -" a‘ Q'Al $7 9 ‘0“!
. ., ~1 13.1 , ~~ '. 4' 3,14, ‘3’ 11, .,h\ 0 a
.‘i ‘43"... N', 10.1!” ' . | _~ Q, ‘ '- 7‘. ' 3H. 4‘73
17" 1..”1'11 «1
' ~ -< 'o ' .‘7 ‘ v
.11.. run-'1. .1... 1'». 4'5." .
. Q . 773.737,;7’3177"? 2.777%!" _ y 13:17: ‘7' 5:? !, 5;?" '3» ‘1’!
‘1

I'm
)1. ‘ ..
.‘j " '

o
.
‘1 -

-‘Q
C’.-L
( "

J a}.

‘7

  
  
      
   
    

,
9i. 1 1‘0!
. ‘3. .._ '
. . - . ‘
' ,. .-. 1:31” . '33:“? 953115.; n»
' 111-13111; .'3'1'q.~.7‘37¢7*-§ 7.32%; rfi‘gg'.i§‘;.u 7
7.74'13. {VII-'3' "(1 '. . #55; 1,1111" ' '
Q "I. 4 ‘9' “"7 "7‘7 071' ‘ . '~ 7 77
.. ' ~.= a. a" «my: ff» 1711:":W.»
‘ . ..Oe' 7{‘J}777} 7:77 '£:"? 'tl‘j "Q 0' . rt. :
' 11 ' 7 7 hjfiwfl‘ ’3 1(63'1 l' 747 gig fit". 7 .
..I. ~ _ ..‘ . x. g "*3 ‘ ,g . ' t! . ‘ 5‘
7 ‘1 ' " ' ' '7! Q' 7R 777 "' ‘ ' 7'77“ ”“7 7f "7777'" ‘ 7777 ’777‘778‘3‘ ‘7
1 » .._ ~.«.. ~12 - - — - ' .. 1. Ms ..1-. .-.."~!1.-t--;vo~1-.v
E, 7"}7é7RF777} -. gig}. ,1 .-. :‘I’q‘yjfiffiz .Lo (5'15: 31.13251;:! 0 1 1 1:43. "t 3‘4": fi '1'? 31.1%,} n 77377:“ 7V7;7:’3 . ,1 '.1‘\.7t7"-'7‘ 04“};20.“::1 7”,:[1/1. ' 7‘7 #Hdfi ”5:; 3‘1?-
. '1" ‘5 .5411} a". '>.'.'m‘-’v.~“.’-'.‘,'?i5"1' 343‘ ’ " " '1'R"“‘1P. ”7.". 'I "'1' a" "‘3?1‘-1-.‘.‘.“\: 1:3? " ' "11' ”'1" :1“ '3' 7‘1: 74"
E. "$3,777 (:1: 71:1,..If‘J‘7t". ‘0‘ t}%:7:77‘h77”7.77ilfl7fbfi 7 937;)"ng ulnrf'ing’ “Q? I‘ ‘tgzbtt;v7:1 fixeofifl’..3‘fj,“ "‘ ‘2‘);3‘lhi :13": :Qé‘f ‘1... ‘ 77"7727777‘31771‘7'777‘37; 7" 3:2". ‘1‘
‘ . Q? ' r:..ow.v.. “‘I.1'q_‘ " Q7Q7 - z '17 ”5‘” :'m ' ' ‘ .3“ .I O"! 5" .V: ._ {.._}. 79.. .}n‘ I7 ‘- 9’5 0' ‘0 I ..‘ v ‘
‘7'“ 7 Q's “MN: "‘17’ “‘7'17“ " .‘73 Q'."4“-"1'Q .. . '-' “mug-1'1“ 1 1}) ‘- “ “1“)“. 'Q-Q ,1» ”L L,‘
""9 c~._-c . .11 5.4;, '87:.in 7717777771" 1’ ..Ekg'. 1,3 .‘ .._1 .41, a.);,..‘~ n'L‘d '-' “'35:. 2-“ 451‘!!! Q' ;'Q 'Q a? '7‘57’7"7'.7‘5 '3‘" {Md
7" “7 '7'7'7-777“ '1! ‘7: 1' ' 7‘ ' -'-‘~ "'5" "-"lg-u Qt “" \g'f‘. 1“"! .511". , -4.i“13~x ‘2 'U‘Na 1 ”-1
'| "‘ ' ~ ‘ n ‘ H. , '7‘, 7 Q7 £‘7é‘1’.~1777‘1 J "1"“. " :777,"'7 "7'." an” 7977 7 7.0 . "1 La. '1";.".7fi~7 '- 1'. ' 7.0774 7f!" .17"717’"4"."'-‘ 7" ‘97" 51.77" ' L,‘ '1’. ' '- "-57 ”"9777 1'5"”. . ' "I "971' .
7:. 1' 77:17.7 '11.." .7 7:? :‘J' 71’ J . 1. 77 7'? 177;:~7 11,171‘ 77“" 7Q7‘77Qa1"}77."fl,7 ' ' 7'1‘ 773 "1.." "Q77 7‘ 7‘1 7:77 7 71 ('1 "g" 7'7 :‘7’7 "74‘ 1174:7377‘téf‘7; 7:: 7‘3".“ 7"» I‘fi'i7‘.'7.',£
r 3* 1.303.239. £737.;77fia7g'7 J‘.:.‘05:::71E.!.‘ 7;". .7”. 7“; "77$"7'7 :9! .‘ “’17"!’:_‘:‘y77‘. id.'{~§;' “($27 11.,", I" . O " ékfifi '7';.;i“31 ";'\7’§7l:.‘7 .‘Q O‘c?.-lfifl‘g;‘““‘.‘7¢-;d:‘ 9
‘I 3'” ?'-"'w " '~ '."I ; 1' I: '1 “ 1' "7_“."‘ ~ 1-' 1 "r ' 1'1. . r entw-
~ 1 1 z- .1 .~-'. 1' .11...." ”.1311 u .. «v.1.- . a. 1.1.1.1. Rm .. .. me -1 ".-"‘74""7‘1'1Gl 1. .a 1'1" '1'"
“U" ‘ I“. -L' ' H 1 ~‘ Mm‘ v " 15*" 3915‘ ":"w" ' "I‘M 1_~::11'1o°1r‘s 9.... '1' '11.";11‘0-5. ”'1'.“
Q%_.! 1 aQfiQ-.a‘,1 1...“.4‘ Q'7k .Q'. ‘ .'-‘ L. Q777‘7‘777‘7‘7777 _ I." . fljg’o..1:,¢:q-{‘ , _l 7|7 .. U 1;. ,,. Q’ ‘2 3." 77.74.13 .Q . 4‘ :57!'~ u' “1.“..(4‘1'
'Q.‘f .r7‘ ,1; “5.4 ‘7'. ’1 1‘ ,’ . 557'! 1 u fF‘ Q4 ( f) _1 :3" ‘ ."f‘! '. ""777“. .. "."Q'1»Q'I.‘v|i' ,\ 't" ‘11-'7V_'.'7;, . "0;! ~:‘h‘,‘.";§. i. a. Q,: .1'1‘3113, 4“» _
. 'JrQq 4..".{" 1‘ , 31’", .-'l" .‘ )J'f‘l'v “1‘41 \ynf.“ 737.7" 1“ 1 ' v‘7h‘77777777‘ .- «fit! ’1??? 0‘, ? 315.27. “‘55”. 6.4!, ‘91”.
I a‘7‘75.'"¢§"7"7"’"37’“.t‘ 54, .1” “41.; '1‘ 1“ . 77".977 314‘s“? 1.1.1.. ("1'77“ 15:;91‘2 776.7777 ’ ’4.-. ,1,:,~.; ‘I' ..
i f 1 114‘, 1 . Qtt' '31 ~ J , - g - J 0'": '5 J' V 4' '11"
r. 11331:} “‘31": 1: '. -. ”.1'131131581'19' . ' 117:; 13". 111'... 1?? '11: 3 5:1: "13' .. . . ‘1. .3 a £11 1.1. 151115,- ., 3.13 .211.
7 I :1 Io. ’17" .7173”. g ‘? ".7‘ C- ‘:7 ‘71 ‘9 "§ ' ‘ t"? r7 7“! -. 77:1‘ ‘7' f‘ 7' g‘,“ 1 Q7" ‘ Q Q f 4.1 I. '(‘Q ‘Q' fi‘. .
v, "’1 -t"..“, ' .QQQ‘ “:19” v \ 3‘11 l ‘ 1",?) 777k?“ I .‘t1Q7‘x‘Q'. ,Jvi‘ .‘ ‘ 07“; z ."0_ l. .. ..j_ ._"_' (‘7..'.'"".'
s Q," Wfikfi‘lk‘tg: :7} a 7i7i‘i'273;_ ‘ 17";{7 !. 1’?! ." ‘7:}77‘“-"77£'fl7'7“ Y '7 "L7: £551" .5‘ "§t;t7 ; A.v‘ ‘$;' .3 “57:. 7‘1757‘7 ‘, 1::Lvfiqu‘g't "I?.:v‘;.;i.7:"‘;.’ '3: ‘f. al-EfiFpr'ugfi‘fir'tfikE .f
‘1‘ 1." «.211. .;.i.r-;-‘.‘.;-:a£..-;.‘.' ‘2‘- '.~;~ v.....,'.'-..:.;..,:131,g¢.1y.,,3.£151,5-11; $3 1' 1" ,u‘ 8‘3'3312'.» .1- “3.1.3.3119; 3.. w “4193,11” M... . .-
l‘.‘ 7*" '1'1; ' 7 9 “‘ ' 3“ 5. 2", \12‘! ’7» 0. 307.7" 7’ ‘{ 1'7"'7':7:'a - "a ’ .:'7’7\7' 7 '7 "017‘17‘7'7737
‘43 _J_ 13: Ileov'j. . '1 ‘\~ _. I. Q. 11 I? "‘0’“ 1.}\ 5“er (p1,. 1:1,3'711‘
‘~ §Z7§.1;7-€'!31-:!§53{ ,$.111'..:~;-;-5.1£23'1,"13.11"- '5‘17si'.~3'.""‘c‘." 7" 13.61.2131 " {'1' '7‘” 75"."..1'7' 7:42.139 'a.‘ .135. "fig: .."1 1"" . "'7‘ mt}:
F 3737" "$35" 7 " '77r7i‘7'77f77- ? "7‘71?“ ‘ ’ 7" ‘3' '77:??7'7 1' 71‘7- 3:2 {'31 1,5 1,57 1,1. 77-77111 "‘3: 777777 ’77:? 1 7 177773“ 3 77.7"? “'21-'71: 1137;7‘.‘7J7’7’7\'7-7‘ 11:}: 4‘27: ° '17‘77- 77-77 772 7"?77‘7777777
"Q1’ 1" ',‘~v\o7r 7631': - ‘7". ”7 - "' 0 vot’m. '7 ‘1
i‘ ,1} . 1' .‘1 1,1!1131ra'z We 451,3.“ 7,". ,'; , ”4'”... '2' ,.'-a-'.¢ Wu :1 “nu-1.3.3
{‘7 "5777777377“: 77777571177“ Q""'.‘"'~‘ '.':1“"~7‘ ‘ "1‘“ ‘1‘"? 513'77‘77'77 115.151“ ~?'.‘-"717"7a2‘77¥7 7:72: .: 5177'7'37‘71’7‘S7121.
.. ~11 7- .. 1,,- ,7 .. .5111. . 1» .
1, .. '.'7;7'"'"v:1}17::3.'1‘w ..».‘ . "J 7; «13$»? 277 ”7 “#757 11'7'1'7 1',“ 77377 H351} 711.31115‘31‘, ’1‘.- s; 177 7377 J77) 71.7:{17-131'» 7‘17 11 f.
‘ l;( 7f: 07:7 .4 . ,‘ '73:.) . .' ‘f‘,’.!§."' 'eég'1'wv‘t7z'i7lr77lh17777773377 " 5" ’ "I

‘ ‘1'71, 'Q 1

'.' 153*“95‘7 Q78 1. m. -

0“ . ‘Q.I ‘ ‘71 yzsg), "‘77.. 7, .. ' lll'fQ.1"§\‘ ‘7'7 7'7W7 M‘ -'o~':"
I 4'777‘773Wu 1‘4“}:3 77777777771777 7‘-' 77‘7‘777‘7‘ :77 ‘v Q37'77‘7’7'7°7'77"7'7777 "33-7'7‘7'1'7'3’3 ."77.1’;7W7"’7"-l77"1 Wk, 7775’“ ‘7‘ 17’ QKW11.‘1'37"";7'77;1‘7’ ‘7’“.
I‘ . h: ‘rrg‘_‘“ ‘. a 77.17<;'g7‘“. ‘ ‘EQ‘Y.’;!"‘.§: c’qi 75¢Q’t75‘ T “2‘33'I't’1*:x.:;’"‘1. ‘$":,:;*;?";.‘;;§‘~?'.. , '7'" I -QJ Q r
' 77 777 77‘7‘ ‘ 777' 777577?“ '7'.77' El '. 57'- ‘37777. 3 .3971.“ .51 'o" .o '11:, z" v'. “ , ' (a
r. 52"“, ~19“ 7'7‘7 " '7'" ' 3‘. £11.}? ..39’71‘1277m'u ma}: ‘1"? U ‘ 7‘“ 1" '1" " " f " 7’7" ‘- “ ‘ “ ‘ ' ’5, " 'It‘c-*"7‘7ft

~ .- a,
: n J.’ -M'". Mw'nug.-'..I1.":;v 4..-
k‘)‘ -{: 5‘71““, 17':" t‘. 7.7!." ".l“‘.",1.:‘ 1‘95...) ‘ ".‘~\‘.\::g::::. l¢\7 q .ojfz-k.‘ 7:"
,4: 1e. . ”1.1-. .. «.1. 12': _-' -. 1-11., ‘7'. ,1'1.'.‘,'1»1¢3,~ 11:,- »3.’.3.'}‘.', .92.;313' .1, 31;} w "it" ' "3} 1-7“ 111.”
< ”I I l ‘ '

C
a.
‘
o
’

   

, .
if:
5

1w
.1
..O
O
J
-
7-7 '."
4.“ - 7
can“. 1 , .,‘
n

    
     
     
    

‘
. .
Q
.5

1.1.5152;

  

5'
4- 77777777 '77
.4;
O
5.1:

"747-743 '77:"17""717(7»7'7 ‘77 ‘.. "7‘ ' 335'}: I

I
7"!“ .. 153‘ ‘ , ‘ .
"7'7 -. .."7 . r-"QQ'u ’"Q'7'777 “'71" 78:371.}. ‘27.", 7 7 ‘ I ‘; - 1 _ . O "- . .- 9'7" 7;.
.7‘1. '57? ' f’: 75“.. 17:1, ' 7’30“”:7 '7'-'71‘:‘IY:J1§7€77‘.777L;“’:J'; 2 kl“! . f E? . :7 ‘6‘7‘6‘7 ' ‘g‘.’1_ ‘ 7’ . . £134 1

 
     
    
 
 

   

17341151.: :'
.3
J

7.77. Q‘\.7\ ..1::1.\‘Q"k 767;?7‘? .07 7777‘; 5 Q‘ 7;";7‘777QS‘7'7‘ 27:" 7:7 ;"7' " Q,‘ ‘.7 7. Q ‘7 Q '. '77 'O -." :7‘ "Q .17'17777‘7"777r'777"3 ‘

. 1 1.3.129. Wing“; {7:171:47 _¢ P'l .31.:Q‘77‘77‘777 3‘1 a” ‘45: 71:7 . .1133} 7.7-..93fi7‘7' 'ififié7717i\‘zh7‘&7 77'Jt‘kg'”'7' 777777777 0“,".‘7-7: 733‘

'7 7777 7775177777777 77-7 "71147777‘7 '7‘?- 77797:. 777'777'7 777777“ 7'7"77 7 “.‘1 1317;777‘ 4%"?"74'55372‘ ‘1 771177‘11'1 - "5 '7 ‘ '.'7'7. 7 l7‘.‘ 77'7 71‘7'777'777 "L7 '7'777 7777:7377‘ ‘ {‘7' ..i‘

-,,, 11.11.1133,.{3 . .. . 3:11,.15....,,~.'° ~35 1.1.1,.» .‘7', . $11.31.»; $15.,» -'.:;.":1'..~ 31.511311? ..1 “'1’ ;: ‘1‘): rain 1' ' ' ~ -. ' 7‘77;
77'717717 Q" 1‘77" . t 9 I“ t "I “6".“ ..‘ '1» ~ - . “fig:

‘2‘

d
O — ' —
:fi‘r' ‘7
-p 1-4 .ra

3:3:
'13? f-
‘4.

“5".

 

{

3.
Q

4.31

l
A
a
. 1 I

  

 

12:72,
‘3
5"
:71".
"7.?
53
$223-
'5"
a". ' _
at"
Fun

.1.

4?;
7%

 
 

‘1 '15- CI .JI‘
knit {71'7'71'7'q‘ 'sh‘777‘7‘7t7g7777i“ 7":1’7577 7773771731!“ :311'77‘3.‘ 177" {'7'%77 “‘1
‘ _ 1', ‘ . 1"}:"o 31.11%: .. 1:55 1 vi 9, 11.11:. ;. PQ'?%1 . $777533?
1 uh‘nfi. 3' 51'177.‘~'74 1‘."‘7"‘7"?.'."....' ..'. . . . .~'. . ..s . . 7'“ ' ,' .. 5f
.11 311.12.»: M. ' "F‘ ""*"Ia:3~£f"1:r.11.1.1.1111;.E» km 3111.211. ' .- 1"?" '11‘7'."i=¢'4. ‘ " " "3 “ii " 17:71:17 1;. ~.~»
v A .."73. ..511..Q|;...7.:“7,774 "7 ‘41 ‘Q.’\‘. 71-7 .77'1. _.771 Q_. ‘7'..-, 4 7 .. l ' , 1‘. Q77
.311 ,l - » «o ‘1 " 3‘“ "1“," ‘5’ '0" 2'1? £57511"; ‘3 #:217, 7,. , 19.71177‘ 7 37" 3‘7 ",4 7' ““1 -7 1 ‘7’. Q‘ ”‘7‘ .‘ -- "~30
-- - "" '1 ' '1‘ "11:11- "' " "' 115:... » 15-11.»:111-1 4.1.1.2111»? «~11 - 1. 11.... '71... 1.111;; '13:» 1 '1 M-.. -
‘ 5‘ 1‘ 7 Q I ' '7 ' 77 7 .I. ",9” :7o77
1 7 “ I . Q177- 7"~..’-(51‘7' 7777. 0.7 1 9 l.“0‘1.'i‘t".1 : a 7777.777771777‘1 7“ :‘7Q117Q fig.“ 1,77 9" 1" 78‘1‘"‘~7"7( ‘I' 7 Q4793”: {'- ' 4775 5,7" 83* ‘7'7;”77 1‘“ do?“ ‘21? ‘Q7 7:7‘ “:77,“ '\
(1&0'74 1’. “‘L&} 1 .. ~ . 4 71'5“ ‘4 "Q 1 17:!5O3.‘§1\.'
.- 311 w . ~, . . aw}. - '~'.;.v1}‘,'_-,,~.,.,\-. ..t. '; £1“va ,. .2; “1:1; 4. ..'_.. 1
' '1' '.'..' 1" «.1 ~- 1- «1"»- ‘ 4' "1w ' Wig {7
1

~— 1'
5:
7?;537'743
777%?

1:51:

5:?

.31-

23.1.4

'17‘7
A? é'96.*Q".O'I
k ‘ 7 27-77‘7237'731‘U7“ ‘717' 93“ “377.777 I
'. I . 5‘ 3‘.
1 ' I‘ v 7 ‘l" . - .7’1 .
'21.!" 9'13“" "-‘» ‘3'? 1:111: 1"- » 1. 1. 1. z. , . -
$11711. -O '1 _ '(O 557$:
711-41131331‘1'3‘9“ 79' '72? I.94"!“7‘77t'7'7'7‘7fiW-‘7‘.0,747 35.74”" 3;.1'1'1'51-7'1
’7.:77l’7:":' "7“?
.“d;. :Q: "v"‘;' ”k.0i\‘;’y"’ 1&7‘?‘

J
” 8 7' g Q .717.

1 "\' ‘ § 3174 7U. '7 - ..I "'1. ' ' ..\‘- '7‘: «777% 7‘2; ‘7 ~71 ” s “5. 7‘. {‘er .‘

"\ 1 - P. t .18- 1. .. ». Q "‘vg “L1,. .1, W417i. 7931" . i} . _\ “ Q"): . 1'1» m”
‘- 7.I7:7-‘77 31 4 1‘ ( 7'177‘.""'. Q. \'1K.n\ . ‘1 :41“ '1‘ [:7 1‘1. ‘1 3“," 4‘ “3:15.91,“ 0Q ‘7‘ 7173‘, 171'. k 31 . “1211': :7?“ " . ,. ~. ”J$.V\ . f'm‘W 77’; I E;&7‘7H ‘ + ";1 .i'- ‘:§Z{x..
' ‘ ‘ ‘ 7 ‘ 7 ‘ '"7 ' ‘47 ‘ 7‘ ' '5‘." 7'3. n - 7 h "9 |' I .‘1 '3 ‘7‘“ ' Y '11 4- z i .Q

uh C u Q57" Q Q . 0‘ I u nigh!
. 1 4‘. .‘ NH ' 1 ’1' 7". ".xfiyv‘fl‘V .‘ 1. " 1...? '-|~‘.7-§7|7‘,;'7.7.‘7‘ 747(777777 1'1' H, ' 3.! '.’."- E'h' ”'2: 0:773:63“ " 1 .1 6, '5 ‘ "51'

1 a; '47 13L17U‘1:~,'1»Q ' -. 71751‘ L‘fiQQ' '1"7'.l.“'r7. 2:127," '.‘-"33“- ‘~}"77\;7>'-'Q'~1;7‘7'19t":‘. 7 H :‘g‘ NR3 v1"? 77
. .0", ".14.?" .- 1‘:~“.4.‘.ol'.5 7‘ 1‘ 4 "1 1“", 57177177 1“ ; "SS-7.7772771”; ' -5031"; . '1' 9.:30‘ I 1.7“..“7:.7 ;"o" '
, ‘ I 2-" 93‘2“" '"JZ.

   
  

- v'-'.. o'-7\‘ - '1‘.: - V": haw
- .. - 13.'17' ~. H3" H .31" 1.1.1 ‘1‘: W: 1.1.1.. -.--:.~ »~ -2. H? .
- {‘13, 3,61,} 31%;; (z... ‘13.. “(5.5! :: 3'33 “"43"" 151.5. Sing". ~I‘w‘.‘~."'~;'::;'"g5v $1,323.19, ,
I- . )1. O o 1 7
C 7’ "“’ ' ' '7'. '.7‘ ’3 1: 73771! 19".". 3'11" {"1" J" '7. "11'1":be J. r15.“4“:4’!‘3 37.717857!”

77‘7‘712'15.
. 7 . . 1 ‘ k 7 ‘4' .' "
w ‘1'; 1 21:2! 332:7}81’37 .5 ‘bfiflfi” 7?:E1‘5‘Q‘23‘71; $17571}: . " 777.
"~’.1'1="“‘1"-7'¥¥‘r7>§'$%‘1 -‘ 7:. -~'-..«'-'1-::.~:x.--.' ' .- "'-
. ..f. . 2-, L.» 71}
.. 5377.7777751137}'§3 3.7 7; -. ‘ 7 '7

735;...
'-::'V
L .. "7
.5 2g
1-.

 

MIC CHlG

W l/Ill/lll//II///I//////I//I 1/ l/Ii/llllllllll

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Discerning the Maker's Order: The Use of Religion

to Cope with Stressful Life Events
presented by
Jacqueline S. Grober
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph .0. degree in Psychology

 

W

 

’ V ngor professor

Date 3’I‘1’9Y

MS U is an Ajfirmatt‘ve Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

0-12771

 

 

Ll BRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to romovo this checkout from your rooord.
TO AVOID F IRES rotum on or botoro duo duo.

DATEDUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

Jam ?8 19??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU loAnAtfinnotlvo AotloNEquol Opportunlty Intuition
mm:

DISCERNING THE MAKER’S ORDER: THE USE OF RELIGION TO COPE
WITH STRESSFUL LIFE EVENTS

By

Jacqueline Secor Grober

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1 995

ABSTRACT

DISCERNING THE MAKER’S ORDER: THE USE OF RELIGION TO COPE
WITH STRESSFUL LIFE EVENTS

By

Jacqueline Secor Grober

The role of religion in psychological adaptation has been the subject of
frequent theoretical debate and empirical investigation. This study further clarifies
religion’s role in psychological adjustment by investigating relationships among self-
reported dispositional religious attitudes, religious coping, psychological
symptomatology, and stressful life events in 503 college students. Results both
support and challenge previous research on religion and psychological adaptation.
Factor analysis of a new measure of religious coping yielded a four-factor solution
(God—centered, people-centered, bargaining, and alienated religious coping) which
accounted for almost 100% of the common variance. The factor structure obtained in
this study is similar to those obtained in other studies. Differences in dispositional
religious attitudes (i.e. intrinsic/extrinsic religious orientation, religious well-being)
predicted significant variation in the use of religious coping. While intrinsic
religiousness was significantly associated with God-centered and people-centered
religious coping, closeness to God (religious well-being) was significantly associated
with only God-centered religious coping. Extrinsic religiousness predicted the use of
bargaining and alienated religious coping.

This study challenges the generalizability of previous findings that religious

coping is related to better psychological adjustment. In the current study of college

students from diverse religious backgrounds, increases in bargaining and alienated
religious coping were significantly related to increases in stressful life events and
increases in psychological symptoms. However, God-centered and people-centered
religious coping were unrelated to stress level or symptomatology, The finding that
some forms of religious coping were related to poorer psychological adjustment,
regardless of stress level, contradicts other reports in the literature suggesting that
religious coping acts as a stress buffer. This study’s results point to the need for
future research to standardize measurement of religious coping and systematically
investigate its effects in different religious groups and at different stages of the life

cycle.

Do religions partake of man’s ability, even as he regresses, to recover
creatively?

Erik Erikson, Young Man Luther

Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,
Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, Tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As the night descended, tilting in the air,
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,
Arranging, deepening, enchanting the night.

Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker’s rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and our origins,

In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.

Wallace Stevens, The Idea ef fider at Key West

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LITERATURE REVIEW

Religion and Psychological Adaptation ...................... 1

The Multidimensional Nature of Religious Experience ............. 4

Religious Variables Relevant for Psychological Adaptation .......... 5

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientations ......... 5

Relatedness to God ......................... 8

Religious Coping as 3 Mediator Between Dispositional Religiousness

and Psychological Adaptation ........................... 12

Measurement of Religious Coping ................... 12

Religious Coping and Dispositional Religiousness .......... 15

Religious Coping and Psychological Adaptation ........... 17

Religious Coping as a Stress Buffer ................... 18

Rationale for the Present Study ................ l .......... 24

Study Hypotheses .................................. 31
METHOD

Participants ...................................... 37

Measures ....................................... 37

Procedure ....................................... 43
RESULTS

Measurement of Religious Coping (Hypothesis 1) ............... 44

The Role of Stress and Dispositional Religiousness in Predicting
Religious Coping (Hypothesis ll) ......................... 46

The Relationship of Individual Dispositional Religiousness Factors to

Individual Religious Coping Factors (Hypotheses III & IV) ......... 49
The Role of Stress and Religious Coping in Predicting Psychological
Adjustment (Hypothesis V) ............................ 50
The Role of Stress and Individual Religious Coping Factors in

Predicting Psychological Adjustment (Hypothesis VI) ............ 52
Religious Coping as a Mediator Between Dispositional Religiousness

and Psychological Adjustment .......................... 54

DISCUSSION
Measurement of Religious Coping ........................ 57

The Role of Stress and Dispositional Religiousness

in Predicting Religious Coping .......................... 65

The Role of Stress and Religious Coping

in Predicting Psychological Adjustment ..................... 70

Religious Coping as a Stress-Buffer ....................... 77

Religious Coping as a Mediator Between Dispositional Religiousness

and Psychological Adjustment .......................... 79
CONCLUSION ............................. ' .......... 81
APPENDICES
A: Religious Problem-Solving Scale (RPSS) ...................... 84
B: Religious Coping Activities Scale (RCAS) ..................... 86
C: Study Measures

Religious Orientation Scale ............................ 88

Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) ....................... 90

Religious Coping Scale .............................. 92

College Student Life Events Schedule (CSLES) ................ 96

Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) ..................... 105

Demographic and Religious Information ................... 108
D: Consent Statement ................................... 118

vi

APPENDICES (cond’t)

E: Tables .......................................... 119
F: Figures .......................................... 156
LIST OF REFERENCES ................. . ................ 160

vii

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 11:

Table 12:

Table 13:

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of Regression Equations (specifying precise
order of entry for predictor variables) for Study

Hypotheses .................................. 119
Frequencies for Demographic Variables and

Religious Affiliation ........................... 122
Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables

and Level of Religiosity .......................... 123
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Psychiatric

Symptomatology Scales .......................... 124
Eigenvalues and Percentage of Variance Explained

by Religious Coping Factors ....................... 125
Final Commonalities for the Religious Coping Scale ......... 126
Complete Factor Loadings for the Religious C0ping Scale ...... 128
Psychometric Characteristics of the Religious Coping Scale ..... 131
Correlations Among Religious Coping Factors ............. 133

Descriptive Statistics for Dispositional Religiousness
and Religious Coping Variables ..................... 134

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Religious Variables ....... 135
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Demographic

Variables with Stress, Religious Variables, and

Psychiatric Symptomatology ....................... 136
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses

for Variables Predicting Overall Religious Coping from
Dispositional Religiousness ........................ 137

viii

Table 14:

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

Table 19:

Table 20:

Table 21:

Table 22:

Table 23:

Table 24:

Table 25:

Table 26:

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous
Model of Overall Religious Coping ................... 138

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses
Predicting Religious Coping from Dispositional Religiousness . 139
Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous

Model of God-Centered Religious Coping ............... 140

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous
Model of People—Centered Religious Coping .............. 141

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous
Model of Bargaining Religious Coping ................. 142

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous
Model of Alienated Religious Coping .................. 143

Descriptive Statistics for Stress and Psychological
Symptomatology .............................. 144

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Psychiatric Symptoms
with Stress and Religious Variables ................... 145

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses
Testing an Additive Effects versus Interaction Effects
Model of Stress-Buffering on Psychiatric Symptomatology ..... 146

Standardized Beta Weights in Three Fully Simultaneous
Models Testing Additive Effects and Interaction Effects
Models of Stress-Buffering ........................ 147

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses
Predicting Psychiatric Symptomatology ................. 148

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous
Model Predicting Overall Psychiatric Symptomatology
from Religious Coping Factors ...................... 150

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous

Model Predicting Depressive Symptomatology from
Religious Coping Factors ......................... 151

ix

Table 27:

Table 28:

Table 29:

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous
Model Predicting Anxiety Symptoms from Religious
Coping Factors ................................ 152

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses
Predicting Psychiatric Symptomatology from Dispositional
Religiousness and Religious Coping . . .‘ ................ 153

Relationship between Religious Coping Variables
and Psychological Adjustment ....................... 154

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Two Alternative Models of Stress-Buffering .............. 156

Figure 2: Additive Effects Model of Religious Coping
as 3 Stress Buffer .............................. 157

Figure 3: Summary of Proposed Relationship among
Dispositional Religiousness, Religious Coping,
Stress, and Psychological Symptomatology ............... 158

Figure 4: Summary of Expected Relationships and Actual

Relationships testing the Additive Effects versus
Interaction Effects Models of Stress-Buffering ............. 159

xi

LITERATURE REVIEW
Religion and Psychological Adaptation

Despite long-standing interest in the contribution of religion to
psychological adaptation, the nature of this contribution remains unclear. Some
thinkers have hypothesized that religious belief is a pathogenic influence on
psychological functioning. For example, Freud’s writings are punctuated by a
portrayal of God as "nothing other than an exalted father" (e. g., Freud, 1910/1957, p.
123). He argued that one’s intrapsychic relationship to this father imago serves as a
neurotic wish-fulfillment for immortality in moments of "regressive revival of the
forces which protected [us] in infancy” (Freud, 1910/1957, p. 123; 1927/1961).
Freud further characterized religious behavior as "the obsessional neurosis of man”
(Freud, 1907/1959, p. 116), to be left behind once one attains psychological health.
Albert Ellis, conceptualizing religion from a cognitive perspective, argued that
religious sentiment is nothing more than a set of irrational beliefs that continually
interfere with an individual’s capacity to function effectively (Ellis, 1970).

However, many psychologists have assigned a more positive role to
religious life. For example, William James (1902/1985), argued that religious
persons derive a sense of life’s meaning through their belief in God, and that this
increased understanding can lead to healthier relationships with others. Moreover,
since Freud, many psychoanalytically-oriented thinkers have delineated the potential
adaptive function of religious experience from developmental, cultural, existential,
and object-relations perspectives (e. g., Erikson, 1981; Fromm 1950; Guntrip, 1956;

Jung, 1933; May, 1940; Meissner, 1984; Rizzuto, 1979; Winnicott, 1971). Thus,

2

theoretical accounts are divided in their portrayal of the relationship between religious
belief and psychological functioning.

Empirical findings regarding the relationship between religiousness and
mental health have been equally contradictory. While some studies have found
religiousness to be related to various measures of maladjustment (e. g., Graff & Ladd,
1971; Heintzelman & Fehr, 1976; Lilliston & Brown, 1981; Rokeach & Kemp,
1960), others have reported it to be positively related to psychological functioning
(e.g., Acklin, Brown, & Mauger, 1983; Bernardo, 1988; Blazer & Palmore, 1976;
Chan, 1994; Ellison, 1993; Frankel & Hewitt, 1994; Lindenthal, Myers, Pepper &
Stern, 1970; Maton, 1989; Moberg, 1967; O’Reilly & Pembroke, 1957; Swensen,
Fuller, & Clements, 1993; Shaver, Lenauer, & Sadd, 1980). In summarizing this
contradictory array of findings, Bergin (1983) states that 23% of the studies he
reviewed found a negative relationship between psychological health and religious
commitment, 47% reported a positive relationship, and 30% found no relationship at
all between these variables. In addition, some studies have emphasized that gertaig
types of religious beliefs or practices are related to mental health while others are not
(e.g., Allport & Ross, 1967; Larson et al., 1992; Pargament & Hahn, 1986;
Pargament, Steele, & Tyler, 1979; Pargament et al., 1988; Pargament & Hathaway,
1991; Shaver et al., 1980).

These inconsistent findings may reflect a number of measurement and
conceptual difficulties in previous research. For example, although religion is a
multidimensional construct, most studies measure only one facet of it (Bergin, 1983;

Gorsuch, 1984). Moreover, studies of the religion-mental health relationship have not

3

necessarily focused on components of religiousness that can be theoretically linked to
psychological health. Research on the religion—mental health relationship has
neglected potential mediating variables between trait-like religious dispositions and
psychological adaptation. Several recent studies have’found that religious coping
could serve as alink between general dispositional religiousness and psychological
adaptation (e.g., Pargament et al., 1990). Religious coping refers to any cognitive or
behavioral strategies that utilize one’s religious beliefs to reduce, tolerate, or master
the demands of stressful life events. Finally, existing research has not examined the
role of life stress in modifying the religion-mental health connection. It may be that
religiousness and mental health are unrelated at low levels of stress but are strongly
and positively related for individuals under high levels of stress. The lack of attention
to the effects of stress on religiousness and mental health could mask the complexity
of their relationship.

The current study attempts to address these measurement and conceptual
difficulties. After examining the multidimensional nature of religiousness, several
religious variables relevant for psychological adaptation will be investigated further.
A rationale will be provided for relating these components of religiousness to
religious coping, a potential mediating variable between trait-like dispositional
religious attitudes and mental health. The usefulness of conceptualizing religious
coping as a mediator between dispositional religiousness and mental health will then
be explored in detail. The potential role of stress in the religion-mental heath
relationship will also be integrated with the literature on religious coping and

dispositional religiousness.

Multidimensional Nature of Religious Experience

”Religiousness" has been conceptualized and assessed in a myriad of
ways, including church attendance, self-reported frequency of prayer, religious
upbringing, religious belief, mystical experience, religious commitment, spiritual
well-being, and God-concept (Grom, 1993; Ledbetter, Smith, Fitcher, Vosler-Hunter,
& Chew, 1991; Wulff, 1991). Bergin (1983) and Gorsuch (1984) concluded their
reviews of the relationship between religion and mental health by suggesting that the
data’s ambiguities indicate that "religion" is a multidimensional construct. Previous
studies of the relationship between religion and mental health status may have
obtained different results because each has considered only a single aspect of religious
life.

Similarly, researchers in this area have investigated a variety of mental
health variables including longevity, suicide, drug use, alcohol abuse, delinquency,
depression, anxiety, marital satisfaction, psychosis, self-esteem, prejudice,
authoritarianism, rigidity, suggestibility, self-actualization, and well-being (Gartner,
Larson, & Allen, 1991; Spilka, Hood, & Gorsuch, 1985). These diverse operational
definitions of ”mental health" may also have contributed to the different findings
reported in the literature.

Even within the same study, the relationship between religiousness and
psychological adaptation has differed depending upon the measure of religiousness
used (Antosz, 1990; Fehr & Heintzelman, 1977; Ferraro & Albrecht-Jensen, 1991).

Clearly, researchers need to determine more precisely which aspects of religiousness

5

contribute to which mental health outcomes. Investigations of religious life need to
draw both theoretical and empirical distinctions among different dimensions of
religiousness (e. g., motivations, beliefs, relational aspects, behavior). Moreover,
research on religion and psychological functioning must focus on aspects of
religiousness that possess a strong theoretical link to psychological health (Pargament,
1990).

Religious Variables Relevant for Psychological Adaptation

Although the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship
between religious experience and mental health is vast, relatively few measures of
religious life have a strong theoretical and empirical foundation that consistently
attests to their importance in psychological adaptation. Three variables that have
found such support are Allport’s conceptions of "intrinsic” and "extrinsic” religious
orientations and Ellison’s notion of "relatedness to God.” These dimensions of
religiousness have a long history of empirical quantification. In addition, each
concept describes different cognitive, motivational, emotional, and experiential
components of religious life.

Ingipeie and extgimie religious, erientetieps. The framework developed
by Allport and Ross (1967) nearly two decades ago has dominated the psychological
exploration of religiosity (see reviews by Donahue 1985a, 1985b; Kirkpatrick &
Hood, 1990). Allport (1959) distinguished between two types of religiousness:
intrinsic religious orientation and extrinsic religious orientation. Although Allport and
Ross initially conceived of intrinsic and extrinsic orientations as opposites along a

single dimension, findings from several studies suggest that the constructs represent

6
orthogonal facets of religiousness (Donahue, 1985a; Feagin, 1964; Hood, 1971; Hunt

& King, 1971).

An intrinsic religious commitment is defined as one in which religion is
the "master-motive" providing meaning to all aspects lof life, thereby being an end in
itself. According to Allport and Ross (1967), the intrinsic religious position is one of
high commitment toward one’s faith and a strong motivation to live by the tenets of
that faith. Allport and Ross (1967) state,

Other needs, strong as they may be, are regarded as of less

ultimate significance, and they are, so far as possible, brought

into harmony with religious beliefs and prescriptions. Having

embraced a creed the individual endeavors to internalize it and

follow it fully. It is in this sense that he lives his religion.

(p. 434)

On the other hand, an extrinsic orientation is defined as one in which
religion is used as a means to other ends, such as achieving security and solace, social
relations, status, self-justification, or distraction. Allport and Ross ( 1967) state that
extrinsically oriented religion

. . . plays an instrumental role only. It serves and rationalizes

assorted forms of self-interest . . . the full creed and full

teaching of religion are not adopted. The person does not

serve his religion; it is subordinated to serve him. (p. 434)

This type of religious commitment is more utilitarian. The integration of religious

beliefs into daily life is, by implication, more unpredictable and less meaningful for

7

the individual. Thus "the extrinsically motivated person gigs his religion, whereas the
intrinsically motivated person 1% his religion" (Allport & Ross, 1967, p. 435).

A large body of research attests to the validity of Allport’s proposed
distinctions (for reviews see Donahue, 1985b; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990). While
extrinsic orientation has generally been unrelated to other self-report measures of
religiousness (Donahue, 1985b), intrinsic religious commitment has been correlated
positively with numerous indicators of religious motivation ranging from church
attendance to other self-report measures of religious experience.

Furthermore, Allport’s intrinsic and extrinsic orientations have been
related to a number of mental health variables. Intrinsically committed persons tend
to have greater social competence (Hathaway & Pargament, 1990; Pargament et a]. ,
1979; Pargament et al., 1988), interpersonal trust (Pargament et al., 1979), and sense
of control in their lives (Pargament et al., 1979; Minton & Spilka, 1976) compared
with extrinsically oriented individuals. Moreover, intrinsic orientation has been
correlated negatively with trait anxiety (Baker & Gorsuch, 1982; Bergin, Masters, &
Richards, 1987; Lovekin & Malony, 1977; Petersen & Roy, 1985; Sturgeon &
Hamley, 1979) and depression (Koening, George, & Siegler, 1988; Park & Cohen,
1993; Watson, Hood, Morris, & Hall, 1985), while the extrinsic orientation
correlated positively with these mental health variables.

Both theoretical and empirical work suggest that intrinsic and extrinsic
religious commitment may influence a believer’s religious coping. Allport’s
conception of intrinsically oriented individuals as persons who are motivated to

integrate religion into all aspects of their lives suggests that intrinsic orientation may

8

be particularly associated with the use of religious coping in stressful circumstances.
The positive correlation between intrinsic religiousness and mental health further
suggests that these religious coping efforts may be associated with a positive mental
health outcome. Conversely, extrinsically oriented persons, embracing a more
utilitarian, superficial form of faith, may engage in less religious coping or different
types of religious coping efforts compared to those who do not hold an extrinsic
commitment to their faith. The correlation of extrinsic religiousness with poor mental
health further suggests that extrinsic forms of religious coping may be associated with
psychological distress.

Thus, Allport and Ross’ (1967) intrinsic and extrinsic delineation of
religious experience captures the cognitive and motivational aspects of one’s
religiousness, focusing on the ways in which an individual attempts to integrate
his/her religiousness into daily life. However, this approach does not assess the felt
quality of those religious experiences. A believer can try to understand and integrate
the tenets of his/her faith into daily life without necessarily experiencing a personal,
affirming relationship with God. Thus ”religiousness” may have intellectual and
ethical as well as interpersonal experiential dimensions. The notion of "relatedness to
God” can provide insight into the interpersonal and emotional aspects of religious
experience.

W. A number of investigators have suggested that
feelings of love and/or nearness to God can foster positive psychological adaptation
(Spilka, Hood, & Gorsuch, 1985; Spilka, Shaver, & Kirkpatrick, 1985). Using a

measure developed for her study, King (1991) found that among a random sample of

9

undergraduates at three religious colleges and two secular universities, one’s
relatedness to God contributed to general mental health and self-esteem above and
beyond religious orientation (Allport’s intrinsic/extrinsic [I/E] scale) and social
desirability. In addition, Shaver et al. (1980) reported that among a self-selected
sample of 2,500 American women, "secure" attachment to God was significantly and
positively correlated with general life satisfaction and psychological health, while
"avoidant" and ”ambivalent" attachment patterns were negatively correlated with
mental health.

Ellison and his associates have developed a measure of spiritual well-being
that assesses two dimensions of religiousness: exiegntial well-being and religipue
well—being (Bufford, Paloutzian, & Ellison, 1991; Ellison, 1983; Ledbetter et al.,
1991). As the name implies, the existential well—being subscale assesses the status of
one’s ”worldly” concerns. The religious well-being subscale reflects one’s
”internalized, intimate relationship to God" (Ellison, 1983, p. 331) or the "quality of
one’s relationship to God" (Ellison, 1983, p. 332). The differences between the two
subscales were recently summarized as follows:

The religious well-being subscale items refer to God and

assess the vertical dimension of spirituality . . . The existential

well-being subscale . . . [measures] a horizontal dimension of

well-being in relation to the world around us, including a

sense of life purpose and life satisfaction.” (Bufford et al.,

1991, p. 57)

10

In their review of research using Ellison’s Spiritual Well-Being Scale,
Ledbetter et al. (1991) comment that more than 25 studies have assessed the construct
validity of this scale. For example, persons whose denominations emphasize ethical
and moral teachings score highest on the existential well-being subscale (Ellison,
1983). In contrast, religious well-being subscale scores are highest among members
of denominations that emphasize a personal, direct relationship with God and
acceptance and forgiveness by Christ (e. g., Born Again, Evangelical Christians).
Existential well-being subscale scores positively correlate with other measures of
religious commitment (e.g., Allport’s I/E scale) while the religious well-being
subscale scores do not. This suggests that the religious well-being subscale, in
particular, measures emotional and interpersonal aspects of religious experience that
are not included in Allport’s intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations.

Ellison’s religious well-being subscale has been significantly and
positively related to good physical and emotional adjustment (see reviews by
Brinkman, 1989; Moody, 1989) and negatively related to measures of ill health,
emotional maladjustment, and dissatisfaction with life (Brinkman, 1989; Moody,
1989). Moreover, its psychometric properties and validity in measuring relationship
to God are better established than other measures that assess this dimension of
religious life (e.g., King, 1991; Shaver et al., 1980).

Both theoretical and empirical work therefore suggest that Ellison’s
religious well-being subscale measures a dimension of religiousness that is particularly
relevant for a study of religious coping and mental health. From a theoretical

perspective, the quality of one’s felt relationship to God may be an important

11

determinant of religious coping. Persons who have experienced an immediate,
affirming, and personal relationship with the Divine may find certain religious coping
activities more emotionally comforting or may tend to engage in types of religious
coping that differ from those used by persons who have not experienced this
relationship with God. The positive correlation between religious well-being and
mental health further suggests that religious coping used by persons who feel a close
relationship to God may be associated with positive psychological adaptation.

Extant work has therefore suggested a connection between the above three
dimensions of religiousness and mental health, yet little is known about the precise
mechanisms through which this relationship is established. Recently, however, a
number of researchers have suggested that dispositional religious factors (such as
intrinsic/extrinsic orientation and relatedness to God) influence psychological
adaptation via ”religiees mping” (e.g., Maton, 1989; Pargament et al., 1990; Park,
Cohen, & Herb 1990). This view proposes two distinct but integral notions that may
help to clarify the religion-mental health relationship. First, it suggests that religious
coping is a link, or mediating variable, between dispositional religiousness and mental
health. Second, it asserts that religious coping acts as a mediator of religiousness
specifically during stressful life circumstances. A closer examination of the
mediational role of religious coping may lead to a more accurate understanding of the

religion-mental health relationship.

12

Religious Coping as a Mediator Between Dispositional Religiousness and

Psychological Adaptation
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) define coping (not religious coping peg se) as

any cognitive or behavioral action meant to minimize, reduce, tolerate, or master the
demands of a specific stressor. They propose that coping acts as a mediator between
dispositional factors, stress, and adaptational outcomes such as somatic health and
psychological adjustment. Lazarus and Folkman ( 1984) argue that the formation and
implementation of coping strategies is determined by both dispositional resources and
situational factors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Personality factors thought to
influence coping are a person’s values, commitments, knowledge, and motivation
(Carver et al., 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Thus, coping can be conceptualized as the concrete actualization of more
generalized dispositional variables in a specific stressful situation. In this sense,
coping is linked both to general personality factors and to the outcome of specific
events. Similarly, the present study conceives of religious coping as an intervening
variable that mediates between general religious dispositions and the outcome of
specific encounters.

Measprement pf Religieps Ceping

A clear understanding of religious COping’s connection to mental health
requires a review of efforts to measure this variable. Religious coping has often been
discussed in the non-religious coping literature as a unidimensional construct (e. g.,

Bjorck, 1991; Carver et al., 1989; Carver et al., 1993; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-

13
Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986, McCae & Costa, 1986; Stone & Neal, 1984).

However, just as dispositional religiousness has been found to be multidimensional,
research focusing on the study of religious coping has provided both theoretical and
empirical evidence that it, too, is, multidimensional in nature (Pargament et al., 1988;
Pargament, 1990; Pargament et al., 1990).

Two instruments are available to assess multiple aspects of religious
coping. Pargament et al.’s (1988) measure of religious coping, the Religious
Problem-Solving Scale, consists of 36 items that assess how the individual involves
God in the problem-solving process (Appendix A). Three religious problem-solving
styles were identified through factor analysis using an oblique rotation: l) a
”Collaborative” style that is characterized by active exchange with God, 2) a
”Deferring" approach in which the individual is passive and waits for God to solve
problems, and 3) a ”Self-Directing” style that emphasizes "the freedom God gives
people to direct their own lives" (Pargament et al., 1988, p. 90). This three-factor
solution accounted for 86% of the common variance.

Because religious problem-solving and religious coping are similar (in that
both concepts describe ways in which the individual applies his/her religious beliefs to
the resolution of stressful problems), research on religious problem-solving may shed
some light on the nature of religious coping. However, religious problem-solving and
religious coping differ in that religious problem-solving refers to more general styles
of involving God in problem resolution, while religious coping refers to concrete,
specific religious activities that help an individual alleviate stress (cf. Appendix A and

Appendix B).

14

However, Pargament et al. (1990) also have recently developed a measure
of concrete religious coping strategies (Appendix B). The assessment of specific
coping strategies in response to a specific stressful event is more consonant with the
conception of religious coping delineated in the previous section of this study and with
work on non-religious coping (e. g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1984). The Religious
Coping Activities Scale consists of 31 items describing a diverse range of religious
coping strategies. Factor analysis of the responses of 586 Christian church members
to this questionnaire yielded five empirically-derived factors (spiritually-based, good
deeds, discontent, religious support, and plead). In addition, one "theoretically”
derived factor was formed (religious avoidance). This factor solution accounted for
almost 100% of the common variance in the sample. lntcrcorrelations among these
factors have not been reported.

However, as Pargament has noted (personal communication, September
23, 1992), a number of the subscales on this measure have only a few items and
hence measure a limited range of potential coping strategies for that factor, leading to
factor scores that are potentially unstable. Equally important, some of these items are
vaguely worded, referring to multiple activities. For example, the "religious support”
factor is comprised of two items: "received support from clergy” and "received
support from other members of the church.” In the non-religious coping literature,
distinctions between problem-focused coping (coping strategies that aim to ameliorate
the troubled person-environment relationship) and emotion-focused coping (responses
that attempt to regulated distressing emotions) have provided important insights into

the psychological functions of coping (Carver et al., 1989). However, neither of the

15

"religious support" items above differentiates between these types of coping. The
"support from other members of the church" item could refer to emotional support
(e. g., venting emotions, positive reframing) or problem-focused support (e. g., a loan,
a place to stay, respite care). Because these distinctions were found to be important
in a study of religious coping that utilized an interview methodology (Ebaugh,
Richman, & Chafetz, 1984), it would be useful to maintain them in a questionnaire
format. Increasing the specificity of religious coping items may provide greater
insight into the religion-mental health link by clarifying how specific forms of
religious coping are related to particular religious dispositions, on the one hand, and
to psychological adjustment on the other.

Religieps Ceping and Dispositional Religieusness

Parallel to Lazarus and Folkman’s ( 1984) suggestion that dispositional
factors influence non-religious coping, dispositional religiousness may affect the
selection of religious coping strategies. One focus of this study is to explore the ways
in which dispositional religiousness is related to religious coping.

Questionnaire research using single-factor measures of religious c0ping
suggests a relationship between religious disposition and religious coping; in general,
higher levels of religiousness are associated with higher levels of religious coping
(Bjorck, 1991; Webster, 1988). In addition, different religious dispositions have been
related to different types of religious coping. Ebaugh et al. (1984), using an
interview methodology, provide evidence that members of different denominations
prefer different modes of religious coping. They report that in crisis situations,

Bahai’s and Charismatic Roman Catholics were more likely to pray and search for

16

social support than were Christian Scientists, who were more likely to engage in
positive reinterpretation. Furthermore, the Roman Catholics and Bahai’s differed in
the l_<i_nc_l of social support they sought. The Charismatics reported engaging in
emotional social support, while the Bahai’s sought advice from other congregation
members based on sacred writings. Although no questionnaire studies to date have
related multiple dimensions of religiousness to multidimensienal measures of religious
coping, a complex relationship between these variables has been suggested by
research utilizing the concept of "religious problem-solving."

A number of studies have found that while the use of religious problem-
solving styles, in general, is associated with significantly higher levels of involvement
in religion, different types of religiousness are related to different religious problem-
solving approaches (Pargament et al., 1988; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991). Orthodox
Christian beliefs and extrinsic religious commitment were associated only with the use
of a Deferring religious problem-solving style. However, intrinsic religiousness was
related to both Collaborative religious problem-solving and to Deferring problem-
solving (Hathaway & Pargament, 1990; Pargament et al., 1988; Schaefer & Gorsuch,
1991). In addition, Schaefer and Gorsuch (1991) reported that positive God-concept
(e.g. endorsement of adjectives describing God as ”loving,“ ”healing,” "benevolent,"
etc.) is also related to both Collaborative and Deferring styles.

While the differences between the working definitions of "religious
problem-solving" and "religious coping” make generalizations tentative, the above
research suggests that there is a relationship between an individual’s religious

disposition and his/her choice of religious coping strategy. This work suggests that

17

extrinsic religiousness may lead to reliance on a single type of religious coping
strategy characterized by a deferential style that emphasizes God’s omnipotent
activity. Intrinsic religiousness, in contrast, fosters multiple types of religious coping
efforts characterized by both reliance on God’s omnipotence and more interactive,
collaborative coping efforts in which the individual actively works with God to
resolve stressful events.
Religious Coping and Psychological Adaptation

As mentioned above, empirical studies suggest that religiousness is
significantly related to religious problem-solving styles. Research suggests that these
problem-solving styles, in turn, are related to psychological health. Three studies
(Hathaway & Pargament, 1990; Pargament et al., 1988; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991)
have reported that when the effects of deferring problem-solving on the collaborative
approach were statistically controlled, collaborative religious problem-solving was
positively related to good psychological adaptation (i.e. high self-esteem, low
anxiety). In contrast, when the effects of collaborative modes of problem-solving
were partialled out from deferring problem-solving, the deferring approach was
negatively related to psychological adjustment (Hathaway & Pargament, 1990;
Pargament et al., 1988; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991). However, due to conceptual and
measurement differences between religious problem-solving and religious coping, the
significance of these findings for an understanding of the mediational role of religious
COping (rather than religious problem-solving) is unclear.

One published study has investigated the relationship of religious gapipg

to mental health (Pargament et al., 1990). In a cross—sectional study of 586

l8

Christians, Pargament and his associates found that self-reported use of religious
coping predicted psychological and physical health beyond the effects of dispositional
religious variables (e. g., intrinsic orientation) and the use of non-religious coping. In
general, use of religious coping (total religious coping score) predicted fewer physical
and psychological symptoms. However, consistent with the findings on religious
problem-solving, this study found that different religious coping factors related
differently to mental health. Two religious coping factors accounted for the
predictive power of the total religious coping score. While the use of "spiritually
based” coping was predictive of better mental health outcome, the expression of
"religious discontent” (i.e. angry, disengaged feelings toward God) predicted negative
psychological adjustment.

In summary, the research on the measurement and predictive power of
religious coping suggests that: 1) dispositional religiousness exerts a direct effect on
religious coping; 2) religious coping exerts a direct effect on psychological
symptomatology; and 3) the use of strategies in which the believer collaborates with
God (collaborative coping) as well as strategies that rely on God’s omnipotence
(deferring coping) is related to positive psychological adjustment, while sole reliance
on deferring strategies or angry, disengaged coping correlates with negative
psychological outcome.

R Ii i in B ff r

None of the above studies explore the potential effects of stress on

religious coping and psychological adaptation; they have neither controlled for level of

life stress nor explicitly compared high versus low life stress subsamples. Research

19

on non-religious coping variables suggests that the negative effects of stress on
physical or psychological adjustment may be reduced by the presence of a coping
resource, for example, social support or cognitive coping strategies (Billings & Moos,
1981; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978).

A number of potential models have been proposed to describe how coping
resources help alleviate the negative impact of environmental stress. Some
researchers have argued that they enhance adjustment regardless of stress level
(Billings & Moos, 1985; Kessler & McLeod, 1985). In this "main effects” model,
persons reporting high utilization of the coping resource report better adjustment than
those who report low utilization of the coping resource regardless of reported level of
stress. Alternatively, researchers have suggested a second model which asserts that
the coping resource attenuates the deleterious effects of high levels of life stress while
having negligible positive effects at low levels. This has been referred to as "stress-
buffering" (see Cohen & Wills, 1985; Thoits, 1982; for reviews).

Furthermore, it has been argued that stress-buffering may be
conceptualized in two distinct ways (Finney, Mitchell, Cronkite, & Moos; 1984;
Wheaton, 1985). Both models produce results consistent with the definition of stress—
buffering. These two models differ, however, in expressing two ”analytically distinct
[possibilities regarding] the joint effects of stress and coping resources” (Wheaton,
1985, p. 353) on mental health. It needs to be emphasized, however, that while
these two models involve different interpretive logic and are supported by the
presence of different statistical effects in a full regression equation, they are

nevertheless, depicting two forms of the same stress-buffering phenomenon.

20

According to the traditional description of stress-buffering (Figure 1a), the
coping resource attenuates the effects of stress on symptomatology (e.g., Cohen &
Wills, 1985). Thus, in testing this model statistically, the moderating effect of the
statistical interaction between stress and coping is of primary interest (Finney et al.,
1984; Wheaton, 1985). In contrast, the second model delineates stress-buffering as
the conjoint action of three relationships (Figure 1b). In this model, stress exerts a
positive direct effect on symptoms but also mobilizes the coping resource, which, in
turn, operates in a direction opposite to the positive effect of stress on symptoms, that
is, coping negatively relates to psychological symptomatology (Kessler, 1983;
Wheaton, 1985). Because the stress-buffering effect is created by the conjoint action
of three relationships the model is referred to as an ”additive effects" model. In
testing this form of stress-buffering statistically, for example, in regression analyses,
the significance of the stress term is of interest in an equation regressing coping on
stress, as is the main effect terms of stress and coping in an equation regressing
symptoms on stress and coping. Thus, additive and interactive models can be
distinguished from one another primarily by 1) presence or absence of a statistically
significant stress x coping interaction term, 2) examination of the nature of the
relationship between exposure to stress and mobilization of the coping resource
(\Nheaton, 1985), and 3) the direction of the relationship between the coping resource

and adjustment (Finney et al., 1984; Wheaton, 1985).l

 

1 Researchers have noted that additive effects and interactive effects forms of stress-buffering are not
mutually exclusive. These direct and indirect stress-buffering effects may describe co-existing roles of the coping
resource in a single study (Finney et al., 1984; Wheaton, 1985).

21

Support for the additive effects model can be found in both theoretical
descriptions from religious writings and empirical research on religion and stress-
buffering. Religious thinkers have often described the stress-buffering role of religion
by proposing that religious coping is more useful to persons experiencing high levels
of stress2 than it is to persons under low levels of stress (e.g., Bakan, 1968; Fichter,
1986; Guntrip, 1956; Marty, 1990; May, 1940; Pruyser, 1963). More specifically,
however, theologians have delineated two important components to the additive effects
model of stress-buffering. First, they have argued that it is primarily in moments of
extreme ”ontological” anxiety (i.e. during periods of high stress) that the believer’s
religious capacity is most fully engaged (e.g., Kierkegarrd, 1843/1983; Niebuhr,
1941; Tillich, 1957). Perhaps the fiction writer Alice Walker (1982) has described it
most succinctly in writing:

God is inside you and inside everybody else. You come into

the world with God. . . . sometimes it just manifest itself

even if you not looking, or don’t know what you looking for.

Trouble do it for most folks, I think. (p. 177)

Thus, these religious writers suggest that stress has a direct, activating effect on
religious coping (i.e. they describe the positive relationship between stress and coping
in Figure 1b). This description of stress as activating the use of religious coping

suggests that the additive effects model (rather than the interactive effects model) may

 

’ Religious theory has not, to this point, articulated a precise definition of "stress" nor has it articulated
clear distinguished between types of stress commonly differentiated in the psychological literature (e. g., major life
events, daily hassles). However, it appears that religious thinkers are primarily referring to major life events (e.g. ,
birth, death, illness) as stressors.

22

be a more appropriate description of religious coping as a stress buffer because the
interactive effects model does not describe this direct, activating effect of stress on the
coping resource.

Other religious thinkers have emphasized that religious coping may reduce
psychological symptoms during extreme stress (Beck, 1986; Bellah, 1970; Berger &
Luckmann, 1967; Geertz, 1968; Little & Twiss, 1973). They have proposed that
religious experience functions psychologically to lessen anxiety engendered during
”boundary situations," events that make salient the limits of our capabilities and
knowledge (e.g., death, illness, birth). Thus these thinkers suggest that religious
coping serves to reduce psychological symptomatology during stressful periods (i.e.
they describe the negative relationship between religious coping and psychological
symptoms in the additive effects model) under high stress conditions.

The limited empirical research on religion and stress-buffering also
tentatively supports the additive effects model. However, research assessing the
relationship between religious coping and symptomatology in the context of stressful
life events is difficult to interpret because "religious coping" has been measured using
only one or two items, usually in the context of large epidemiological surveys. Only
one study supports the interactive model (Park et al. , 1990). Park and her co-
investigators report that in a prospective study of religious coping among Christian
college students, regression analyses revealed nonsignificant main effects for coping
and stress but a significant Coping X Stress interaction term. Greater self-reported

use of religious coping at Time I predicted fewer self-reported symptoms of

23

depression and anxiety at Time 2 for participants under high stress, but Time 1
religious coping and Time 2 depression were unrelated for students under low stress.
In contrast, results from a number of other investigations provide some
support for the additive effects model (Brown & Gary, 1987; Idler, 1987; Koening et
al., 1992; Krause & VanTran, 1989; Maton, 1989; Zuckerman, Kasl, & Ostfeld,
1984). In one undergraduate sample (Maton, 1989) and four elderly samples (Brown
& Gary, 1987; Idler, 1987; Koening et al., 1992; Krause & VanTran, 1989;
Zuckerman et al., 1984), the Stress X Religious Coping interaction term did not
significantly predict physical or psychological symptomatology. In addition, as
predicted by the additive effects model, the effect of stress on symptoms and on
religious coping in each of these studies was significant and positive, and religious
coping exerted a direct negative effect on symptomatology. However, these studies
present far from conclusive evidence for the additive effects model. None explicitly
sought to examine their data for this form of stress-buffering and, thus, did not report
statistical analyses that assessed whether the direct effect of stress on symptoms
increased when the effect of religious c0ping was controlled, as Wheaton (1985)
suggests is the case when an additive effects form of stress-buffering is present.
Thus, if the theoretical religious writings and empirical evidence on religiousness and
religious COping reviewed above are integrated, they suggest that religious coping may
act as a stress buffer according to the additive effects model depicted in Figure 2.
However, more explicit assessment of the potential way(s) in which religious COping

buffers the negative psychological effects of stress is needed.

24

Rationale for the Present Study

More than 90% of Americans report they believe in God and have had at
least one "religious experience” in their lives (Gallup -& Castelli, 1989). The majority
of "baby boomers" in a recent epidemiological survey stated they believe in God and
are formally affiliated with, or regularly attend, church (Roof, 1993). Thus,
religiousness and religious coping could play an important role in the psychological
adjustment of many individuals. An increased understanding of how different ways of
being religious contribute to adjustment, identification of variables that may mediate
between more general religious dispositions and psychological adaptation, and
identification of the circumstances under which religious factors affect mental health
could potentially lead to more effective psychological and religious interventions with
religious persons.

Research examining the complex relationships among stress, dispositional
religiousness, religious coping, and psychological adaptation suggests that 1)
dispositional religious factors are related to religious coping, 2) specific types of
religious dispositions may be related to preference for specific forms of religious
coping, 3) religious coping may act as an intervening variable that determines the
functional impact of religiousness on mental health, 4) some types of religious coping
may be related to mental health while others are not, and 5) religious coping may
exert its effects on psychological adjustment by buffering the negative impact of high

stress while having little relationship to psychological adaptation in low-stress

25

conditions (i.e. it may act as a stress buffer). (See Figure 3 for a summary of these
proposed relationships.)

However, much remains to be understood regarding these relationships.
These questions can be organized into three general areas that will serve as the focus
for this investigation: 1) understanding the nature of religious coping, 2)
understanding the relationship between trait-like religious dispositions and the use of
religious c0ping, and 3) understanding the relationship between the use of religious
coping and psychological adjustment. Lastly, the potential influence of demographic
factors on the relationship of religious coping and psychological adjustment will be
considered.

The nemre ef religieps mping. The research reviewed above suggests
that religious coping is a multidimensional construct (Pargament et al., 1990;
Pargament et al., 1988). Initial studies of the factor structure of religious coping
(Pargament et al., 1990) and of the related concept of religious problem-solving
(Pargament et al., 1988) indicated that religious coping consists of discrete
interpretable factors. However, as the above literature review discussed, difficulties
exist with both extant measures. Pargament et al.’s (1990) measure of religious
COping contains a number of ambiguously worded items that refer to conceptually
distinct domains of religious coping. In addition, some factors are comprised of only
a few items (e. g. , religious support) and, therefore, may inadequately sample the
domain of coping they purport to measure. Moreover, because factor analysis is
essentially a descriptive statistical procedure (Armstrong & Soelberg, 1968; Comrey,

1973), the factor structure of religious c0ping needs to be replicated in order to

26

determine whether proposed factors are, in fact, generalizable. This study will
explore further the factor structure of religious coping by conducting a factor analysis
of Pargament et al.’s (1990) religious coping activities scale in which ambiguous
items have been reworded or deleted and to which additional items that sample under-
represented domains of religious coping have been added (hypothesis 1).

The relatienship between dispositional religiousness and religious ceping.
Both theoretical writings and empirical research reviewed above suggests that trait-
like religious dispositions may be related to the use of religious coping. Lazarus and
Folkman’s (1984) conceptualization that non-religious coping is influenced by both
personality dispositions and situational factors sets the stage for our understanding of
religious coping as influenced by religious dispositions as well as situational stress.
The current study will explore the question of whether trait—like religious dispositions
are related to a believer’s self-reported use of religious coping (hypothesis II).

Further, this study will explore whether certain types of religiousness
relate to the use of certain forms of religious coping but not others (hypothesis III).
The few empirical studies that has been conducted addressing this question support the
assertion that religious dispositions are related to preferences for certain religious
problem-solving styles (Pargament et al., 1988) and forms of religious coping
(Pargament et al., 1992). Three types of religious dispositions have been consistently
distinguished in the literature (intrinsic religious orientation, extrinsic religious
orientation, and relatedness-to-God). Two of these dispositions have been found to
relate to specific forms of religious problem-solving (Pargament et al., 1988) and

religious coping (Pargament et al., 1992). Consistent with these empirical

27

investigations and with Allport and Ross’s (1967) conceptualization of intrinsic
religious orientation as one in which the believer attempts to integrate religion into all
aspects of life, it is predicted that intrinsic orientation in this study will relate to more
than one religious coping style (hypothesis III). In contrast, because extrinsic
religiousness has been related both theoretically and empirically to a more constricted,
utilitarian approach to religion, it is expected to relate to only a single form of
religious coping (hypothesis III). In addition, a third religious disposition, relatedness
to God (measured by Ellison’s (1983) religious well-being subscale) will be related to
religious coping. The relationship between this variable and religious coping has not
previously been investigated. However, theoretical work and empirical research
reviewed above suggests that persons who have a close personal relationship with God
may be more comforted by (and hence prefer) religious coping methods that rely on
communion with God (hypothesis III).

Empirical research on dispositional religiousness has examined the
relationship between religious orientation and religious coping. Researchers have
found that intrinsic orientation is associated with forms of coping in which the
believer shares responsibility for solving stressful circumstances with God as well as
forms of coping that rely on God to alleviate difficulties (Pargament et al., 1988;
Pargament et al., 1992). However, an extrinsic religious orientation has been found
to relate only to forms of coping that rely on God’s omnipotence to solve stressful
circumstances (Pargament et al., 1988; Pargament et al., 1992). Thus, this study will
add to the literature by further exploring the connection between specific religious

dispositions and forms of religious coping (hypothesis IV).

28
The relationships among stress, religious coping, and psychological

adjustment. Both the theological writings and empirical research reviewed above
suggest that religious coping may attenuate the negative effects of stress on
psychological adjustment. However, an additional critical question remains regarding
how religious coping reduces the deleterious effects of stress on adaptation. Two
forms of stress-buffering have been proposed in the stress and coping literature.
While empirical studies of religious COping tend to support an additive effects model
of stress-buffering, a test of this model, or of stress-buffering in general, has rarely
been the explicit focus of this research. Moreover, studies that report results
consistent with the additive effects model, have not thoroughly tested this model by
examining the effects of stress with coping controlled. Thus this study will examine
1) whether religious coping acts as a stress-buffer, and if so, 2) whether an additive
or interactive model of stress-buffering accurately describes religious coping’s effects
on adjustment (hypothesis V).

In addition, the few studies that have investigated the relationship of
religious coping (or religious problem-solving) and psychological adjustment suggest
that some forms of religious coping may be related to mental health while others are
not (Pargament et al., 1988; Pargament et al., 1990; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991). It
is expected that, consistent with previous findings, forms of religious coping that
balance reliance on God with responsibility for solving one’s problems will be related
to better adjustment, while forms of religious coping that rely solely on God’s
omnipotence to solve difficulties will be related to poorer mental health (hypothesis

VI). Additionally, consistent with findings on religious problem-solving (Pargament

29

et al., 1988; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991), it is predicted that forms of religious coping
that express the believer’s alienation or disengagement from his faith will relate to
poor psychological adjustment (hypothesis VI).

Religious Coping and Demographic Factors. Although large national
surveys suggest that persons who rate themselves as more "religious" tend to be
older, female, African American, and employed in unskilled occupations (e. g.,
Princeton Religious Research Center, 1982), relatively few empirical studies have
investigated how these demographic factors may affect the use or efficacy of religious
coping. The few studies that have examined this relationship suggest that the
connection between religious coping and better psychological adjustment transcends
issues of age, gender, and socioeconomic status.

Both religious problem-solving and religious coping have been associated
with better adjustment among college students (Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991; Park et
al., 1991) and middle-age adults (Pargament et al., 1988; Pargament et al., 1990).
Only one study of college students reported that religious coping factors were
negatively related to better mental health (Pargament et al., 1991). Similarly, the
stress-buffering effects of religious coping have been found in college students
(Maton, 1989; Park et al., 1990) as well as the elderly (Brown & Gary, 1987; Idler,
1987; Koenig, et al., 1992; Krause & VanTran, 1989; Zuckerman et al., 1984).
Some of these studies note that the demographic variable of age is positively
correlated with better adjustment independent of religious variables (Brown & Gary,

1987; Koenig et al., 1992; Pargament, 1990).

30

Although differences between men and women have not been as
consistently examined, investigators who conducted separate analyses for men and
women or who report correlations of gender with coping and mental health have not
found significant differences (Chan, 1994; Park et al., 1990; Pargament et al., 1988).
Consistent with national demographic data on religiousness that indicates women tend
to be more religious and participate more actively in their faith (e. g., Princeton
Religious Research Center, 1982), the majority of participants in studies of religious
coping were women (Pargament et al., 1988; Pargament et al., 1990; Schaefer &
Gorsuch, 1991; Idler, 1987). Moreover, while most large national surveys in an area
of religious research similar to religious COping (i.e. ”faith development"), report that
differences between men and women are not statistically significant, a few statistically
significant gender differences have emerged suggesting that women are more likely to
utilize ”relational” or social support aspects of their faith than men (e.g., Antosz,
1990; Gallup & Poling, 1980; Stokes, 1987).

Socioeconomic status has been assessed in only a minority of studies
(Pargament et al., 1988; Pargament et al., 1990). While it has not been related to
religious variables in these studies, Pargament et al. (1990) found it was significantly
correlated with better overall mental health.

Because age has occasionally been found to relate to more positive
psychological adjustment, its effects will be partialled out of regression results in this
study. Moreover, the relationship of gender and socioeconomic status to both
dependent and independent variables will be examined prior to testing study

hypotheses.

31

Stud H otheses

Utilizing the above literature review as a guide, six hypotheses were
formulated. Predictions are grouped according to the general issue they address.
Hierarchical multiple regressions were used to test proposed relationships among
religiousness, stress, religious coping, and psychological adaptation.

In the first set of hierarchical equations, religious coping was regressed on
three types of dispositional religiousness (intrinsic, extrinsic, and religious well-being)
and stress3. After examining the relationship between stress, dispositional
religiousness variables, and overall religious coping (hypothesis II), the relationship of
individual dispositional religiousness variables to individual religious coping factors
was explored by examining the incremental increases in predictive variance each
dispositional variable explained when the effects of the other dispositional variables
were partialled out (A32) (hypothesis III & IV). I

In the second set of regression equations, psychological symptomatology
was regressed on stress and religious coping. An additive effects stress—buffering

model (hypothesis V) was tested by examining regression coefficients for stress

 

3 As Figure 3 indicates, this study hypothesized that variation in religious coping would be predicted by
both stress and dispositional religiousness. Thus both were entered into regressions predicting religious coping.
Note that hypotheses regarding the role of dispositional religiousness in predicting religious coping are described
in hypothesis II, III, and IV. However, the relationship of stress to religious coping is related to the stress-buffering
hypothesis (V). Therefore, although regressions predicting religious coping contained both stress and dispositional
religiousness variables (intrinsic, extrinsic, religious well-being), the rationale for inclusion of each variable and
the relationships predicted derive from different sets of hypotheses. To simplify reporting results, regression
analyses predicting religious coping from stress and dispositional religiousness will be reported under hypotheses
II, III, and IV; however, the stress—religious coping relationship will be reiterated in the stress-buffering section for
hypothesis V.

32

predicting overall religious coping and stress and overall religious coping predicting
symptomatology (see Figure 2). Then, the relationships of individual religious coping
factors to symptomatology were explored by examining the incremental increases in
predictive variance each religious coping factor explained when the effects of the
other religious coping factors were partialled out (A32) (hypothesis VI).

Hypothesis Regarding the Measurement of Religious Coping

I. A factor analysis of the religious coping scale developed for this study

was conducted. It was predicted that more than one factor would emerge.

H othesisR din theR le f tr 35 n Di siio lRelii nes i Pr i in

Religieus Coping

II. As depicted in Figure 3, it was hypothesized that religious coping would
be positively related to both stress level and dispositional religiousness.
To test this assertion, overall religious coping was regressed on
dispositional religiousness (intrinsic, extrinsic, religious well-being) and
stress (Table 1). The order of entry for the religiousness terms (intrinsic,
extrinsic, or religious well-being score) was rotated so that unique effects
of each type of religious disposition could be tested for statistical
significance (Table 1). It was expected that each type of dispositional
religiousness would explain significant variation in overall religious

coping.

33

Hypotheses Regarding Individual Dispositional Religiousness Measures and Individual

Religious Coping Factors

111.

IV.

The relationships between individual dispositional variables and individual
religious coping factors were also explored. Both intrinsic religiousness
and religious well-being were expected to predict significant variation in
more than one religious coping factor, while extrinsic religiousness was
expected to be significantly related to the use of only one coping factor.
Consistent with Pargament’s previous work, intrinsic religiousness was
expected to explain significant variation in forms of religious coping in
which the individual shares responsibility with God. Intrinsic
religiousness was also expected to predict forms of coping that rely on
God to relieve difficult circumstances. However, extrinsic religiousness
was expected to be related to a more passive c0ping style.

Both hypothesis III and IV were tested by examining the amount of
variance in individual religious coping factors explained by each type of
dispositional religiousness beyond the effects of stress and the other two
forms of dispositional religiousness (Table 1). Thus each religious coping
factor (God-centered, people-centered, bargaining, and alienated) was
regressed on stress and the three dispositional religiousness variables

(intrinsic, extrinsic, and religious well-being). The statistical significance

. of incremental increases in A32 for each dispositional religiousness

variable when entered last in the regression equation was examined.

2 win I11 51.1 a

34
Hypothesis Regarding the Role of Stress and Religious COping in Predicting

Psychological Adjustment

V. Consistent with the additive effects model of stress-buffering depicted in
Figure 2, it was hypothesized that stress would be significantly positively
related to psychological symptomatology and significantly positively
related to overall religious coping; however, overall religious coping
would be significantly negatively related to symptomatology. To test this
hypothesis, three hierarchical equations were computed by entering the
stress term first, overall religious coping score second, and the interaction
term (stress x religious coping) last,‘ to predict 3 indices of psychological
symptomatology (total symptom score; depression score; anxiety score)
(Table 1). In addition, results from the regression of stress and
dispositional religiousness variables was examined to determine whether
stress predicted significant variation in religious coping. It was
anticipated that the interaction term would not explain a statistically
significant amount of variation in any of the three symptom indices.
Further, it was anticipated that both the stress term and the religious
coping term would explain significant variation in measures of

psychological adjustment and that stress would predict significant variation

 

‘ Because this study is concerned with testing which form of stress-buffering characterizes religious
coping, regression equations will include terms that test for the interaction effects model (i.e. a stress x coping
interacrion term) as well as the additive effects model. As Wheaton (1985) suggests "for future research...the
emphasis must be on complete models—rather than on single equations-4f we are to fully understand stress-
buffering. Consideration of results of a single regression analysis... or with only whether coping has... [an]
interactive effect is insufficient" (p. 360).

35

in religious coping. Standardized beta coefficients were examined in the
full regression equations to determine whether stress was positively
associated with symptoms and religious coping, and whether religious
coping was negatively associated with symptoms. In addition, if
examination of the standardized partial regression coefficients indicated
that religious c0ping was functioning as a suppressor variable (i.e. if it
was positively related to stress and negatively related to symptoms), then
its suppressor role would be further explored by determining whether the
impact of stress on symptoms increased when religious coping was

controlled (Wheaton, 1985, p. 357).

Hypothesis Regarding IMivid’egl Religious Coping F_a_ctors end Psyehologigl

Adjustment
VI.

It was expected that individual religious coping factors would be
differently related to symptomatology. Consistent with Pargament’s work,
it was expected that coping that balanced collaborative strategies with
deferring strategies would be significantly negatively related to
symptomatology while coping that consisted solely of deferring or
disengaged strategies would be positively related to symptoms. To test
this hypothesis, three indices of symptomatology (overall symptom score,
anxiety score, depression score) were regressed on stress and the religious
coping factors (God-centered, people-centered, bargaining, alienated)

(Table 1). The amount of variance in psychological symptomatology

36

explained by each form of religious coping, with effects of stress and the
other religious coping factors partialled out, was tested for statistical
significance, and the standardized partial regression coefficients were

examined.

METHOD
Participants

Participants were 511 undergraduates at Michigan State University who
completed study questionnaires in order to fulfill their research participation
requirement. Data from eight subjects were not included due to extremely aberrant
response patterns and/or behavior during testing suggesting that the individual was not
answering accurately. For example, one student was observed alternately dozing and
then answering numerous questions without referring to the questionnaire.

The remaining 503 subjects were used for all subsequent data analyses.
The mean age of participants was 20.10 years, more than 60% were female, most
were Caucasian, and the majority were Christian (Tables 2 and 3). Few participants
indicated they did not believe in God. All subjects were retained for data analysis
regardless of the degree of religiousness they endorsed or the type of religion they
professed (e.g., Christian, Jewish, Muslim).

M ure

Participants completed a battery of measures that assessed the constructs
of interest in this study: dispositional religiousness, religious coping, stressful life
events, and psychological adjustment. The scales are described below.
Dispesitiepal Religiepsness

Three measures of dispositional religiousness were obtained. Each
assesses a different religious attitude.

Ingipsie religieps prientetien. This study used Allport and Ross’s (1967)

nine-item subscale of intrinsic religious commitment. Subjects rate how much they

37

38

agree or disagree with statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =1 definitely disagree;
5=I definitely agree). Items include statements such as ”My religious beliefs are
what really lie behind my whole approach to life.” Kuder Richardson internal
consistencies for the intrinsic subscale have generally been above .85 (e. g., Kahoe,
1974; Spilka, Stout, Minton, & Sizemore, 1977). However, some researchers have
reported alpha internal consistencies as low as .67 (Batson, 1976). The internal
consistency for the current sample (fl=503) was alpha=.88. Allport and Ross’s
scale has demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability and validity which has been
extensively reviewed in the literature (e. g., Donahue, 1985b; Robinson & Shaver,
1973). Intrinsic orientation was calculated by totalling responses to the nine items on
the intrinsic subscale. Higher scores indicate greater intrinsic orientation or
commitment. See Appendix C for a copy of this measure.

Exgipsie religieus oriengtien. This dimension of religiousness was
measured using Allport and Ross’s (1967) ll-item subscale of extrinsic religious
commitment. As was the case for the intrinsic subscale, subjects rate how much they
agree or disagree with statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =1 definitely disagree;
5=l definitely agree). Items include statements such as ”The primary purpose of
prayer is to gain relief and protection. " Researchers have reported alpha reliabilities
ranging from .69 to .82 and test-retest reliabilities above .80 for this scale. (For
reviews see Donahue, 1985b; Hood, 1971; Robinson & Shaver, 1973.) The internal
consistency for the present sample was alpha=.68. Extrinsic orientation was

calculated by summing the 11 items on the extrinsic subscale. Higher scores indicate

39

greater commitment to an extrinsic orientation. See Appendix C for a copy of this
measure.

Relatedness to God. This religious attitude was assessed using the 10-
item "religious well-being" (RWB) subscale of Ellison’s (1983) Spiritual Well-Being
Scale (SWBS). To complete the RWB, subjects rate how much each statement
describes meir pwn personal religious experience by agreeing or disagreeing with
each statement on a five-point Likert scale (1 =strongly disagree; 5 =strongly agree).
Subjects are asked to respond to items such as, "I don’t find much satisfaction in
private prayer with God" (reverse scored), and ”I have a personally meaningful
relationship with God. " The SWBS as a whole has demonstrated test-retest reliability
above .85 in three samples after one, four, and ten weeks. (For a review see Bufford
et al., 1991.) Internal consistency (alpha coefficient) for the religious well-being
subscale was above .84 in eight samples. (Bernardo, 1988; Bufford et al., 1991.)
Internal consistency for the present sample for the religious well-being subscale was
alpha=.93. The validity of this subscale has also been established (see literature
review above). Total score on the RWB subscale was employed as a measure of
relatedness to God with higher scores indicating greater relatedness. See Appendix C
for a copy of this measure.

R li ' s in

This study utilized a new measure of religious coping that builds upon
Pargament et al.’s 1990 Religious Coping Activities Scale (RCAS). Unambiguous
items from the RCAS were retained. In addition, a number of items that describe

different types of specific problem-focused and emotion-focused COping activities were

40

added. For example, the item "My faith showed me different ways to handle the
problem” (Pargament et al., 1990) was replaced by specific coping activities such as
”I used my faith to decide what action I should take to change the situation" and "I
tried to see what positive lesson God was trying to teach me.”

Forty-six religious c0ping activities were selected from a larger list
generated by compiling items from other religious coping scales (e.g., Bjorck, 1991)
and asking five religious graduate students (2 male and 3 female) to generate
descriptors of additional ways in which they used their religion during times of stress.
The final selection of items is intended to assess a diverse repertoire of religious
coping activities. These items reflect problem-focused, emotion-focused, and
avoidant approaches to coping and describe the use of many different types of
religious resources: interpersonal, spiritual, cognitive, social, and tangible/material.

Study participants indicated the degree to which they employed the
described religious activity when c0ping with the events of the past 6 months. A
four-point Likert scale (1 =not at all; 4=a lot) was used. A principal factors analysis
of these items yielded a four factor solution (God-centered, person-centered,
bargaining, and alienated religious coping). The overall Religious Coping Scale
demonstrated an internal consistency reliability of alpha =.93. The religious coping
factors demonstrated alpha reliabilities of .95, .79, .84, and .70, for God-centered,
people-centered, bargaining, and alienated religious coping, respectively. See

Appendix C for a copy of this measure.

41

Stressful Life Events

The College Student Life Events Schedule (CSLES; Sandler & Lakey,
1982) was used to assess stressful life events. Subjects report whether 111 specific
life events occurred in the last six months. They then indicate whether an
experienced event was negative, neutral, or positive. In addition, this measure of life
events was developed for the particular life circumstances of college students and
therefore contains a number of potentially stressful items that may tap salient stressors
(e. g., course work) for this age-group that other life events scales do not include.
The CSLES has high test-retest reliability. Sandler & Lakey (1982) report a 2-day
test-retest reliability coefficient for the total event score of ;=.92.

A number of studies have demonstrated that a simple count of self-rated
negative life events is an efficient strategy for assessing recent stress (e.g., Nelson &
Cohen, 1983; Swearingen & Cohen, 1985). Therefore, this study obtained stress
scores by summing the number of self-rated negative life events for the past six
months. Higher scores indicate a greater number of stressful life events in the past
year. See Appendix C for a copy of this measure.

h l i i n

The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL), developed by Derogatis and his
associates, was used to assess the level of psychological symptomatology. Subjects
report the extent to which they have experienced 45 psychological symptoms for the
preceding six months (Derogatis, Lipman, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974). Ratings are

made on a Likert scale (1 =not at all; 4=extremely). The HSCL assesses

42

psychological distress along five subscales: somatization, obsessive-compulsive,
interpersonal sensitivity, anxiety, and depression (Derogatis et al., 1970). However,
due to high intercorrelations among the subscales, total scale score is often used as an
outcome variable (e.g., Derogatis et al., 1970; Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, &
DeLongis, 1986). In this study, HSCL factors were moderately correlated, ranging
from .56 to .77 (Table 4). However, because much of the research on religiousness
and psychological adjustment has focused on outcome measures of depression and
anxiety, this study will examine the effects of independent variables on both a total
symptom score and separate depression and anxiety subscale scores. All subscales as
well as total scale scores have demonstrated test-retest and internal consistency
reliabilities above .80. (See Derogatis et al., 1970, for a review.) In the current
study HSCL total score alpha was .94; depression, anxiety, somatic, obsessive-
compulsive, and interpersonal sensitivity subscale internal consistency reliabilities
were .80, .80, .80, .85, and .77, respectively. A number of studies indicate that the
HSCL also possesses adequate criterion validity. (For a review see Derogatis et al.,
1974.) Moreover, the HSCL has demonstrated sensitivity to low levels of symptoms
in normal populations (Rickels, Lipman, Garcia, & Fisher, 1972; Uhlenhuth, Lipman,
Balter, & Stern, 1974). Both the total HSCL symptom score was calculated by
summing all HSCL items. HSCL subscale scores for depression and anxiety were
calculated by adding responses for these subscales. See Appendix C for a copy of
this measure.

General Demegraphic and Religious Infermatien. General demographic

information (e.g., age, gender, parental income) was also obtained to determine

43

whether these factors account for spurious correlations in the measures of interest.
Demographic questions regarding gender, age, and ethnicity, as well as history of
religious affiliation and level of religious involvement, were obtained in order to
examine variables possibly confounded with study variables (e. g., gender or SES may
be confounded with both religiousness and symptomatology). Socioeconomic status
was assessed using a questionnaire form of the Revised Duncan Socioeconomic Index
(Stevens & Featherman, 1981). See Appendix C for a copy of demographic
questions.
Pr r

The battery of questionnaires was administered to 511 subjects during
Spring Semester, 1993. Surveys were administered in groups of 50. Prior to
participation, subjects were invited to read the consent statement in their packet while
the first author read the statement aloud (see Appendix D for a copy of consent
statement). Participants indicated their consent by turning in completed questionnaires.
Subjects finished all measures in approximately 1 1/2 hours. A number of reminders
were printed on the questionnaires and on the black board at the front of the room to
help minimize errors in completing questionnaires (e.g., reminders to check the
number on Scantron sheet at the bottom of each page and to think of events in the last
six months). The author and at least one research assistant were present at all
administrations in order to insure standardization of instructions and answer questions.
No negative effects on participants were observed or reported from the completion of

this battery.

RESULTS

This study investigated the role of dispositional religiousness and religious
coping in attenuating the connection between stressful life events and psychological
symptomatology. Because it focuses on comparing different types and levels of
religiousness, all study participants were retained for data analysis regardless of their
level of interest in religion or their religious affiliation. In addition, because this
study tests hypotheses requiring a number of multiple regression equations,
conservative significance levels were used (i.e. p < .01).

Measurement pf Religious Coping (Hypothesis 1)

It was hypothesized that, consistent with previously published research on
religious problem-solving and religious coping, factor analysis of the religious coping
questionnaire would yield more than one factor. After 11 items were eliminated due
to extreme positive skew or restricted range (Afifi & Clark, 1984; Gorsuch, 1985),
35 items from the religious coping scale were entered into a principal factors analysis
with squared multiple correlations used as initial commonality estimates and a
Varimax rotation. Using Cattell’s scree test and Kaiser’s criterion in conjunction with
interpretability (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987), a four-factor solution was chosen which
accounted for almost 100% of the common variance and 50% of the total variance in
religious coping items (Table 5). Final commonalities ranged from .17 to .73. (See
Table 6 for final commonalities for each item.)

Items were retained on a factor if their correlation with that factor (i.e.
factor loading) was greater than .40 (Gorsuch, 1985), and their correlation with the

other three factors was statistically significantly lower than their correlation with the

44

45

factor on which they loaded.5 This criterion was met for all items except two on the
bargaining religious coping scale. The items ”prayed that God would help me forget
what had happened and get on with my life" and "hoped that God would take the
burden from me” correlated .40 and .41, respectively, with the God-centered coping
factor, and .49 and .51, respectively, with the bargaining religious coping factor.
These two items were therefore eliminated from the scale. (See Table 7 for complete
item factor loadings.)

Internal consistency reliabilities were calculated for the total religious
coping scale (alpha=.93) and each religious coping factor (.95, .79, .84, .70 for
God-centered, people-centered, bargaining, and alienated religious coping,
respectively) (Table 8). Religious coping factors scores demonstrated a wide range of
correlations with the total religious coping scale score (;=.94 to ;=.18) and moderate
to low correlations among each other (;=.59 to I =-.04) (Table 9).

The first factor, labeled God-centered religious coping, emphasizes a
personal, loving, close connection with God that is utilized to provide emotional
reassurance, positive reframing of negative events, and acceptance of personal
limitations and loss of control. Of the four religious coping factors, God-centered
religious coping explained the largest percentage of common variance in religious
cOping and was used most frequently in this sample (Tables 5 and 8).

In the second factor, people-centered religious coping, the emphasis shifts

from a personal connection with the Divine to reliance on emotional forms of social

 

5 Thus for 503 subjects, the minimum difference between factor loadings needed to equal or exceed .07
(p< .05) for an item to be retained on a factor (Comrey, 1973; Gorsuch, 1985).

46

support from members of one’s religious community. People-centered religious
coping accounted for more than 10% of the common variance in religious coping;
however, of the four religious coping factors, it was the least frequently used in this
sample (Tables 5 and 8). l

The third religious coping factor, bargaining religious coping, assesses a
domain of religious coping in which the believer relies on God’s omnipotence to
mitigate stressful circumstances. This factor includes both exchange strategies, in
which the believer promises to change if God intercedes, and pleas for help. This
type of religious coping accounted for more than 15 % of the common variance in
religious coping and was frequently employed by study participants (Tables 5 and 8).
Interestingly, this factor also included the item ”let God know how angry I was

feeling. The high correlation of this item with other bargaining strategies suggests
that participants may have interpreted this item as a manipulative expression of anger
in the hope that God will intervene to alleviate suffering. A

In contrast to the previous religious coping factors, the fourth factor,
alienated religious coping, measures active struggling with negative emotions toward
God and one’s religious community and feelings of distance from one’s faith. This
coping strategy explained about 6% of the common variance in religious coping

(Table 5).

Th R : f Di uiio l Rli-oisn- in Print tin e - f Rlii um-
(Hypetldesis II)

Participants in this study reported a moderate level of dispositional

religiousness as reflected in scores of intrinsic religious orientation (ls/1:258),

47
extrinsic religious orientation (M=2.58), and religious well-being (M=3.45). The

reported level of religious coping was low (M=2.02) (Table 10).

Dispositional religiousness measures demonstrated a wide range of
intercorrelations (Table 11). Extrinsic religious orientation was significantly but
modestly correlated with both intrinsic religiousness and religious well-being (;=.25
and [=.23, respectively). However, intrinsic religious commitment was highly
correlated with religious well-being (;=.80). Religious coping factors demonstrated
low to moderate intercorrelations (ranging from [=-.04 to [=.59). However, they
were generally moderately to highly correlated with two dispositional religiousness
variables. Both intrinsic religious orientation and religious well-being demonstrated
high correlations with God-centered and people-centered religious coping, moderate
correlations with bargaining religious coping, and low correlations with alienated
religious coping (Table 11). Extrinsic religious orientation was modestly correlated
with bargaining religious coping and demonstrated low correlations with other
religious coping factors (Table 11).

Three hierarchical multiple regressions" were conducted to assess the
influence of dispositional religiousness on the use of religious coping. It was
hypothesized that dispositional religiousness would account for significant variation in

religious coping (hypothesis II). To test this hypothesis, the three dispositional

 

‘5 To assess whether regression assumptions of linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity were violated,

scatter diagrams and residuals for each regression equation were examined. Specifically, to insure that a linear
relationship existed between the dependent and independent variables, each dependent variable was plotted against
each independent variable. To assess whether, for each value of the independent variable, values of the dependent
variable were normally distributed, a histogram of the residuals was examined for each regression equation. The
assumption of homoscedasticity was examined by plotting regression residuals against predicted values of the
criterion. For all sets of regression equations none of the regression assumptions were grossly violated.

48

religiousness variables (intrinsic, extrinsic, and religious well-being) were regressed
on total religious coping score, order of entry was varied so that the contribution of
each dispositional religiousness variable could be assessed beyond the effects of the
other two religious dispositions. Because age was significantly correlated with one of
the predictors in this set of regression equations (Table 12), and gender was
significantly correlated with outcome in regression equations addressing subsequent
hypotheses, the demographic variables of age and gender were entered first into all
multiple regression equations to partial out their effects and standardize the
regressions across analyses. Also, because stress was hypothesized to be related to
religious coping (hypothesis V and Figure 3), it was entered into the regression
equation prior to the dispositional religiousness variables to determine its effects.

As predicted, stress (4:132:03, p< .001), religious well-being (AE=.O7,
p< .001) and intrinsic religiousness (AE=.04, p< .001), each explained significant
variation in overall religious coping (Table 13). However, contrary to predictions,
extrinsic religiousness did not predict significant variation in overall religious coping
(ABZ=.00). Inspection of the standardized beta coefficients in a fully simultaneous
model indicates that, as predicted, increases in stress, intrinsic religiousness, and
religious well-being were associated with increases in overall religious coping.
However, while extrinsic religiousness was positively related to overall religious

coping, this beta coefficient did not attain statistical significance (Table 14).

49

The Relationship of Stress and Individual Dispositional Religiousness Factors
to [gividual Religious Coping Factors (Hypotheses III & IV)

It was predicted that intrinsic religiousness and religious well-being would
predict more than one form of religious coping (hypothesis III), and that intrinsic
religiousness would be related to forms of religious coping in which the individual
worked collaboratively with God and that relied on God to relieve difficult
circumstances (hypothesis IV). Extrinsic religious commitment, on the other hand,
was expected to be significantly related to only one form of religious coping
(hypothesis III) that utilized a more passive coping style relying on God’s
omnipotence to solve the problem (hypothesis IV)."

The influences of stress and individual dispositional religiousness variables
on individual religious coping factors were explored in a set of 12 regression
equations in which religious coping factors were regressed on stress and individual
dispositional religiousness measures (intrinsic, extrinsic, religious well-being). Order
of entry was varied so that the resulting increase in 32 reflects the incremental
contribution of the dispositional religiousness variable beyond the effects of stress and
the other two dispositional religiousness variables. As in the initial regression
equation, the demographic variables of age and gender were entered first to partial out

their effects and standardize regressions across analyses.

 

7

Although no specific hypotheses were formulated regarding the role of stress in predicting individual
types of religious coping, this predictor variable was included in the regression equations because the stress-
buffering model proposed in hypothesis V suggests it is related to religious coping. Potential differential effects
of stress on different types of religious coping will be reported in this section.

50

Examination of the proportion of variance accounted for in religious
coping by each individual dispositional religiousness measure over and above the
effects of the other two dispositional measures and stress indicated that different
dispositional religiousness variables contributed unique variance to different religious
COping factors (Table 15). Religious well-being predicted a significant proportion of
variance in God-centered coping (833:.10, p< .001) and bargaining religious coping
(AE=.O3, p< .001). Intrinsic religious orientation contributed unique variance to
God-centered (8133:.04, p< .001) and people-centered religious coping (AE=.11,
p< .001). Extrinsic religious commitment contributed significantly to the prediction
of bargaining (AE=.O7, p< .001) and alienated religious coping (ABj=.02, p< .01).
In addition, stress was a significant predictor of bargaining religious coping
(A&2=.07, p< .001) and alienated religious coping (Agf=.05, p< .001) but not of
God-centered (1:133:01) or people-centered religious coping (afl=.01) (Table 15).
Inspection of the standardized beta coefficients in a fully simultaneous model
containing all independent variables indicated that, as predicted, increases in
significant predictors were associated with increases in religious coping (Tables 16-
19).

- 'ol- of . r tno Rliio Cooin in Pric in P holoi l Ao'u men

(Em—VI
As shown in Tables 10 and 20, participants in this sample reported low
levels of religious coping (total religious coping, M=2.02) and psychiatric

symptomatology (total symptom score, M=1.82). Stressful life events score was

moderately correlated with psychiatric outcome, with correlations ranging from _r_=.32

51

to [=.50 (Table 21). Stress also demonstrated low to moderate correlations with
religious coping, with correlations ranging from t=.08 to t=.28 (Table 12).
Religious coping demonstrated low to moderate correlations with psychiatric
symptoms, ranging from _r_=.04 to t=.32 (Table 21).

Consistent with the additive effects model in Figure 2, it was hypothesized
that stress would predict significant variation in religious coping and symptoms and
would be positively related to both variables. Religious coping would also predict
significant variation in symptomatology and would be negatively related to symptoms.

A set of four regression equations tested an additive effects versus
interaction effects model of stress-buffering. In these analyses, demographics, stress,
and overall religious coping score were entered; the second-order stress X religious
coping interaction term was entered last to test its significance beyond the effects of
the first-order terms. The additive effects versus interaction effects model was tested
for three indicators of psychiatric distress (total symptomatology score, depression
score, and anxiety score). In addition, the regression of overall religious coping on
stress was examined to determine if stress predicted variation in religious coping.

Regression results indicate that, consistent with an additive effects model,
stress explained significant variation in overall religious coping (A32=.03, p< .001)
(Table 13) and psychiatric symptomatology (Table 22). Stress contributed
significantly to the prediction of overall psychiatric symptoms (Agz=.21, p< .001),
depression (A_R_2=.23, p< .001), and anxiety (A32=.11, p< .001). Overall religious
coping predicted significant variation in total psychiatric symptomatology (Ag2=.02,

p<.001) and anxiety (832:.04, p< .001) but not depression (AR’=.01). As

52

predicted, the stress X overall religious coping interaction terms did not explain
significant variation in psychiatric symptomatology scores (Table 22).

Examination of the standardized partial regression coefficients in a fully
simultaneous model indicates that, as predicted, stress exhibited a significant positive
relationship to religious coping (Table 14) and psychiatric symptomatology (Table
23). Contrary to predictions, total religious coping also exhibited a positive
relationship to psychiatric distress, although the beta coefficients did not attain
statistical significance for any of the psychiatric outcome variables (Table 23).
Interaction terms were dropped from subsequent regression analyses.

Th Rl flnivi leliio in Fc r tres inPr iin
PchlilA'umnH iVI

Hypothesis VI predicted that individual religious coping factors that
balanced collaborative strategies with deferring strategies would be negatively related
to symptomatology, while coping factors that consisted of disengaged or deferring
strategies would be positively related to psychiatric distress.

This hypothesis was tested in a series of 12 regression equations in which
the three psychological symptomatology variables (overall psychiatric symptoms,
depression, and anxiety) were regressed on the four individual religious coping
factors. Order of entry was varied so that the resulting increase in 32 reflected the
incremental contribution of the religious coping variable beyond the effects of
demographics, stress, and the other religious coping variables. Two aspects of the
resulting regression equations were examined to investigate hypothesis VI. First, the

increases in B} were inspected to determine which religious coping factors were

53

associated with psychological symptomatology. Second, the standardized partial
regression coefficients in a fully simultaneous model of psychiatric symptoms
containing all religious coping factors were examined to determine whether individual
religious coping factors were positively or negatively related to psychological
symptoms, when the effects of stress and alternate religious coping factors were
partialled out.

Examination of the increase in R? for each religious coping factor beyond
the effects of demographics, stress, and the other religious coping factors indicated
that God—centered religious coping and people-centered religious coping did not
contribute significant unique variance to the prediction of psychological symptoms
(Table 24). However, bargaining religious coping and alienated religious coping did
predict significant variation in all three measures of psychiatric symptoms (Table 24).
Bargaining religious coping contributed significant unique variance to overall
symptomatology (AE=.02, p< .001), depression (1:133:01, p< .001), and anxiety
(AE=.01, p< .01). Similarly, alienated religious coping predicted significant
variation in all three measures of psychiatric outcome (overall symptomatology,
A_R_2=.02, p< .001; depression, Agj=.02, p<.001; and anxiety, AE=.02,

p < .001).

Examination of standardized partial regression coefficients for the
individual religious coping factors suggests that, as predicted, psychological
symptomatology was positively (pet negatively) associated with the use of both
bargaining and alienated religious coping when the effects of the other religious

coping factors were removed (Tables 25-27). These results only partly confirmed

54

hypothesis VI, suggesting that, as predicted, disengaged (i.e. alienated) and deferring
(i.e. bargaining) religious coping were positively related to poor mental health
outcome. However, contrary to predictions, when the effects of other religious
coping factors were partialled out, collaborative religious coping (i.e. God-centered)
was non-significantly related to psychological adjustment (Tables 25-27).

Reli i us in as Me iat r Between Di si ion 1 Reli i n s
and Psychological Adjustment

Six exploratory regression analyses were conducted to examine whether
religious coping mediates the effects of dispositional religiousness on psychiatric
symptomatology. To test this post-hoe hypothesis the three psychiatric outcome
measures (overall symptoms, depression, anxiety) were regressed on two predictor
sets: 1) dispositional religiousness variables (intrinsic orientation, extrinsic orientation,
religious well-being), and 2) religious coping variables (God-centered, people-
centered, bargaining, alienated religious coping). The use of predictor sets implies a
theoretical grouping of the contribution of the variables making up each set but does
not affect the overall statistical computation (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The order was
varied to determine the unique contributions of each predictor set above and beyond
the effects of the other predictor set and stress.

As can be seen from Table 28, religious coping added significant
predictive variance to all three indicators of psychiatric symptomatology after the
effect of dispositional religiousness was partialled out. Similarly, dispositional
religiousness contributed unique variance to the prediction of overall symptomatology

and depression beyond the effects of religious coping. However, dispositional

55

religiousness did not predict significant variation in anxiety symptoms beyond the
effects of stress and religious coping. These results indicate that both dispositional
religiousness and religious coping style contribute significantly and uniquely to the
variance in overall psychiatric symptomatology and depression. However, for
anxiety, religious coping alone predicts level of symptomatology. Hence, religious
coping appears to mediate completely the effects of dispositional religiousness on

anxiety.

DISCUSSION

The relationship between religion and psychological adjustment has been
the focus of a vast array of empirical research dating back to G. Stanley Hall’s
investigations in the late 1800’s (e.g., Hall, 1904; Starkbuck, 1897). In this long
history of empirical work, religious variables have traditionally been viewed as trait-
like dispositions with little attention given to the underlying processes through which
dispositional religiousness might influence mental health. The present study examined
one process in which trait-like religious attitudes, or dispositions, might affect
psychological adjustment by influencing religious coping practices during stressful life
events. This conceptualization follows Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) work in non-
religious coping, by proposing that trait-like personality variables (i.e. dispositional
religiousness) and situational factors (i.e. life stress) influence coping activity and,
thus, psychological adaptation. The relationships among stress, coping, and
adaptation, were further explored by determining whether they were consistent with
either of two different models of stress-buffering (the additive effects and main effects
models).

Results of this study both support and challenge previous findings in
research on religion and psychological adaptation. Factor analysis of a new measure
of religious coping confirms that religious coping is a multidimensional construct.
The factor structure obtained in this study is similar to those obtained in other studies
of religious coping. Assessment of the relationship of dispositional religiousness to
religious coping confirms that different religious dispositions are associated with the

use of different types of religious coping. While intrinsic religiousness related to both

56

57

God-centered and people-centered religious coping, religious well-being was
significantly associated with only God-centered religious coping. Extrinsic
religiousness, on the other hand, predicted the use of bargaining and alienated
religious coping. Results of this study challenge previous research asserting that
religious coping is related to better psychological adjustment. In this study,
examination of individual forms of religious coping indicated that while God-centered
and people-centered religious coping were unrelated to mental health status, the use of
bargaining and alienated religious coping were predictive of psychological distress.
Finally, contrary to findings in the literature, results of this study suggest that
religious coping does not attenuate the negative psychological effects of stressful life
events.

Each of these findings will be discussed below in terms of their
implications for this study’s hypotheses and three areas of religious research:
measurement of religious coping, understanding of the relationship between religious
dispositions and religious coping activity, and the study of religious coping and
psychological adaptation.

M r m nt of Reli i in

Study results support the hypothesis that religious coping is a
multidimensional construct. Factor analysis yielded four interpretable religious
coping factors that describe relatively distinct aspects of coping.

The first factor, God-centered religious caping, emphasizes a personal
loving connection with God that aids the believer in emotion-focused coping efforts

(e.g., positive reinterpretation, anxiety reduction). This factor describes coping

58

activities similar to Pargament et al.’s (1990) ”spiritually-based” religious coping
factor and Pargament et al.’s (1988) collaborative religious problem-solving factor.
Fifty percent of the items from Pargament et al.’s (1990) spiritually-based factor
loaded on the God-centered factor in the current study. Although assessing
similarities with collaborative religious problem-solving is more difficult because it
refers to a more general approach to integrating religion into one’s life, God-centered
religious coping is similar to collaborative religious problem-solving in that both
factors assess the believer’s reliance on his/her relationship with God to help negotiate
life stressors.

One goal of this study was to obtain a larger, more varied sample of the
activities that comprise different religious coping strategies. Accordingly, two-thirds
of the items on the God-centered factor are new items not found on previous
measures. These new items specify other activities that are part of a God-centered
religious coping approach, including, for example, attempts to obtain atonement
and/or forgiveness from God for past wrong-doing. These additional items provided
a more comprehensive view of this type of religious coping compared to previous
studies.

Like Pargament et al.’s (1990) spiritually-based factor, God-centered
coping accounted for the largest percentage of common variance in religious coping in
this study. Thus for both church-going community members assessed in Pargament et
al.’s (1990) study and the young adult college students in the current sample, God-
centered, spiritually-based religious coping constituted the primary means of

translating religious beliefs and attitudes into methods of coping.

59

The second factor, people-centered coping, describes the use of one’s
religious community to aid in emotion-focused coping activity. One goal of this study
was to expand upon Pargament et al.’s (1990) two-item "religious support" factor by
adding items that would elaborate how persons used religious social support to cope
with stress.8 Expansion of this scale yielded more detailed information regarding the
type of social support believers seek. Examination of the six-item people-centered
religious coping factor suggests that while this sample tended to use members of their
religious communities for emotional support, they did not ask them for help in more
concrete, tangible ways. Items that had been added to this measure dealing with the
use of social networks for tangible or instrumental support (e.g., a loan, help caring
for an ailing relative) were so infrequently endorsed by this population that they were
dropped from the factor analysis. Thus, this study’s elaboration of Pargament et al.’s
(1990) religious support factor suggests that this form of religious coping is more
complex than Pargament et al.’s (1990) initial two-items suggests. It indicates that
this young adult sample utilized support networks primarily to aid in emotion-focused
coping efforts. However, use of religious social ties was more varied than Pargament
et al.’s initial two items would suggest. Participants used their religious relationships
for understanding and support, emotional venting, advice, and support through prayer.
However, the internal consistency of this scale (alpha=.79) was not appreciably
different from Pargament et al.’s (1990) Religious Support factor (alpha=.78). Thus,

while additional questions regarding social networks may have obtained a more

 

‘ Pargament et al.,‘s initial two-item scale consisting of asked only whether the participant "received
support from clergy” and "received support from other members of the church. "

60

representative sample of religious coping activity in this domain, they did not
significantly increase the internal consistency of the construct.

The third factor, bargaining religious coping, accounted for a significant
amount of the variance in religious coping in this sample. This religious coping
factor measures the believer’s attempts to engage God’s omnipotent power to change
troubling external circumstances. Both pleas for help and exchange strategies in
which the believer promises to change if God alleviates the stressor exemplify this
type of religious coping. This factor shares much in common with Pargament et
al.’s (1990) "plead” religious coping factor. Indeed, Pargament et al.’s "plead” item
”bargained with God to make things better" correlated most strongly with the
bargaining factor in the current study. However, the addition of items to this scale in
the current study more fully elucidates this method of religious coping. The new
scale specifies the type of bargaining believers use to help them cope with stressful
events--removing the stressor rather than modifying one’s emotional response to it.
The high internal consistency (alpha=.84) suggests that the scale measures a coherent
and discrete coping style. Moveover, the items added in this study improved the
internal consistency of Pargament et al.’s (1990) earlier scale (alpha=.6l).

The fourth factor, alienated religious coping, accounted for 6% of the
variance in religious coping. This factor measures active struggle with God and one’s
faith. Three of the four items comprising this factor are taken from Pargament et
al.’s (1990) ”discontent" factor. The internal-consistency reliability of this scale was
somewhat low (alpha=.70). Yet, it was slightly higher than the .68 alpha reported

by Pargament et al. (1990) for their three-item discontent scale. Examination of the

61

items that comprise this factor suggests that the low internal consistency reflects the
heterogeneity of the underlying construct. The uniting theme appears to be religious
struggle. However, items on this factor refer to struggles in both God-centered and
people-centered areas of faith and refer to both cognitive and emotional difficulties.

Thus, this study’s attempt to build upon Pargament et al.’s (1990) ground-
breaking factor analytic study of religious coping provided additional information
regarding the religious coping process. The four religious coping factors found in
this study are similar to the four factors described in Pargament et al.’s research.
The current study’s findings support Pargament et al.’s assertion that religious coping
is a multidimensional construct consisting of distinct, clearly-focused methods of
coping. Moreover, the current study extends our knowledge of religious coping by
finding that a number of factors from Pargament et al. ’5 research emerge in a factor
analysis of a different population. While Pargament et al. assessed middle-aged,
church-going Christians, this study examined religious coping among college students
of diverse religious orientations. The fact that four religious coping factors are
similar for both studies suggests that the underlying dimensions of religious coping
may be stable across diverse populations.

In addition, the measure used in this study adds significantly to Pargament
et al.’s previous effort by expanding the number of items on each scale, thereby
providing a more detailed view of each form of religious coping and marginally
improving the internal consistency reliability of the scales. Specification of religious
coping activities as either emotion-focused or problem-focused also provided added

information about the religious coping process. Participants in this study used

62

religion primarily to help regulate distressing emotions (emotion-focused coping). In
fact, three of the four religious coping factors focused exclusively on helping the
believer manage affect (God-centered, people-centered, and alienated religious
coping). However, one type of religious coping (bargaining) was more problem-
focused. This form of religious coping seeks to ameliorate the troubled person-
environment relationship.

Examination of the intercorrelations among religious coping factors in this
study reveals that while God-centered religious coping was moderately correlated with
people-centered and bargaining religious coping, these two shared only a small
percentage of common variance. Moreover, alienated religious coping was relatively
uncorrelated with the other forms of religious coping (1’ able 9). These findings have
both practical and theoretical significance. First, practically, the modest to low
intercorrelations among religious coping scales suggests that coping tendencies are
empirically distinct and that it is possible to study their differential effects on
psychological adjustment; in other words, analysis of the effects of separate religious
coping factors (rather than simply examining total religious coping) seems justified.
Second, theoretically, the fact that alienated religious coping was not highly inversely
correlated with the other religious coping scales suggests that people dealing with
stress engage in a wide range of religious coping strategies including contrasting
impulses such as feeling comforted by God’s presence and being angry or frustrated
with Him. Third, although intercorrelations are not high, scales do tend to correlate
in conceptually meaningful ways. For example, God-centered religious coping, which

focuses on using one’s relationship with God to help manage emotional reactions,

63

correlates significantly with bargaining religious coping, which also centers on using
one’s relationship with God. However, God-centered coping focuses on regulation of
internal affects while bargaining religious coping uses the believer’s relationship with
God to improve his/her external situation. Similarly, the moderate correlation
between God-centered and people-centered coping makes conceptual sense. God-
centered and people-centered coping focus on helping the believer regulate his/her
emotions by utilizing different aspects of his/her faith. God—centered coping focuses
on the believer’s relationship with God, while people—centered coping utilizes social
supports in the believer’s religious community.

This study’s conclusions regarding the factor structure of religious coping
must be viewed in light of a number of statistical and methodological limitations.
First, the factor analytic procedure used in this study, principal-factors analysis, is a
descriptive procedure (Comrey, 1973). Thus it cannot be assumed that the factor
structure described in this study will generalize to other samples of college students or
other populations. Although the factor solution obtained in this study is similar to
that obtained by Pargament et al. (1990), suggesting that the underlying structure of
religious coping is stable across populations, replication of these results with different
samples is needed before any firm conclusions regarding generalizability can be
drawn. Second, due to constraints in the data collection process, no test-retest
reliability data were obtained for this measure. Thus, the stability of factor scores
over time and the degree of fluctuation in scores due to random environmental factors
is unknown. Third, although results of the factor analysis suggest that this measure

assesses a number of theoretically valid religious coping domains, this study did not

64

obtain criterion-related validity for the religious coping scales. Thus, the extent to
which this self-report measure accurately assesses participants’ actual use of religious
coping cannot be determined.

Some of the reliability and validity limitations of the current study can be
addressed by examining the correlations between established measures of dispositional
religiousness and the religious coping factors. As was discussed in the literature
review, two measures of dispositional religiousness, religious well-being and intrinsic
religious orientation, have been consistently related to appropriate external criterion
indices of religious behavior. For example, religious well-being scores were
significantly higher among denominations that stressed a direct relationship with God
(Ellison, 1983). Intrinsic religiousness has been related to religious behavior such as
attendance in church, prayer groups, and bible study (see Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1992;
Donahue, 1985a; 1985b).

Religious coping factors in this study are significantly correlated in
theoretically meaningful ways with each of these indices of religiousness (Table 11).
God-centered religious coping was significantly correlated with a commitment to
religion as an integrating ”master motive” (i.e. intrinsic religious orientation) and with
a close personal relationship with God (i.e. religious well-being). Similarly, people-
centered religious coping demonstrated a significant correlation with intrinsic
religiousness. Thus, persons in this study who used religion as a master motive and
had a close relationship with God reported engaging in forms of religious coping
which utilize one’s relationship with God and one’s community of faith. Bargaining

religious coping was most highly correlated with extrinsic religiousness, which

65

reflects a utilitarian approach to religion. It also demonstrated lower but modest
correlations with intrinsic religious orientation and religious well-being. Alienated
religious coping displayed low correlations with all established measures of
religiousness. Thus, religious coping factors correlated with established measures of
religiousness in theoretically meaningful and empirically significant ways. These
correlations suggest that this study’s measure of religious coping may possess some

criterion-related validity.

 

As predicted, overall religious coping in this study was significantly

related to both trait-like religious dispositions and situational stress. However,
examination of the relationships between individual religious coping factors and
individual religious dispositions suggests a more complex connection between
dispositional religious variables and the use of religious coping. In this study,
specific types of religious belief were connected to the use of particular forms of
religious coping.

Intrinsic religious orientation explained significant variation in the use of
both God-centered and people-centered religious coping. As described in the
literature review, this type of religiousness serves as a ”master motive” that leads one
to integrate religion into all aspects of his/her life (Allport & Ross, 1967; Donahue,
1985b; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990); thus, it makes conceptual sense that this type of
religiousness was related to diverse forms of religious coping that utilize different
domains of faith. God-centered religious coping focuses on one’s direct connection to

God, while people-centered religious coping involves one’s community of faith.

66

Similarly, another dimension of dispositional religiousness measured in
this study, religious well-being, predicted the use of the two religious coping
strategies that use a direct connection to God (God-centered and bargaining religious
coping). This dispositional variable may have translated into a preference for these
particular forms of religious coping over others because religious well-being assesses
the strength of one’s personal relationship to God and God-centered and bargaining
religious coping revolve around use of a direct connection with God.

Extrinsic religious orientation was also significantly related to particular
religious coping styles, namely, bargaining and alienated religious coping. Allport
and Ross (1967) assert that persons who hold extrinsically oriented religious attitudes
view their faith as a means to some other end, such as security, solace, or self-
justification. Extrinsic orientation’s significant relationship to the use of bargaining
religious coping seems to reflect this more utilitarian approach. Bargaining religious
coping strategies are ones in which the believer attempts to enlist God’s omnipotent
power to change external problems. Thus it seems that the dispositional variable of
extrinsic religiousness, in which the believer sees religion as a means of achieving
personal goals, is translated, in the face of stressful life events, into coping activity
that reflects this utilitarian view by attempting to enlist God’s power to reverse events
that cause the believer emotional pain. Moreover, the significant relationship between
extrinsic religiousness and alienated religious coping may reflect the alternate outcome
of extrinsic forms of commitment to religion. In this case, the utilitarian extrinsic
approach toward one’s religion leads to angry, frustrated forms of religious coping in

the face of stressful events when religious beliefs and practices do not achieve self-

67

serving ends. Under these circumstances, the extrinsic is likely to view his/her
religion as a disappointing failure and hence feel distant and angry from it.

These findings are consonant with the overall findings reported in other
studies of the relationship between dispositional religious variables and religious
coping; however, they also diverge from past results. Consistent with the findings of
others, intrinsic religiousness relates to multiple forms of religious coping (Pargament
et al., 1988; Pargament et al., 1992; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991). However, this
study found that intrinsic religiousness was related primarily to active forms of
collaborative coping (God-centered, people-centered), while other studies report that
intrinsically oriented individuals also rely on methods of coping that emphasized
God’s omnipotent activity (Pargament et al., 1988; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991). This
difference in findings could be due to the different measures of religious coping used.
Schaefer and Gorsuch (1991) related intrinsic religiousness to three general styles of
religious problem-solving which do not map directly onto this study’s religious coping
factors, thus making precise comparisons difficult. However, the factor in this study
that most clearly embodies reliance on God’s omnipotence (bargaining religious
coping) did not relate to intrinsic religious commitment. Thus, it appears that this
study’s findings do not agree with research on religious problem-solving. The
findings regarding extrinsic religiousness and religious coping are consistent with the
previously reported association of extrinsic religious orientation with reliance on
God’s omnipotence (Pargament et al., 1988; Schaefer and Gorsuch, 1991) and
religious pleading (Pargament et al., 1990; Pargament et al., 1992). The consistency

of these results suggests that, across diverse populations (e.g., college student,

68

middle-age Christians) and measures of coping (e. g., religious problem-solving,
religious coping), a utilitarian attitude toward one’s religion translates into forms of
coping that focus on the use of God’s power to achieve personal goals.

The overall findings of this study regarding the connection between
dispositional religiousness and religious coping are consistent with those of both the
secular and religious coping literature. Consistent with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)
transactional model of coping, this study’s findings point to a connection between the
general orientation the individual brings to coping (i.e. religious dispositions) and the
specific forms of coping that he/she chooses. Religious attitudes may shape the
religious coping process in the same way other trait-like personality variables
influence choice of secular coping strategies. Religious coping efforts, like other
forms of coping, grow partly from the individual’s more general religious attitudes
and beliefs. In this way, generalized conceptions of faith are transformed into vital
forms of religious activity.

In addition to the above findings, the current study investigated the role of
stress in predicting religious coping. Other research has either not studied the
influence of stress on religious coping (Pargament et al., 1988; Pargament et al.,
1990; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1989) or has not measured its relationship to individual
types of religious coping (Maton, 1989; Park et al., 1990). Results of this study
indicate that while the use of God-centered and person-centered religious coping was
not influenced by stress, the use of both bargaining and alienated forms of religious
coping was significantly and positively related to the stress level. The fact that God-

centered and people-centered religious coping were not responsive to stress level

69

suggests that these forms of religious coping may not be used to manage stressful life
events but, instead, may be forms of faith that transcend the vicissitudes of daily life
and are consistently performed regardless of environmental factors. Thus they do not
conform to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) conception of coping as a response
influenced by both dispositional factors and situational stressors. Instead, these forms
of religious coping may function more like dispositional religious variables than
coping variables because they remain uninfluenced by situational factors. On the
other hand, both bargaining and alienated forms of religious COping were stress-
responsive in this study. Thus, these two factors appear to conform to Lazarus and
Folkman’s conception of coping as influenced by both disposition and situational
stress. These findings also underscore the importance of assessing individual
religious coping factors (rather than total religious coping) in the context of
dispositional religiousness and stressful life events if we are to attain a more complete
understanding of the religious coping process.

However, these findings should be understood in terms of a number of
limitations of this study. First, the magnitudes of several of the significant effects
were modest. Stress and dispositional religious variables accounted for less than 30%
of the variance in most religious coping factors. This finding underscores the
importance of viewing religious disposition as only one part of an individual’s larger
personality structure, other aspects of which may also influence the choice of religious
coping. Similarly, situational factors other than stress may influence religious coping.

Second, the correlational results of this study do not address the

directionality of the relationship between dispositional religiousness and religious

7O

coping. It may be that religious coping efforts influence general religious
dispositions. For example, an individual may seek-out religious experience during
times of great stress even though he/she has not consistently integrated religion into
his/her life. Based on this initial religious coping effort, the individual may change
his/her belief system and religious attitudes. In addition, dispositional variables and
religious coping practices may mutually influence one another. Further research is
needed to tease out the direction of these effects and rule out the potential influence of
extraneous variables.

The R le f tre 3 nd Reli i in in Pr ictin Ps cholo i l A ' ment

As predicted, stress was significantly related to increased psychological
symptomatology in this study. However, contrary to predictions, overall religious
coping was also significantly associated with increased symptomatology. God-
centered and people-centered religious coping were unrelated to psychiatric status;
however, as expected, bargaining and alienated religious coping were associated with
increased psychological symptoms.

Thus, investigation of the relationship between individual religious coping
factors and psychological symptoms revealed a complex pattern of relationships,
underscoring the importance of conceptualizing religious coping as a multidimensional
construct. Studies that attempt to assess religious coping as a single factor (e. g.,
Bjorck, 1991, Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986) or a single item (Park et al.,
1990) do not accurately determine the relationship of religious coping to
psychopathology because they cannot provide a fine-grained picture of which types of

religious coping aid the believer in dealing with stress and which exacerbate his/her

71

difficulties. Unfortunately, interpretation of the current study’s results in the context
of other studies that measure multiple dimensions of religious coping is inconclusive,
at least in part due to methodological differences in measurement of religious coping,
measurement of outcome, study design, and population sampled (see Table 29).

The non-significant results in the current study regarding God-centered
religious coping were unexpected in view of the fact that most research has
demonstrated a positive relationship between God-centered religious coping (and
related constructs) and mental health (Table 29). However, closer examination of
sample demographics for studies reporting this relationship suggest that it is most
consistent among homogeneous samples of practicing Christians. Pargament and his
colleagues have found significant relationships between positive psychological
adjustment and two constructs similar to God-centered religious coping Christian
groups. In three separate stratified random samples of middle-aged, Christian church
members, collaborative religious problem-solving was significantly associated with
higher self-esteem and psychosocial competence (Hathaway & Pargament, 1990;
Pargament et al., 1988) and spiritually-based religious coping was related to fewer
overall psychiatric symptoms (Pargament et al., 1990). Similarly, Schaefer and
Gorsuch (1990) report that collaborative religious problem-solving was related to
lower levels of anxiety among a non-random sample of students enrolled at a
Christian college.

The three studies of college students from diverse religious backgrounds
(including the current one), suggest that, in this population, the relationship between

God-centered religious coping and lower levels of psychiatric symptomatology is less

72

consistent. As in the present study, Pargament et al. (1991) found no cross-sectional
relationship between spiritually-based religious coping and psychological
symptomatology. However, Maton (1989) found that college freshmen of diverse
religious affiliations who used their relationship with God for "spiritual support"
reported fewer depressive symptoms prospectively (no cross-sectional analyses were
reported).

This pattern of findings suggests that while better psychological
adjustment is consistently related to the use of God—centered, spiritually-based
religious coping and collaborative religious problem-solving among committed
Christians (regardless of age), it is less consistently associated with better adjustment
among samples of religiously diverse college students. One possible explanation for
is that the psychological value of particular religious activities may vary among
religious groups. Although no comparative research examining this question has been
published, researchers have reported a related finding that different religious groups
prefer different religious coping strategies (Ebaugh et al., 1984).

The current study’s finding that people-centered religious coping was
unrelated to psychiatric outcome is consistent with other studies in the literature
regardless of the measure of religious coping, outcome measure, study design, or
population sampled (Table 29). Pargament and his colleagues found that amount of
religious support was unrelated to psychiatric symptomatology in a cross-sectional
study of middle-aged Christians (Pargament et al., 1990) and in a cross—sectional and
longitudinal analysis of college students from diverse religious backgrounds

(Pargament et al., 1991). Although the literature of secular social support is complex

73

and difficult to summarize, the results of studies on religious social support appear to
be at odds with some social support research suggesting that secular social support is
related to better psychological adjustment. (For a review see Kessler & McLeod,
1985.) However, the potential discrepancy between~ the importance of secular social
support and religious social support for adjustment may reflect the fact that religious
social support forms only a small part of an individual’s social network (Ellison &
George, 1994). It may be that other non-religious elements in one’s social network
play a more influential role in determining mental health status.

Interpretation of this study’s finding regarding bargaining religious coping
and mental health is made difficult by differences among studies in measurement,
design, and populations sampled (Table 29). In the only other study measuring
bargaining among college students from diverse religious backgrounds, pleading
religious coping (similar to bargaining in the current study) was significantly related
to higher levels of psychiatric symptoms cross-sectionally, butwas unrelated to long-
term psychiatric status (Pargament et al., 1991). In addition, the related concept of
deferring religious problem-solving was cross-sectionally associated with higher levels
of anxiety among Christian college students (Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1990) and lower
self-esteem among homogeneous samples of middle-aged Christians (Hathaway &
Pargament, 1990; Pargament et al., 1988). However, pleading was unrelated to
psychological symptoms in a cross-sectional study of middle-aged Christian church
members (Pargament et al., 1990). Thus it appears that while religious bargaining is
not associated with emotional distress among middle-aged Christians, it may be

related to increased distress among college students. Existing research provides little

74

information regarding the association of bargaining and distress among different
religious groups within the college population. Prospective studies of bargaining
religious coping further suggest that it may not be related to long-term mental health
status regardless of demographic factors (Pargament. et al., 1991).

Finally, this study’s finding that alienated religious coping was related to
poorer psychological adjustment is consistent with other findings in the literature
regardless of population sampled or the measurement of dependent or independent
variables. Discontented religious coping (similar to alienated religious c0ping in the
current study) has been cross-sectionally linked to greater psychiatric symptomatology
in a homogeneous sample of adult Christians (Pargament et al., 1990) and a group of
college students from diverse religious backgrounds (Pargament et al., 1991). The
related concept of self-directed problem-solving has been cross-sectionally associated
with lower levels of self-esteem and social competence in homogeneous samples of
adult Christians (Pargament et al., 1988; Hathaway & Pargament, 1990) and with
higher levels of anxiety among Christian college students (Schaefer & Gorsuch,
1990). However, Pargament et al. ’s (1991) comparison of cross—sectional and
longitudinal results among college students indicates that while discontented religious
coping was associated with increases in psychiatric symptoms cross-sectionally, it was
unrelated to long-term psychiatric adjustment. These findings suggest that the current
study’s cross-sectional association between alienated religious coping and
psychological symptoms should be interpreted cautiously.

Review of the current study findings on religious coping in the context of

existing research clearly points to the need for further investigation. Our

75

understanding of how different types of religious coping relate to psychological
adjustment is hampered by the limited number of studies on this topic. In order to
tease apart potential differences in how different types of religious coping function in
different religious groups and at different developmental stages, it will be necessary
for future research to standardize measurement of religious coping and systematically
vary measures of psychological adjustment and demographic features of the population
sampled. Only through this type of systematic study can we more fully understand
how different types of religious coping relate to different aspects of psychological
adjustment and how they function in different religious groups and stages of
development.

While the current study’s focus was not the investigation of developmental
aspects of religious coping, a related area of religious research (i.e. faith
development) may shed some light on the pattern of results. Theorists and
researchers who have examined the development of religious faith throughout the life
cycle describe a number of different ”modes" or ”styles” of faithfulness (e.g.,
Fowler, 1981; Westerhoff, 1976). "Faith" in these writings is defined as a believer’s
active attempts to integrate his/her religious beliefs with daily experience and to use
his/her unique life experience to inform religious commitment (Fowler, 1982). In this
sense, it is similar to the concept of religious coping examined in the current study.
Although there is disagreement regarding whether these different types of faith should
be viewed as a sequential hierarchy of stages or as potentially co—existing (cf. Capps,
1987; Fowler, 1981; Stokes, 1989; Westerhoff, 1976), writers have consistently

identified discrete styles of faith. Moreover, Fowler (1981) and Westerhoff (1976)

76

have argued that the style of faith most salient and helpful to the believer changes
throughout the life cycle, based on developmental needs.

A style of faith characterized by radical questioning of previously held
religious values, which Fowler (1981) has referred to as the individuative-reflective
stage, is particularly relevant to this study. This stage, or style, is often accompanied
by rejection of traditional forms of worship and alienation from organized or
previously valued religious groups (Fowler, 1981) or an active search for new
religious meaning (Westerhoff, 1976). This style of faith is accompanied by
emotional distress and discomfort and is prevalent during adolescence (Fowler, 1981;
Stokes, 1989). For some individuals, this stage of faith may be prominent well into
adulthood.

The association between psychological distress and alienated religious
coping in the current college sample may represent the struggle and turmoil associated
with this aspect of faith development. Moreover, examining this study’s finding of a
significant association between alienated religious coping and psychological distress in
light of the work on faith development, provides a context for understanding the
discrepancy of results between studies of college versus adult populations. It may be
that adult samples of church-goers in studies of religious coping under-represent
persons grappling with the negative psychological consequences of these faith issues
because such persons would be unmotivated to attend traditional religious services.
However, the empirical research that could more directly evaluate these speculations
has not been conducted in either the literature on faith development or religious

coping. The relationship of development to psychological adaptation and religious

77

coping was not the focus of this study, however, current findings suggest this topic
deserves more careful consideration in future research.

In addition, more cross-sectional and prospective research is needed to
enhance our understanding of how different types of religious coping influence
psychological adjustment over time. For example, it may be that forms of religious
coping that lead to a concurrent exacerbation in psychological distress ultimately have
little negative, or perhaps even a positive, impact on psychological well-being. Single
studies that compare cross-sectional and longitudinal data-points are ideally suited to
assessing chronological changes in the relationship between religious COping and
psychological adjustment. Furthermore, because current cross-sectional designs are
essentially correlational in nature, they leave open the possibility of reverse causation.

R li i in -B ffer

Religious coping did not act as a stress-buffer for this sample of college
students. While, as predicted, the interaction effects model of stress-buffering was
not supported, neither was the additive effects model (Figure 4). Instead, religious
coping was associated with increases in overall symptoms and anxiety but not
depression. This finding contrasts with most extant research (Brown & Gary, 1987;
Idler, 1987; Krause & VanTran, 1989; Maton, 1989; Park et al., 1990; Zuckerman et
al., 1984). Only one other study (Pargament et al., 1991) has reported findings
similar to those of the current study. Utilizing measures of religious coping similar to
those in the current study, Pargament et al. (1991) found a significant association
between religious coping and psychological distress, regardless of stress level, in a

sample of college students.

78

Two methodological factors may account for the divergence of findings
between the current study and previous reports. First, studies that have found
significant stress-buffering effects have assessed religious coping using either a single
item or only a few items (Brown & Gary, 1987; Idler, 1987; Kraus & VanTran,
1989; Maton, 1989; Park et al., 1990). In addition, most have reported this effect
among elderly samples (Brown & Gary, 1987; Idler, 1987; Krause & VanTran, 1989;
Zuckerman et al., 1984) with only two studies reporting stress-buffering among
college-age adults (Maton, 1989; Park et al., 1990). It may be that studies that
measured religious coping using only a few questions did not obtain a representative
sample of religious coping activity. These studies could have obtained significant
results simply because they measured a subset of religious coping strategies that were
more adaptive. Thus their findings could not be applied to a more general conception
of the stress-buffering capacity of religious coping.

While the findings are not clear in this regard, it appears that the stress-
buffering effect of religious coping on mental health is more consistent in older
populations. One potential explanation for this is that the elderly are more likely than
young adults to face different types of stress that can be attenuated by religious
coping. For example, it may be that elderly persons are more comforted by religious
forms of coping because they more frequently deal with stressful life events (e.g.,
death, loss of social status) that religion, in particular, addresses. The current study
results, when interpreted in the context of other research, also adds to the research
suggesting that religious coping may be associated with different psychological effects

among college-age adults than other adult populations. Further research is needed to

79

gain a better understanding of how different aspects of religious coping interact with
developmental challenges at different stages of the life cycle.

Gender issues also need to be carefully examined in future research. The
unequal number of men and women in the current Study precluded statistical analysis
of gender differences in the stress buffering effect of religious coping.

In addition, the cross—sectional design of the current study and most
existing research limits conclusions that can be drawn. Only three studies have
utilized prospective designs (Maton, 1989; Pargament et al., 1991; Park et al., 1990).
While this study’s participants were instructed to report current psychological
symptoms and their religious coping activities and the stressful life events during the
prior six months, all measurements were obtained at the same point in time. It is
possible, therefore, that participants’ psychiatric status influenced reconstruction of
their religious coping efforts (e.g., I am not happy, therefore God has abandon me).
Indeed, participant mood has been shown to affect other components of the stress-
buffering process (Cohen, Towbes, & Flocco, 1988). Thus, although cross-sectional
studies have begun to shed some light on the relationship between religious coping
and psychological adjustment, further prospective research is needed to delineate the
directional impact of religious coping on mental health.

Rlii in M ' r nDi ii Rlii sn n
P hl i lA' men

Although no formal hypotheses were generated regarding the role of
religious coping as a mediator of dispositional religiousness on adjustment, such a

mediational role was clearly implied in the review of existing literature (see Figure

8O

3). In order to examine the capacity of religious coping to mediate the effects of
dispositional religiousness on psychological symptoms, post-hoe analyses were
conducted. While religious coping mediated completely9 the effects of dispositional
religious variables on anxiety, it did not completely mediate their effects on
depression or overall symptomatology. Instead, dispositional religiousness and
religious coping both contributed to the prediction of symptoms.

These findings are consistent with other research examining the
mediational role of religious problem-solving (Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1990) and
religious coping (Pargament et al., 1990). They suggest that long term trait-like
attitudes and beliefs exert direct effects on psychological adaptation and also relate to
the choice of religious coping strategy that, in turn, is associated with psychological
status. Thus dispositional religiousness exerts both direct and indirect effects on
mental health.

However, the finding that religious caping completely mediated the effect
of dispositional religiousness on anxiety but not other measures of psychiatric
outcome suggests that religious coping may possess different mediating capacities for
different aspects of adjustment. Clearly, the scarcity of studies on this topic limits
our understanding of the mediational role of religious coping. Further research is
needed in which investigators clearly postulate and examine the relationships between

different types of religious variables and different aspects of psychological adjustment.

 

9 The adequacy of religious coping as a mediator of dispositional religiousness was examined statistically
by regression analyses that assessed the capacity of religious coping to account for significant variation in
symptomatology beyond the effects of dispositional variables without the reverse being true (i.e. dispositional
variables did not account for significant variation in symptoms beyond the effects of religious coping).

81

If religious coping is hypothesized to be a critical link between trait-like religious
variables and psychological adaptation, then future research must continue to
demonstrate its capacity to mediate the effects of general religiousness on mental
health.

CONCLUSION

Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990), in their review of the literature on religion
and psychological adaptation, asserted that the field needs to reconceptualize the
implicit theory that underlies empirical studies of psychology and religion. They
suggest that researchers broaden their theories to include other religious domains
besides traditional measures of trait-like religious dispositions. This study has
attempted to do just this by examining how different types of religious coping
variables work together to affect psychological adjustment. Results of this study
affirm the notion that trait-like religious attitudes are translated into Specific forms of
religious coping, and that these forms of coping, in turn, have a significant impact on
psychological adjustment. Thus, while religious coping is not the only aspect of
religious life that affects adjustment, it is, nevertheless, a domain that justifies further
investigation.

Furthermore, this study addresses the general assumption in the coping
literature that the role of "religion” in coping can be conceptualized as a general
background variable and measured with a few simple questions. Results of a factor
analysis of religious coping strategies support the view that religious coping, like its

secular counterpart, is a multidimensional process.

82

This study leaves a number of crucial questions unanswered. Placing this
study’s results in the context of other research suggests that religious phenomena may
differentially impact mental health in different religious groups and at different stages
of the life cycle. For example, it may be that a direct, personal relationship with God
is less psychologically helpful to persons who belong to religious groups that
emphasize the importance of living by a moral code (e. g., Judaism, Islam). Thus,
future research needs to examine what personal and contextual factors are associated
with different forms of religious coping and different psychological outcomes.lo

Future investigations also need to examine the stability of religious coping
activities over time and delineate their short-term and long-term effects on adaptation.
It may be that coping methods (e.g., pleading) that are associated with short-term
distress have little impact on long-term mental health. On the other hand, forms of
religious coping that have been shown to alleviate mental distress immediately may
lead to long-term problems.

Research suggests that religious coping plays a small but significant role
in psychological adjustment beyond the effects of non-religious coping (Pargament et
al., 1990; Pargament et al., 1991). Paralleling this research finding in the clinical
arena, psychological difficulties that involve a religious component have recently been
recognized as a diagnosable disorder in The Diegnestie epd Statistigl Medea! of
WW. These research and clinical trends reflect a growing

awareness of the importance of religion in emotional life. Perhaps a more empirically

 

1° Unfortunately, the current study’s data could not be analyzed to address this question because most
of the participants were Christian (N=303).

83

grounded understanding of how individuals translate their religious beliefs into
religious coping activity, and how it in turn affects mental health, will enhance our
ability to understand how individuals cope with significant life events. Moreover, a
more empirically-grounded understanding of the role religious coping plays in
negotiating life stress can aid mental health professionals and clergy in their efforts to
help people use religious beliefs adaptively. This study serves as an initial attempt to
increase our awareness of the complex and integral role of religion in the coping

process.

APPENDIX A: Religious Problem—Solving Scale (RPSS)

84
RELIGIOUS PROBLEM-SOLVING SCALE (RPSS)

Indicate how often each statement applies to you on a scale of 1 (never) to 5

(always).

Cellebordtive Factor:

1.

When comes to deciding how to solve a problem, God and I work together as
partners.

2. When considering a difficult situation, God and I work together to think of
possible solutions.

3. Together, God and I put my plans into action.

4. When I feel nervous or anxious about a problem, I work together with God to
find a way to relieve my worries.

5. After solving a problem, I work with God to make sense of it.

6. When I have a problem, I talk to God about it and together we decide what it
means.

Deferring Faetpr:

7. Rather than trying to come up with the right solutions to a problem myself, I let
God decide how to deal with it.

8. In carrying out solutions to my problems, I wait for God to take control and
know somehow He’ll work it out.

9. I do not think about different solutions to my problems because God provides
time for me.

10. When a troublesome issue arises, I leave it up to God to decide what it means for
me.

11. When a situation makes me anxious, I wait for God to take those feelings away.

12. I don’t spend much time thinking about troubles I’ve had; God makes sense of

them for me.

85

Self-Directed Factor:

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

After I’ve gone through a rough time, I try to make sense of it without relying on
God.

When I have difficulty, I decide what it means by myself without help from God.
When faced with trouble, I deal with my feelings without God’s help.
When deciding on a solution, I make a choice independent of God’s input.

When thinking about a difficulty, I try to come up with possible solutions without
God’s help.

I act to solve my problems without God’s help.

APPENDIX B: Religious Coping Activities Scale (RCAS)

86
RELIGIOUS COPING ACTIVITIES SCALE (RCAS)

Think of the most serious negative experience in the past year. Then rate the
extent to which you used the following activities in coping 1 (not at all) to 4 (a great
deal).

Spirimelly-Bged Factor:

Trusted that God would not let anything terrible happen to me.
Experienced God’s love and care.

Realized that God was trying to strengthen me.

Used Christ as an example of how I should live.

Took control over what I could, and gave the rest up to God.

My faith showed me different ways to handle the problem.

Accepted that the situation was not in my hands but in the hands of God.
Found the lesson from God in the event.

Used my faith to help me decide how to cope with the situation.

PWNP‘MPPE"?

Religietg Suppopt Eaeter:

10. Received support form Clergy.
11. Received support from other members of the church.

Plead Faetpr:

12. Asked for a miracle.
13. Bargained with God to make things better.
14. Asked God why it happened.

Di nF r:

15. Felt angry with or distant from God.
16. Felt angry with or distant from the members of the church.
17. Questioned my religious beliefs and faith.

D F r:

18. Tried to be less sinful.

19. Confessed my sins.

20. Led a more loving life.

21. Attended religious services or participated in religious rituals.

87

22. Participated in church groups (support groups, prayer groups, Bible study).
23. Provided help to other church members.

Religieus Avoidance Factor:

24. Focused on the world-to-come rather than on the problems of this world.
25. I let God solve my problems for me.
26. Prayed or read the Bible to keep my mind off my problems.

APPENDIX C: Study Measures

88

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION SCALE

Before you begin answering the questions below, please: (a) in the space marked PID on the small
red answer sheet, FILL IN the eede number appearing on the outside of your packet, then (b) in the
space on the red answer sheet marked SECTION, FILL IN the W that appears in the
upper right-hand corner of this page. _

The statements below describe different roles religion can play in dealing with life. (a) READ each
statement carefully, (b) THINK about the extent to which the statement reflects YOUR personal religious
beliefs or approach to religion, (c) DECIDE which statement best describes how you feel, and (d) FILL IN
the corresponding number on your answer sheet.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Mildly Both Agree Mildly Strongly
Disagree Disagree and Disagree Agree Agree

** Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. The best answer **
** is the one which most closely expresses your point of view. **
1. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life.
2. What religion offers me most is comfort when sorrows and misfortune strike.
3. Quite often I have been keenly aware of the presence of God or the Divine Being.

4. One reason for my being a church member is that such membership helps to establish a person in
the community. '

5. My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life.
6. The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life.

7. The prayers I say when I am alone carry as much meaning and personal emotion as those I say
during services.

8. It doesn’t matter so much what I believe so long as I lead a moral life.
9. If not prevented by unavoidable circumstances, I attend church.
10. Although I am a religious person, I refuse to let religious considerations influence my every-day

affairs.
Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #10.

89

1 2 3 4 s
Strongly Mildly Both Agree Mildly Strongly
Disagree Disagree and Disagree Agree Agree

11. The church is most important as a place to formulate good social relationships.
12. Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life.

13. For this question only, choose from the following responses:

I would definitely prefer to join a social fellowship
I probably would prefer to join a social fellowship
I probably would prefer to join a Bible study group
I would definitely prefer to join a Bible study group

Ari-I
II II II II

If I were to join a church group I would prefer to join a Bible Study Group or a social fellowship.

14. Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many more important things in my life.
15. I read literature about my faith (or church).

16. I pray chiefly because I have been taught to pray.

17. It is important to me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and meditation.
18. A primary reason for my interest'in religion is that my church is a congenial social activity.

19. Occasionally I find it necessary to compromise my religious beliefs in order to protect my social and
economic well-being.

20. The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and protection.

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #20. Checking to be
sure you didn’t skip a question NOW will save you time when you turn in your surveys, because your
responses will be checked for m'B-marked answers at that time.

90
SPIRITUAL WELL-BEIN G SCALE

Before you begin answering the questions below, please: (a) in the space marked PID on the small
green answer sheet, FILL IN the ewe number appearing on the outside of your packet, then (b) in the
space on the green answer sheet marked SECTION, FILL IN the guestienuaire number that appears in the
upper right-hand corner of this page.

For each cf the following statements, (a) CHOOSE the response that best indicates the extent of
your agreement or disagreement as it describes W, and (b) FILL IN the
corresponding number on your answer sheet.

Striongly Modzerately Agree Moderately Strosngly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. I don’t find much satisfaction in private prayer with God.

2. I don’t know who I am, where I came from, or where I’m going.

3. I believe that God loves me and cares about me.

4. I feel that life is a positive experience.

5. I believe that God is impersonal and not interested in my daily situations.

6. I feel unsettled about my future.

7. I have a personally meaningful relationship with God.

8. I feel very fulfilled and satisfied with life.

9. I don’t get much personal strength and support from my God.

10. I feel a sense of well-being about the direction my life is headed in.
11. I believe that God is concerned about my problems.

12. I don’t enjoy much about life.

13. I don’t have a personally satisfying relationship with God.

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #13.

91

l 2 3 4 5
Strongly Moderately Agree Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

14. I feel good about my future.
15. My relationship with God helps me not to feel lonely.
16. I feel that life is full of conflict and unhappiness.
17. I feel most fulfilled when I’m in close communion with God.
18. Life doesn’t have much meaning.
19. My relation with God contributes to my sense of well-being.
20. I believe there is some real purpose for my life.
Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #20. Checking to be

sure you didn’t skip a question NOW will save you time when you turn in your surveys, because your
responses will be checked for mis-marked answers at that time.

92
RELIGIOUS COPIN G SURVEY

Before you begin answering the questions below, please: (a) in the space marked PID on the small

brown answer sheet, FILL IN the w appearing on the outside of your packet, then (b) in the
space on the answer sheet marked SECTION, FILL IN the W rthat appears in the

upper right-hand corner of this page. . . .
We are interested in how people respond when they confront stressful events 1n their ltves. There

are lots of ways to try to deal with stress. Sometimes people try and cope with important events in .
religious or spiritual ways. This questionnaire asks you to indicate what religieus/splrtutal coping strategIes

you have used to deal with stress in the LAST SIX MQNTHS. . .
Presented below are a number of statements describing ways in which a person might use then

religious beliefs or spirituality to cope with stressful events. Please (a) READ each statement carefully,
then (b) indicate how frequently you have used that religious coping technique in the last srx months by
FILLING IN the appropriate number on your answer sheet:

1 2 3 4
Not at All A Little Bit A Medium Amount A Lot

1. Tntsted that God would not let anything terrible happen to me.
2. Confessed my sins.

3. Experienced God’s love and care.

4. Felt angry with or distant from God.

5. Realized God was trying to strengthen me.

6. Felt angry with or distant from members of the church.

7. Realized that I didn’t have to suffer since Jesus suffered for me.
8. Poured my heart out to God.

9. Asked trusted others to pray for me regarding the problem.

10. Took control over what I could, and gave the rest up to God.

Please check the 5’s column on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in any 5’s by m’stake
(the choices are 1 - 4).

93
2 3 4

Not at All A Little Bit A Medium Amount A Lot

11.

12.

I3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25 .

26.

27.

Asked members of my religious group/church for concrete help (e.g., money, food, shelter, a ride,
help with physical care).

Accepted the situation was not in my hands but in (the hands of God.
Asked for advice from someone who shared my religious outlook.
Used my religion to help me accept what had happened.

Found a lesson from God in the event.

Prayed for a miracle.

God showed me how to deal with the situation.

Prayed that God would help me forget what had happened and get on with my life.
Used my faith to help me decide how to cope with the situation.
Used my religious beliefs to help keep my problems in perspective.
Questioned my religious beliefs and faith.

Looked to God for comfort.

With the help of Scripture and prayer, I tried to plan concrete steps I could take to make the
problem better.

Talked to a religious leader (e.g., minister, rabbi, priest) about what to do.
Believed "this is all part of God’s plan.”
Took comfort knowing God is with me every step of the way.

Asked God why it happened.

Please check the 5’s column on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in any 5’s by mktake

(the choices are l -4).

94

Not 1at All A Liftle Bit A Mediiim Amount A4 Lot
28. Bargained with God to make things better.

29. Focused on the world-to—come rather than the problems of this world. ,

30. To the extent I felt responsible for the problem, I sought God’s forgiveness.

31. Led a more loving life.

32. Looked for ways in which God was using this event for my own good.

33. To the extent I felt to blame for the problem, I was comforted knowing that God forgives those who
are truly sorry.

34. Looked for understanding and support from other members of my church/religious group.
35. Prayed that things would go back the way they were before the problem came up.

36. Let God know how angry I was feeling.

37. Shared my burdens with a member of my religious group.

38. Felt frustrated with my religion.

39. Confessed my role in the problem to someone who shared my religious views and asked for their
forgiveness.

40. Used my experience with the problem to help others with similar problems.

41. Hoped that God would take the burden from me.

42. Participated in a church support group or prayer group.

43. Had faith that God was doing this for a reason.

44. Prayed that if God would take this problem away, I would become a better person.
45. Used my religion to learn what positive lesson I could from the experience.

Please check the 5’s column on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in any 5’s by mistake
(the choices are l — 4).

95

Not 1at All A Liftle Bit A Medi|31m Amount A4 Lot
46. Prayed or read the Bible to keep my mind off my problems.

47. Told God that I would do whatever He wanted, if only He would make things better.

48. Put my faith in God that things would work out.

49. Focused on the fact that my sorrows would end in heaven.

50. Used my experience with the problem to work for a better world.

51. Waited for a solution from God.

52. Let God solve the problem for me.

96
CSLES

Before you begin answering the questions below please: (a) in the space marked PID on the Large
blue answer sheet, FILL IN the gpdeuumber appearing on the outside of your packet, then (b) in the
space on the answer sheet marked SECTION, FILL IN the W that appears in the

upper right-hand corner of this page.

The following questionnaire contains a list of events which may or M have occurred to you in
the PAST 6 MONTHS. Read each question carefully. If an event did not occur, mark 8 on your
answer sheet for that question. If an event did occur, you should rate the impact of the event on you
at the time it occurred using the scale choices 1 through 7 below. For each event that occurred, FILL
IN the impact number on your answer sheet.

8
Event did not
occur in past

6 months

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Moderately Somewhat N 0 Somewhat Moderately Extremely
Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive Positive
1. Terminated an intimate relationship (boyfriend/girlfriend)
2. Marriage
3. Became a parent
4. Became engaged
5. Negative personal encounter with a professor

6. Marital separation or divorce

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything
there by mistake (the choices are 1 - 8).

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #6.

97

8
Event did not
occur in past

6 months
1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely Moderately Somewhat No ' Somewhat Moderately
Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive
7. Increased separation from children
8. Re-established old personal friendship
9. Developed a good personal relationship with a professor
10. Began or increased sexual activity
11. Had a disagreement with a friend (large or small disagreement)
12. Personal rejection by a close friend or lover
13. Started a love relationship
14. Increased amount of dating
15. Separation from parents or sibling
16. Separation from close friend due to moving
17. Chose to terminate a relationship with a close friend
18. Relationship with boyfriend or girlfriend became worse
19. Decreased number of friends
20. Significantly improved your relationship with boyfriend/girlfriend or close friend

7
Extremely
Positive

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything

there by mistake (the choices are l - 8).

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #20.

98

8
Event did not
occur in past

6 months
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Moderately Somewhat No ' Somewhat Moderately Extremely
Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive Positive
21. Learned that a close friend/relative is very different than you thought (e.g., sexual behavior,
involvement in serious drugs, criminal activities, etc.)
22. Relationship with relative (parents, siblings, etc.) became worse
23. Relationship with relative (parents, siblings, etc.) became better
24. Began living with lover (excluding marriage)
25. Decreased amount of dating
26. Relationship with spouse became worse or much worse
27. Relationship with spouse improved
28. Decreased sexual activity
29. Difficulty with sexual performance
30. Developed relationships with people who have new and interesting ideas or life style
31. Became an aunt or uncle
32. Marriage of close friend or relative
33. Death of a friend
34. Friend or relative encountered serious trouble or failure experience

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything

there by mistake (the choices are l - 8).

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #34.

99

8
Event did not
occur in past

6 months
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Moderately Somewhat No ‘ Somewhat Moderately Extremely
Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive Positive

35. Parents’ financial status became better or much better
36. Received a visit from (or visited) family

37. Worsening of parents’ financial status

38. Friend or relative had important positive experience
39. Health of a close relative/friend became much worse
40. Death of a close relative (parent or sibling)

41. Parents separated or divorwd

42. Remarriage of parent

43. Serious conflict between members of your family

44. Significantly increased your level of debt

45. Fired or lost a job

46. Quit job

47. Received positive recognition at job (promOtion, significant praise)
48. Major change in work or school hours

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything
there by mistake (the choices are 1 - 8).

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #48.

100

8
Event did not
occur in past

6 months
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Moderately Somewhat No ' Somewhat Moderately Extremely
Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive Positive

49. Significantly increased economic difficulties

50. Acquired a car

51. Won a large amount of money (over $10,000) in a lottery or sweepstakes
52. Personal rejection by a close friend or lover

53. Began a new job (part- or full—time)

54. Increased difficulty with a job

55. Discharged from the military

56. Improved mastery of academic material

57. Significantly improved your course grades

58. Transferred to a new school

59. Began college for the first time

60. Encountered increased difficulty with school regulations or facilities
61. Withdrawal from a college or university

62. Completed an assignment for school

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything
there by mistake (the choices are 1 - 8).

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #62.

101

8
Event did not
occur in past

6 months

1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely Moderately Somewhat N o ‘ Somewhat Moderately
Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive
63. Returned to school after prolonged absence
64. Graduation from high school or junior college
65. Applied to graduate or professional school
66. Decided on a major or career
67. Increased demands from academic course work
68. Increased problem with academic performance (course work, grades, GRE’s, etc.)
69. Accepted into graduate or professional school
70. Moved out of parents’ home
71. Moved back into parents’ home after living away
72. Change of residence
73. Serious conflict with roommate
74. Improved living conditions (e.g., housing, roommate)
75. Difficulty with landlord/landlady
76. Moved to a new city

7
Extremely
Positive

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything

there by mistake (the choices are l - 8).

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #76.

102

8
Event did not
occur in past
6 months
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Moderately Somewhat No ' Somewhat Moderately Extremely
Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive Positive

77. Improved physical appearance

78. Physical appearance became worse or much worse

79. Physical health became worse or much worse (due to illness or accident)
80. Began or increased the use of illicit drugs

81. Improved your physical health

82. Hospitalization of self

83. Improved your personal health/habits

84. Worsening of personal health/habits

85. Did not experience fatigue

86. Decreased use of illicit drugs

87. Female: Possibility of unwanted pregnancy

Male: Possibility of girlfriend’s/wife’s unwanted pregnancy
88. Female: Had an abortion

Male: Girlfriend/wife had an abortion

89. Involvement in accident

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything
there by mistake (the choices are 1 - 8).

Please check your answer sheet _to make sure your last answer ’5 for question #89.

103

8
Event did not
occur in past

6 months
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Moderately Somewhat No ' Somewhat Moderately Extremely

Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive Positive

90. Began counseling or psychotherapy

91. Began volunteer work

92. Received recognition or award for achievement

93. Victim of crime

94. Problem with the law (arrested, detained, etc.)

95. Acquired a pct

96. Major change in or renewed dedication to philosophy of life
97. Selected for a leadership position in an organization
98. Loss of a pet through death or runaway

99. Traveled to a new interesting place

100. Increase in amount of leisure time

101. Decreased involvement with hobby or task

102. Joined a social organization

103. Won an award at an international athletic competition

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything
there by mistake (the choices are l - 8).

Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer is for question #103.

104

8
Event did not
occur in past

6 months

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Moderately Somewhat N o ' Somewhat Moderately Extremely
Negative Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive Positive
104. Increased exposure to cultural or entertainment experiences
105. Accomplished a goal in a hobby or recreational activity
106. Major increase in religious commitment
107. New or increased involvement in hobby or recreational activity
108. Not accepted into a social organization you desired
109. Organization you belong to (club, team, etc.) failed to accomplish an important goal
110. Organization you belong to (club, team, etc.) accomplished an important goal
111. Increased use of alcohol

Please check the 9’s and 10’s columns on your answer sheet to be sure you have not filled-in anything

there by mistake (the choices are. l - 8).

. . Please check your answer sheet to make sure your last answer '5 for question #111.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

105

HOPKINS SYMPTOMS CHECKLIST (HSCL)

READ each statement carefully and indicate to what extent you have experienced the following
during the PAST 6 MONTHS by FILLING IN the appropriate circle on your answer sheet.

Not 1at all A Little Bit
Headaches
Trouble remembering things
Feeling critical of others
Faintness or dizziness
Nervousness or shakiness inside
Loss of sexual pleasure
Pains in the heart or chest
Worried about sloppiness or carelessness
Temper outbursts you could not control
Crying easily
A feeling of being trapped or caught
Feeling low in energy or slowed down
Feeling inferior to others
Feeling blocked or stymied in getting things done
Trouble concentrating
Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you

Feeling easily annoyed or irritated

3 4
Moderately Extremely

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

106

1 2 3
Not at all A Little Bit Moderately

Pains in the lower part of your back

Feeling fearful

Heart pounding or racing

Soreness of your muscles

Having to do things very slowly in order to be sure you are doing them right
Feeling hopeless about the future

Trouble getting your breath

Feeling others do not understand you or are unsympathetic
Poor appetite

Feeling lonely

Hot or cold spells

Having to check and double-check what you do

Numbness or tingling in parts of your body

Weakness in parts of your body

Feeling tense or keyed up

Worrying or stewing about things

Trembling

Suddenly scared for no reason

A lump in your throat

Heavy feelings in your arms or legs

Extremely

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

107

l 2 3
Not at all A Little Bit Moderately

Difficulty making decisions

Your mind going blank

Your feelings being easily hurt

Having to avoid certain places or activities because they frighten you
Thoughts of ending your life

Blaming yourself for things

Feeling blue

Feeling no interest in things

4
Extremely

108
GENERAL RELIGIOUS INFORMATION

Please provide the following information about yourself and your family’s background. Fill in the
appropriate number on your answer sheet.

1. Your Gender: 1 = Male 2 = Female
2. Your Age: 1 = Less than 18 years old 4 = 21 - 22 years old
2=18~19yearsold 5=22~23yearsold
3 = l9-20yearsold 6=23-24 yearsold
7 = More than 24 years old
3. Your ethnic background:
1 = Caucasian 4 = Hispanic
2 = Asian American 5 = Other
3 = African American
4. Your marital status:
1 = Single 2 = Married 3 = Divorced 4 = Widowed
6. Mother’s religious affiliation: (If you were not raised by your biological mother, please substitute

the religious affiliation of the caretaker who you consider to be the most important ”mother" figure.)

1 = Catholic 3 = Jewish 5 = Hindu 7=Other
2 = Protestant 4 = Muslim 6 = Buddhist 8=None 9=Don’t Know
7. Father’s religious affiliation: (If you were not raised by your biological father, please substitute the

religious affiliation of the caretaker who you consider to be the most important "father” figure.)

Jewish 5 = Hindu 7=Other
Muslim 6 = Buddhist 8=None 9=Don’t Know

1 = Catholic 3
2 = Protestant 4

8. Religious tradition in which you were raised (if any):

1 = Catholic 3 = Jewish 5 = Hindu 7=Other
2 = Protestant 4 = Muslim 6 = Buddhist 8=None 9=Don’t Know

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

16.

109

Fill in on your answer sheet the number that best describes your religious upbringing.

1 2 3 4 5
nonexistent informal extenswe

WW, how frequently did you attend meetings for any 12-step program (For
example: Alcoholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Adult Children of Alcoholics)?

1 2 3 4 5
never sometimes often

In the past six months, how frequently did you attend other self-help groups other than 12-step
programs?

1 2 3 4 5
never sometimes often

Wm, how frequently have you attended a psychotherapy group (i.e., not a 12-step
group or a self-help group)?

1 2 3 4 5
never sometimes often

13mm, how frequently have you attended individual psychotherapy or counseling for
personal problems?

1 2 3 4 5
never twice a month every week

What is your current religious affiliation?

1 = Catholic

3 = Jewish 5 = Hindu 7=None
2 = Protestant 4 =

Muslim 6 = Buddhist 8=Other 9=Don’t Know

Have you ever had a "conversion“ experience?

1=No 2=Yes

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

110

Were you "convened” to your current religious affiliation?

1=No 2=Yes

How often in the past 6 months did you attend religious services?

1 = Never 5 = Twice a month

2 =Onceayear 6 =Twiceaweek

3 = Once every six months 7 = One or more times a day
4 = Once every two or three months

How many hours do you spend in church activities per month?

1 = One hour or less 4 = Ten to fifteen hours
2 = Two to four hours 5 = More than fifteen hours
3 = Five to nine hours

How has your involvement in your religion changed in the last six months?
1 = Decreased 2 = Has not changed 3 = Increased
Fill in on your answer sheet the number that best describes your current religious feelings and
beliefs.
1 2 3 4 5

nonexistent moderate very strong

On your answer sheet, fill in the number that best describes how important religion is to you.

1 2 3 4 5
irrelevant somewhat very
important important

How religious do you think you are?

l 2 3 4 5
not religious somewhat very
religious religious

How often would you say religion proves to be an influence in the major decisions in your life?

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

111

l 2 3 4
never sometimes

How often do you pray privately in places other than church?

1 = Never 5 = Twice a month

2 = Once a year ,6 = Twice a week

3 = Once every six months 7 = One or more times a day
4 = Once every two or three months

How often do you read the Bible or other readings from your religion?

1 = Never 5 = Twice a month
2 =Onceayear 6 =Twiceaweek
3 = Once every six months 7 = One or more times a day

4 = Once every two or three months

always

How often have you had a feeling of closeness to God in prayer, during worship or at important

moments in daily life?

1 2 3 4
never sometimes

How often have you felt a deep awareness of the presence of God?

1 2 3 4
never sometimes

How often have you had a born-again experience?

1 2 3 4
never sometimes

How often have you felt that God was speaking to you in some way?

5
very
often
5
very
often
5
very
often

31.

never

112

3
sometimes

How often have you felt you were one with God?

1
never

2

g 3
sometimes

5
very
often
5
very

often

l 13
WRITTEN ANSWERS QUESTIONNAIRE

** NO ANSWER SHEET FOR THIS QUESTIONNAIRE **
** PLEASE WRITE YOUR ANSWERS DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET **

Please write the W that appears on the outside of your packet here

The questions in this questionnaire cover a variety of topics. They are divided into three parts.
Please read the general instructions for each part. Then, write your answer to each question on the page
in the space provided.

PART I.A (Mast Stressful Event)

Please refer to the questionnaires marked "CSLES" and "RELIGIOUS COPING SURVEY”.
You will need them to answer the questions below. Think for a minute about your responses to these
surveys.

1. What is the W event you checked off on the CSLES questionnaire? Write the number of
the question here

2. How stressful did it feel? (Circle one response)

1 2 3 4
Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Stressful Stressful Stressful > Stressful
3. How much control do you feel you had over whether or not this event occurred?
1 2 3 4 5
No Slight Moderate A Lot of Complete

Control Control Control Control Control

114

4. How much control do you feel you had over the event’s outcome? In other words, how much
control did you have over how things turned out?

1 2 3 4 5
No Slight Moderate A Lot of Complete
Control Control Control Control Control
5. How much did you use your personal spiritual beliefs or religious beliefs or practices to help you

cope with this event?

1 2 3 4
Not at All A Little Bit A Moderate A Lot
Amount

6. Look over the statements on the RELIGIOUS COPING QUESTIONNAIRE. Write the numbers
of the three religious coping techniques most helpful to you in the following blank spaces:

PART I.B W Stressful Event)

1. Choose one event that you have experienced on the CSLES questionnaire that felt only slightbug
WW. Write the number of the question here .

2. How stressful did it feel? (Circle one response)

1 2 3 4
Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Stressful Stressful Stressful Stressful
3. How much control do you feel you had over whether or not this event occurred? (Circle one
response)
1 2 3 4 5
No Slight Moderate A Lot of Complete
Control Control Control Control Control
4. How much control do you feel you had over the event’s outcome? In other words, how much

control did you have over how things turned out?

115

1 2 3 4 5
No Slight Moderate A Lot of Complete
Control Control Control Control Control

 

 

 

5. How much did you use your personal spiritual/religious beliefs and/or practices to help you cope
with this event?
1 2 ‘3 4
Not at All A Little Bit A Moderate A Lot
Amount
6. Look over the statements on the RELIGIOUS COPING Questionnaire. Write the numbers of
the three religious coping techniques most helpful to you in the following blank spaces:
PART 11

Think about the caregivers who spent the most time with you growing up. Please answer the

following questions about them.

1a.

1b.

Who was the head of your household? (Specify father, mother, stepmother, stepfather, aunt, uncle,
grandparent, etc)

 

What was this person’s occupation? (please be specific)

 

(For example: teacher, stock clerk, farmer, car salesperson)

1c.

~ 2a.

2b.

2c.

2d.

116

Highest educational level completed by the head of your household: (Circle one)

Grade School Bachelor’s Degree (or equivalent)
High School Master’s Degree (or equivalent)
Some college Ph.D., MD. (or equivalent)

Trade School

Did the head of your household have a spouse, girlfriend, or partner who played a significant role in
raising you? Circle one response.

YES NO

If your answered "YES" to the question above, please answer the following:

What was this person’s relationship to you? (Specify father, mother, stepmother, stepfather, aunt,
uncle, grandparent, etc)

 

What was this person’s occupation? (please be specific)

 

(For example: teacher, stock clerk, farmer, ear salesperson)

Highest educational level completed by this person: (Circle one)

Grade School Bachelor’s Degree (or equivalent)
High School Master’s Degree (or equivalent)
Some college Ph.D., MD. (or equivalent)

Trade School

Considering both of your caregivers’ incomes together, what was your family’s overall income
range growing up? (Circle one)

Under 5,000 10,000-14,999 25,000-49,999
5,000-7,499 15 ,000-19,999 50,000 or more
7,500-9,999 20,000-24,999

117

PART III

1.

Who is your favorite religious figure (please be specific)?

 

(For example: Abraham, St. Augustine, Moses, Mohammed, Pope John XXIII, Martin Luther King
Jr., Mother Theresa, etc.)

What religious denomination do you currently belong to (please be specific)?

 

(For example: Evangelical Christian, Methodist, Orthodox Jewish, Roman
Catholic)

What religious denomination were you raised in (please be specific)?

 

(For example: Evangelical Christian, Methodist, Orthodox Jewish, Roman Catholic)

APPENDIX D: Consent Statement

1 18
CONSENT STATEMENT

”Attitudes Toward Religion & Life Experience"

Thank you for considering to participate in this research. Please read the information presented
below carefully. This information may help you decide whether to participate in this study.

The purpose of this research is to examine how important life events and certain types of
religious beliefs & practices may affect people. However, YOU DO NOIf NEED TO l_-IAVE
A RELIGIOUS BAOEOROIJND OR AFFILIATION IN ORDER TO PARjIjIOIPAijE. On

the other hand, if you do consider yourself religious, or were at one time, you are also
invited to participate.

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a number of
questionnaires that will take approximately 2 1/2 hours to finish. They consist of questions
regarding your religious up-bringing, current beliefs, practices, experiences, your general
health, and stressful events you’ve experienced in the last 6 months. Please feel free to ask
for assistance at any time if you have a question about how to complete a questionnaire.

There are no known risks associated with this study.

If you find any aspect of this study upsetting, you are free to discontinue participation at any
time. You also have the right not to answer any question on any questionnaire. However,
each of your answers is very valuable to us. It is important to realize that omission of
various items may make it difficult or impossible to use the information you do provide.

In order to protect your privacy, your responses are completely anonymous. Your name will
never appear on your answer sheets or on any other document in this packet. Information
concerning this study will be discussed only as data from a group of participants. In any
report or publication of results, no reference to you personally will ever be made. Because
your responses are completely anonymous, it is not possible to provide feedback on your
individual answers, but you may obtain group results of this study, when they are available,
upon request at the address below.

If you have any further questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the primary
investigator, Jackie Grober, at Department of Psychology, 129 Psychology Research
Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 or leave a message at (517)
355—9561.

I have read and understood the above information and voluntarily agree to participate in this study
according to these guidelines, understanding I can withdraw my participation at any time. YOU

A! O ' VOL ARY- ’ EMEN TO PARTI .l'; I- ,% OMP-,11\
ED A .
PLEASE m SIGN THIS CONSENT FORM!

APPENDIX E: Tables

119

 

 

Table 1
Summary of Regression Equations (specifying precise order of entry for medium variables) for Study
Hypotheses
Number StatiStic
of Predictors of
Hypothesis Regressions (in order of entry) Criterion Interest
11' 3 Age. Gender, Stress’, Extrinsic, Total Score AK
Intrinsic, Religious Well-Being Religious Coping
Age. Gender, Stress. Religious
Well-Being. Extrinsic. Intrinsic
Age, Gender. Stress. Intrinsic
Religious Well-Being, Extrinsic
III & Iv 12 Age, Gender, Stress, Extrinsic, God-Centered 13.133
Intrinsic. Religious Well-Being Religious Coping
Age, Gender, Stress. Religious
Well-Being, Extrinsic. Intrinsic
Age, Gender, Stress, lurinsic
Religious Well-Berng' , Extrmsr' 'c
Age. Gender, Stress. Extrinsr' 'c. ‘ People-Centered
Imnns' ic, Religious Well-Being Religious Coping

Age. Gender, Suess, Religious
Well-Being, Extrinsic, Intrinsic

Ages Gm. SIMS, huhnic

Religious Well-Being, Extrinsic
Age. Gender, Stress, Extrinsic.
Intnn' sic, Relrgr' 'ous Well-Berng'

Age. Gender, Stress. Religious
WelloBeing, Extrinsic, Intrinsic

Age, Gender. Stress, Intrinsic
Religious Well-Betng' , Extrtnsr' 'c

Bargaining Religious
Coping

Table 1 cont’d

120

 

 

Number Statistic
of Predictors of
Hypothesis Regressions (in order of entry) Criterion Interesr
III & IV cont’d
Age, Gender, Stress, Extrinsic, Alienated Religious
Intrinsic, Religious Well-Being Coping
Age, Gender, Suess, Religious
Well-Being. Extrinsic, Intrinsic
Age. Gender. Stress. Intrinsic
Religious Well-Being. Extrinsic
V‘ 3' Age, Gender, Stress, Total Religious Total Symptom AB:
Coping Score. slices x Religious Coping Score m
Age, Gender, Suess. Tour Religious Depression
Coping Score, Stress X Religious Coping Score
Age. Gender, slicer, Total Religious Anxiety
Coping Score, Stress x Religious Coping Score
VI 12 Age. Gender, Stress, Alienated, Total Symptom 5E
Bargaining, People-Centered. God«Centered Score m
Age, Gender. Stress, God—Catered,
Alienated. Bargaining. People-Centered
Age. Gender. Stress. People-Canned,
God-Centered, Alienated, Bargaining
Age, Gender, Stress. Bargaining,
People—Centered, God-Centered, Alienated
Age, Gender, Stress. Alienated. Depression AB:
Bargaining, People-Centered, God-Centered Score m

121

Table I cont’d

 

 

Number Statistic
of Predictors of
HypOthesis Regressions (in order of entry) Criterion 1nteresr
VI cont’d Age. Gender. Stress. God-Centered,

Alienated. Bargaining. People-Centered

Age. Gender. Stress. People-Centered,
God-Centered, Alienated. Bargaining

Age. Gender. Stress. Bargaining.
People-Centered, God-Centered, Alienated

D
”i.

Age. Gender. Stress. Alienated, Anxiety
Bargaining, People-Centered. God—Centered Score 6

S

Age. Gender. Stress. God-Cemered,
Alienated. Bargaining, People-Cemeted

Age. Gender. Stress, People-Centered,
God-Centered. Alienated. Bargaining

Age. Gender. Stress. Bargaining.
People-Centered, God—Ceraered, Alienated

 

Note ' To test the additive effects form of stress-buffering proposed in hypothesis V, the regression of
religious coping on stress (performed in connection with hypothesis II) was examined. Thus information from
the first regression equation in hypothesis 11 was used in hypothesis V.

122

 

 

Table 2
Frequencies for Demographic Variables and Religious Affiliation
(N=503)
Variable Frequency . Percent Cumulative
Name Percent
Gender
Male 173 34.4 34.4
Female 330 65.6 100.0
Marital Status
Single 496 98.6 98.6
Married 3 .6 99.2
Divorced 4 .8 100.0
Ethnicity‘
Caucasian 428 85.1 85.2
African-American 28 5.6 90.7
Asian-American 13 2.6 93.4
Hispanic 9 1.8 95.2
Other 23 4.6 100.0

Religious Affiliation‘

Protestant 184 36.6 36.6
Catholic 119 23.7 60.4
Jewish 25 5.0 65.4
Buddhist 5 9 66.3
Muslim 2 .3 66.6
Other” 97 19.3 85.8
Atheist 9 1.8 87.7
None“ 60 11.9 100.0

 

' Sample size is reduced due to missing data.

" Persons in this category included, for example. humanists. rastifarians, and subjects who claimed to adhere
to their 'own personal religion.“

° Subjects were included in this category only if they indicated they did not believe in any organized religion
nor did they firmly disbelieve in God.

123

 

 

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables and Level of Religiosity
(5=503)
Variable
Name Mean ‘ Range Standard Deviation
Subject Age 20.10 years 17-32 0.92 years

Highest Level of
Education Attained

by Parents 15.70 years 6-23 1.40 years
Family SES‘ 45.81 13.8-89.6 22.09
Level of Religiosity
Hood’s Religious
Interest Question” 3.31 1-5 1.22
Pargament’s Religious
Experience Scalec 2.04 5-23 ’ 0.88

 

‘ Measured using the Revised Duncan Socioeconomic Index (Stevens & Featherman, 1981). Score
represents a composite of both parents’ occupations. Scores of 45.0 include skilled craftsmen and office
workers, for example.

" Hood’s (1973) Religious Interest Question is a single item that asks the subject to ”estimate how important
religion is to you“ (1 =not at all; 5=extremely important). It has been used in college samples to
distinguish religious from non-religious individuals (e.g.. Park, Cohen, & Herb, 1990).

‘ Pargament’s (1992) 5-item Religious Experiences Scale provides an index of the subject’s private religious
experience (1=none; 5=very often) by asking how often he/she has experienced: I) a feeling of closeness
to God in prayer, during worship, or at important moments in daily life, 2) a feeling of deep awareness of
the presence of God, 3) a born again experience in which Jesus entered your life, 4) the experience of
having God speak to you, and 5) the experience of feeling one with God.

124

Table 4

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Psychiatric Symptomatology Scales
(fl= 503)

 

 

1 2 3. 4
1. Total Symptom
Score -- .91“ .81“ .81* .83" .85"'
2. Depression -- .70“ .60“ .67* .77*
3. Anxiety - .63* ,58“ .60“
4. Somatization - .58* .56*
5. Obsessive-Compulsive .63"

6. Interpersonal
Sensitivity

 

*p< .01

125

Table 5

Eigenvalues and Percentage of Variance Explained by Religious Coping Factors

 

 

_Ejgm . nt of V ' e A no F r
Total Common
Factgr NE;
God-Centered Religious Coping 11.36 34.40 68.30
People—Centered Religious Coping 1.69 5.10 10.15
Bargaining Religious Coping 2.51 7.60 15.08
Alienated Religious Coping 1.07 3.30 6.45

Total Religious Coping Scale 50.40 99.98

 

126

 

 

Table 6
Final Commonalities for the Religious Coping Scale
(5=503)
Factor Item Item
Commonality
l' i i

1. Took comfort knowing God is with me every step of the way. .5013
2. Experienced God’s love and care. .6227
3. Found a lesson from God in the event. .5638
4. Put my faith in God that things would work out. .3592
5. Used my religion to help me accept what had happened. .1718
6. Realized God was trying to strengthen me. .3905
7. Looked to God for comfort. .3695
8. Had faith that God was doing this for a reason. .4294
9. Used my religious beliefs to help keep my problems in perspective. .3494
10. To the extent I felt to blame for the problem, I was comforted

knowing that God forgives those who are truly sorry. .6098
11. Believed 'this is all part of God’s plan.“ .6318
12. Trusted that God would not let anything terrible happen to me. .4050
13. To the extent I felt responsible for the problem, I

sought God’s forgiveness. .5875
14. booked for ways in which God was using this event for my own good. .4441
15. Accepted the situation was not in my hands but in the hands of God. .6328
16. Took control over what I could. and gave the rest up to God. .3536
17. Prayed or read the Bible to keep my mind off my problems. .4687

127

Table 6 (cont’d)

 

Factor Item

 

P1 n li' i

18. Looked for understanding and support from other members
of my church/religious group.

19. Shared my burdens with a member of my religious group.
20. Participated in a church support group or prayer group.

21. Talked to a religious leader (e.g., minister, rabbi, priest)
about what to do.

22. Asked trusted others to pray for me regarding the problem.

23. Asked for advice from someone who shared my religious outlook.

E .. E!” C.
24. Bargained withGodtomakethings better.

25. Prayed that if God would take this problem away, I would become
a better person.

26. Told God that I would do whatever He wanted, if only He would make
things better.

27. Prayed that things would go back the way they were before the problem
came up.

28. Prayed for a miracle.

29. Let God know how angry I was feeling.

11° 1 E 1i . E .
30. Felt frustrated with my religion.

31. Questioned my religious beliefs and faith.
32. Felt angry with or distant from God.

33. Felt angry with or distant from members of the church.

.7289

.5357

. 5508

.5659

.6192

.4264

. 3988

.6946

.3999

. 6242

. 5797

. 3437

.6693

 

128

 

 

Table 7
Complete Factor Loading for the Religious Coping Scale
(5:503) ‘
Factor Item Factor 1 FaCtor 2 Facror 3 Factor 4
u 1i ' C

I. Took comfort knowing God is with me

every Step of the way. .8130 .2257 .1041 -.0782
2. Experienced God’s love and care. .7610 .1815 .0724 -.0742
3. Found a lesson from God in the event. .7559 .2162 .1075 -.0451
4. Put my faith in God that things would

work out. .7458 .1893 .2565 -. 1067
5. Used my religion to help me accept what

had happened. .7342 .2466 .0989 -.0120
6. Realized God was trying to strengthen me. .7280 .1608 .0662 .0597
7. Looked to God for comfort. .7265 .2293 .2285 .0126

8. HadfaiththatGodwasdoingthis
for a reason. .7142 .1813 .2845 .0175

9. Used my religious beliefs to help
keep my problems in perspective. .7003 .3014 .0732 -.0298

10. To the extent I felt to blame for

the problem, I was comforted knowing

that God forgives those who are truly sorry. .6791 .1957 .2545 .0403
11. Believed “this is all part of God’s plan.” .6430 .1674 .1644 .0137

12. Trusted that God would not let anything
terrible happen to me. .6424 .1165 .2585 -.0910

13. To the extent I felt responsible for
the problem, I sought God’s forgiveness. .6436 .1706 .2971 .0643

14. Looked for ways in which God was using
this event for my own good. .6403 .2171 .3020 .0500

Table 7 (cont’d)

129

 

Factor Item

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

 

15. Accepted the situation was not in my
handsbutinthehandsofGod.

16. Took control over what I could, and
gave the rest up to God.

17. Prayed or read the Bible to keep
my mind off my problems.

Peoplefiegtgrfl Relig'gus Coping
18. Looked for understanding and support

from other members of my religious group.

19. Shared my burdens with a member
of my religious group.

20. Participated in a church support
8'0“? 0' prayer group.

21. Talked to a religious leader
(e.g., minister, rabbi, priest)
about what to do.

22. Asked trusted others to pray for
me regarding the problem.

23. Asked for advice from someone who
shared my religious outlook.

E .. E!" E'

24. Bargained with God to make things
better.

25. Prayed that if God would take this
problem away, I would become a
better person.

26. Told God that I would do whatever
He wanted, if only He would make

things better.

. 5742

.4632

.2057

.1964

.2903

.2016

. 3409

.3474

.2072

.2005

.1797

.1888

.1284

.3506

.7543

.6329

.5618

.5559

.4773

.4627

-.0189

.0152

.0411

.1588

.1497

.0750

.0768

.0698

-.0058

.2140

.0553

.7443

.7308

.7166

-.0166

-.0301

.0253

.0457

.0657

.0059

-.0628

-.0259

.1075

.0844

.0721

.0305

Table 7 (cont’d)

130

 

 

Factor Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 ham 4
27. Prayed that things would go back

the way they were before the problem

came up. .1154 .0642 .6350 .0753
28. Prayed for a miracle. .2710 .1153 .5573 .0882
29. Let God know how angry I was feeling. .2546 .1522 .4862 .2728
Alignam Religiggs Coping
30. Felt frustrated with my religion. -.0111 .0843 .0185 .8289
31. Questioned my religious beliefs and faith. —.l261 .0000 .0180 .6541
32. Felt angry with or distant from God. .0991 .0085 .2169 .5498
33. Felt angry with or distant from members

of the church. .0610 -.0100 .0767 .4026

 

13 1
Table 8

Psychometric Characretistics of the Religious Coping Scale
(.1!=496)

 

 

Factor Item M. 52
T R ' i 'n (33 Items) (Alpha=.93) 70.57 19.71
(Item Mean) (2.02) (0.56)
MM (17 Items) (Alpha=.95) 37.44 13.14
(Item Mean) (2.21) (0.77)
I. Took comfort knowing God is with me every step of the way. 2.28 1.07
2. Experienced God’s love and care. 2.50 1.03
3. Found a lesson from God in the event. 2.14 1.04
4. Put my faith in God that things would work out. 2.39 1.05
5. Used my religion to help me accept what had happened. 2.09 1.01
6. Realized God was trying to strengthen me. 2.34 1.09
7. Looked to God for comfort. 2.45 1.04
8. Had faith that God was doing this for a reason. 2.30 1.02
9. Used my religious beliefs to help keep my problems in perspective. 2.13 1.02
10. To the extent I felt to blame for the problem, I was comforted

knowing that God forgives those who are truly sorry. 2.29 1.08
11. Believed "this is all part of God’s plan." 2.19 1.01
12. Trusted that God would not let anything terrible happen to me. 2.46 1.02
13. To the extent I felt responsible for the problem. I

sought God’s forgiveness. 2.17 1.07
14. Looked for ways in which God was using this event for my own good. 2.11 0.98
15. Accepted the situation was not in my hands but in the hands of God. 2.04 1.04
16. Took control over what I could, and gave the rest up to God. 2.21 1.07
17. Prayed or read the Bible to keep my mind off my problems. 1.48 0.83

132

 

 

Table 8 (cont’d)
Factor Item M £12
Wags (6 Items) (Alpha=.79) 9.29 3-50
(Item Mean) (1.55) (0.58)
18. Looked for understanding and support from other members

of my church/religious group. 1.43 0.75
19. Shared my burdens with a member of my religious group. 1.43 0.81
20. Participated in a church support group or prayer group. 1.34 0.80
21. Talked to a religious leader (e. g., minister, rabbi, priest)

about what to do. 1.17 0.54
22. Asked trusred Others to pray for me regarding the problem. 1.69 1.01
23. Asked for advice from someone who shared my religious outlook. 2.23 1.03
W (6 Items} (Alpha=.84) 12-35 4-67
(Item Mean) (2.06) (0.78)
24. Bargained with God to make things better. 2.01 1.04
25. Prayed that if God would take this problem away. I would become

a better person. 1.92 1.03
26. Told God that I would do whatever He wanted, if only He would make

things better. ‘ 1.78 0.98
27 . Prayed that things would go back the way they were before the problem

came up. 2.28 1.10
28. Prayed for a miracle. 2.36 1.12
29. Let God know how angry I was feeling. 2.01 1.00

' (Items=4) (Alpha=.70) 7.33 2.81

(Item Mean) (1.83) (0.70)
30. Felt frustrated with my religion. 1.69 0.94
31. Questioned my religious beliefs and faith. 2.22 1.06
32. Felt angry with or distant from God. 1.75 0.87
33. Felt angry with or distant from members of the church. 1.68 1.00

 

Table 9

Correlations Among Religious C0ping FaCtors
(E=503)

133

 

 

1. Total Score
Religious Coping

2. God-Centered
Religious Coping

3. People-Centered
Religious Coping

4. Bargaining
Religious Coping

5. Aliemted
Religious Coping

- .94" .69"I

- .59*

.67"'

.47*

.27"l

.18“

.05

.20*

 

l"p< .01

134

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics for Dispositional Religiousness and Religious Coping Variables
(3:503)

 

 

Total Factor Score _M_ ‘ SQ RANGE

(Item Meat!) (M) (52) (RANGE)

Dispositional Religiousness Scales
Intrinsic Religious 23.23 8.88 9.00 43.00
Orientation (2. 58) (0.93) (1.00) (5.00)
Extrinsic Religious 28.38 6.59 11.00 46.00
Orientation (2.58) (0.60) (1.00) (5.00)
Religious Well-Being 34.46 9.64 10.00 50.00
(Closeness to God) (3.45) (0.96) (1.00) (5.00)
1i i ' ' 1
Total Religious Coping 70.57 19.71 35.00 120.00
Score (2.02) (0.56) (1.00) (4.00)
God-Centered Religious 37.44 13.14 17.00 68.00
C0ping (2.21) (0.77) (1.00) (4.00)
People-Centered Religious 9.29 3.50 6.00 24.00
Coping (1.55) (0.58) (1.00) (4.00)
Bargaining Religious 12.35 4.67 6.00 30.00
Coping (2.06) (0.78) (1 .00) (4.00)
Alienated Religious 7.33 2.81 3.00 16.00
Coping (1.83) (0.70) (1.00) (4.00)

 

135
Table 11

Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Religious Variables
(NF-503)

 

 

 

 

Dispositional Religiousness Religious Coping
1 2 3. 4 5 6. 7 8.

i iti
Beligigm
1. Intrinsic -- .25* .80“ .70* .76* .55* .24* -.08
2. Extrinsic -- .23* .26* .19* .09 .35* .11
3. Religious - .72" .80“ .44" .30“ -.12*

Well-Being
E !° . C .
4. Total Religious - .94" .69“ .67* .18“

Coping Score
5. God-Centered .59* .47“ -.04
6. People-Centered -- .27* .05
7. Bargaining -- .20“
8. Alienated ..

 

*p< .01

136
Table 12

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Demographic Variables with Stress, Religious Variables, and Psychiatric
Symptomatology @=503)

 

 

Gender ‘ Age Family Stress
SES

Stressful Life Events Score .17* -.09 .01 1.0

MW
Intrinsic Religious Orientation .03 .15* .04 -.03
Extrinsic Religious Orientation .07 -.04 —.02 .04
Religious Well-Being .06 .09 .01 -.04

mg Score .09 .02 -.03 .18"
God-Centered Religious Coping .09 .05 -.01 .08
People-Centered Religious Coping .02 .00 -.01 .10
Bargaining Religious Coping .11 -.O8 -.10 .28"
Alienated Religious Coping -.02 -.01 .04 .22"
Total Symptom Score .14“ -.07 -.01 .48"
Depression .15“ -.05 -.05 .50"
Anxiety .09 .03 -.03 .35"'
Somatization .14* -.07 .01 .32*
Obsessive-Compulsive .02 -.07 .01 .38"
Interpersonal Sensitivity .19* -.09 .04 .43“

 

*p< .01

137
Table 13

Summary‘ of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Overall Religious Coping from
Dispositional Religiousness

 

 

grit; 'Qn
Predicrors AR2 E I!”
W (summary of 3 regressions)
Stress 03 14.80 .001
Religious Well-Being‘ .07 83.96 .001
Intrinsic Orientationc .04 54.39 .001
Extrinsic Orientation‘ 00 4.34 ns

 

' Represents the results of 3 regression equations.

" p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

° Results represent the effects of the predictor when entered last into the regression equation after the effects of
demographic variables (age, gender), Stress, and the other two dispositional variables have been partialled-
out.

138
Table 14

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous Model Predicting Overall Religious Coping

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized

Beta ‘ Beta 5 12‘
Age -.89 -.05 -1.75 ns
Gender .60 .02 .54 ns
Stress .54 .20 6.97 .001
Religious Well-Being .82 .43 9.16 .001
Intrinsic Orientation .78 .35 7.38 .001
Extrinsic Orientation .17 .07 2.08 ns

 

‘ p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

139

Table 15

Summary‘ of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Religious Coping from

Dispositional Religiousness

 

 

Criterion
Predictors AR’ E 2"
MW (summary of 3 regressions)
Stress .01 2.56 ns
Religious Well-Being‘ .10 162.15 001
Intrinsic Orientation‘ 72.93 I
Extrinsic Orientation‘ .00 1.15
P l R 1i i ' (summary of 3 regressions)
Stress .01 4.38 ns
Religious Well-Being‘ .00 .11 ns
Intrinsic Orientation‘ .11 80.11 .001
Extrinsic Orientation‘ .00 2.69 as
W (summary of 3 regressions)
Stress .07 35.67 .001
Religious Well-Being‘ .03 20.25 .001
Intrinsic Orientation‘ .00 .50 ns
Extrinsic Orientation‘ .07 50.03 .001
WWW (summary of 3 regressions)
Stress .05 28.27 001
Religious Well-Being‘ .01 4.09 ns
Intrinsic Orientation‘ .00 .01 ns
Extrinsic Orientation‘ .02 8.81 01

 

‘ Represents the results of 12 regression equations.
" p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

‘ Results represent the effects of the predictor when entered last into the regression equation after the effects of
demographic variables (age, gender), stress, and the other two dispositional variables have been partialled-

out.

140
Table I6

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultamous Model Predicting God-Centered Religious Coping

 

 

Unstandardized. Standardized

Beta Beta 1 12'
Age -.40 -.03 -l.27 ns
Gender .94 .03 1 . 35 ns
Stress .21 .11 4.26 .001
Religious Well-Being .72 .53 12.73 .001
Intrinsic Orientation .56 .36 8.54 .001
Extrinsic Orientation -.06 -.03 -l.07 ns

 

‘ p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

Table 17

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous Model Predicting People—Centered Religious C0ping

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized

Beta ' Beta 5 2'
Age -.26 -.08 -2.04 ns
Gender -.16 -.02 -.56 ns
Stress .06 .11 3.02 .01
Religious Well-Being .01 .02 .34 ns
Intrinsic Orientation .24 .56 8.95 .001
Extrinsic Orientation -.03 -.06 -1.64 ns

 

' n > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

142
Table 18

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous Model Predicting Bargaining Religious Coping

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized

Beta Beta t 2'
Age -.27 -.06 -1.49 ns
Gender .18 .02 .45 ns
Stress .18 .26 6.71 .001
Religious Well-Being .14 .29 4.50 .001
Intrinsic Orientation -.03 -.05 -.71 ns
Extrinsic Orientation .20 .28 7.07 .001

 

' p_ > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

143
Table 19

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous Model Predicdng Alienated Religious Coping

 

 

Umtandardized Standardized
Beta ' Beta 1
Age .04 .02 .38
Gender -.36 -.06 -1.39
Stress .09 .23 5.14
Religious Well-Being -.04 -. 15 -2.02
Intrinsic Orientation .00 .01 .11
Extrimic Orientation .06 .13 2.97

 

‘ p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

Table 20

144

Descriptive Statistics for Stress and Psychological Symptomatology

(N_= 503)

 

 

Total Factor Score M 'E RANGE
(Item Mean) (M) (£2) (RANGE)
Mariam;
Stressful Life Events Score 13.06 6.83 0.00 39.00
Psychologig Symptomatology Sga_les
Total Symptom Score 80.00 18.80 44.00 145.00
(1.82) (0.43) (1.00) (4.00)
Depression 20.52 6.05 11.00 41.00
(1.87) (0.55) (1.00) (4.00)
Anxiety 9.24 2.84 6.00 22.00
(1.54) (0.48) (1.00 (4.00)
Somatization 20.02 4.97 12.00 42.00
(1.67) (0.41) (1.00) (4.00)
Obsessive-Compulsive 16.17 4.37 8.00 31.00
(2.02) (0.55) (1.00) (4.00)
Interpersoml Sensitivity 14.05 4.01 7.00 25.00
(2.01) (0.57) (1.00) (4.00)

 

145
Table 21

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Psychiatric Symptomatology with Stress and Religious Variables
(5=503)

 

Total Depression Anxiety Somatization Obsessive- Interpersonal

 

Symptoms Compulsive Sensitivity

Stressful Life Events Score .48* .50" .35" .32* .38* .43*
MW

Intrinsic Orientation .07 .01 .13* .10 .08 .01

Extrinsic Orientation .15“ .14" .11 .13" .09 .13“

Religious Well-Being .00 -.05 .06 .04 .02 -.03
Religious Coping M;

Total Religious Caping .24“ .18“ .26" .19“ .22" .18“

God-Centered Coping .14" .09 .17“ .12“ .13" .08

People-Centered Coping .09 .05 .14“ .11 .08 .04

Bargaining Coping .32" .29“ .28" .22“ .28‘ .31“

Alienated Coping .27" .26* .23" .17“ .22"' .25*

 

‘p< .01

146
Table 22

Summary‘ of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Testing Additive Effects versus InteraCtion EffeCts
Models of Stress-Buffering for Religious Coping

 

 

Criterion
Predictors AB} E 2"
WW (1 regression)
Stress .21 137.71 .001
Overall Religious Coping‘ .02 15.23 .001
Stress x Overall Religious Copingd .00 .04 ns
W (1 regression)
Stress .23 155.43 .001
Overall Religious Copingc .01 5.71 ns
Stress x Overall Religious Coping‘1 .00 .06 ns
W (l regression)
Stress .11 67.85 .001
Overall Religious Coping‘ .04 21.92 .001
Stress x Overall Religious Coping“ .00 1.02 ns

 

' Summarizes the results of 3 regression equations.
" p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

‘ Represents the effects of the predictor after the effects of demographics. & stress have been partialled-out.
‘ Represents the effects of interaction terms when entered last in the regression equation.

147
Table 23

Standardized Beta Weights in Three Fully Simultaneous Models Testing Additive Effects and Interaction Effects
Models of Stress—Buffering

 

 

Unstandardized‘ Standardized
Beta Beta to p‘
l P ' ' m

Age -.40 -.02 -.57 ns
Gender 2.03 .05 1.30 ns
Stress 1.23 .41 2.69 .01
Overall Religious Coping .14 . 14 1.71 ns
Stress X Overall Religious Coping .00 .04 ‘ .20 ns
W
Age -.02 -.00 -.08 ns
Gender .81 .06 1.62 ns
Stress .39 . .44 2.87 .001
Overall Religious Coping .02 .08 .93 ns
Stress X Overall Religious Coping .00 .05 .25 as
W
Age .14 .05 1.19 ns
Gender .18 .03 .69 ns
Stress .07 .16 .98 ns
Overall Religious Coping .02 .12 1.38 ns
Stress X Overall Religious Coping .00 .19 1.01 ns

 

‘ p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

Table 24

Summary‘ of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Psychiatric Symptomatology

I48

 

 

m
Predictors AR2 E 2"
WM (summary of 4 regressionS)
Stress‘ .21 137.71 .001
God—Centered Religious Copingd .00 .51 us
People-Centered Religious Coping‘I .00 .15 ns
Bargaining Religious Copingd .02 13.73 .001
Alienated Religious Coping“1 .02 14.44 .001
W (wmmary of 4 regressions)
Stress‘ .23 155.44 .001
God-Centered Religious Coping‘1 .00 .02 m
People-Centered Religious Coping‘ .00 .81 ns
Bargaining Religious Coping‘I .01 10.31 .001
Alienated Religious Coping” .02 13.11 .001
Anxiety Smntgms (summary of 4 regressions)
Stress‘ .12 67.85 .001
God-Centered Religious Coping‘I .00 1.29 ns

149

Table 24 (cont’d)

 

 

gritgrign
PrediCtors AR’ E 2"
People-Centered Religious Coping" .00 .37 ns
Bargaining Religious Coping‘l .01 8.70 .01
Alienated Religious Coping‘ .02 11.03 .001

 

' Summarizes the results of 15 regression equations.

" p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

‘ Results represent the effects of stress with the effects of demographic variables (age, gender) partialled-out.

“ Results represent the effects of the medium when entered last in the equation after demographic variables
(age, gender), stress, and the alternate three religious coping variables.

1 50
Table 25

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous Model Predicting Overall Psychiatric Symptomatology from
Religious Coping Factors

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized

Beta Beta 1 11'
Age -.17 -.01 -.24 ns
'Gender 2.31 .06 1.50 ns
Stress 1.07 .39 9.54 .001
God-Centered Religious Coping .05 .04 .71 us
People Centered Religious Coping -. 10 -.02 -.39 ns
Bargaining Religious Coping .68 .17 3.71 .001
Alienated Religious Coping 1.01 .15 3.80 .001

 

' p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

Table 26

151

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous Model Predicting Depressive Symptomatology from

Religious Coping Factors

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized

Beta Beta LQ 2'
Age .05 .01 .24 ns
Gender .89 .07 1.82 ns
Stress .37 .42 10.43 .001
God-Centered Religious Coping .00 .01 .16 ns
People-Centered Religious Coping -.07 -.04 -.90 ns
Bargaining Religious Coping .19 .15 3.21 .001
Alienated Religious Coping .31 3.62 .01

.14

 

‘ p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

152
Table 27

Standardized Beta Weights in a Fully Simultaneous Model Predicring Anxiety Symptoms from Religious Coping
Factors

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized

Beta Beta t 2'
Age .18 .06 1.57 ns
Gender .20 .03 .81 ns
Stress .11 .27 6.25 .001
God—Centered Religious Coping .01 .06 1.14 ns
People-Centered Religious Coping .02 .03 .60 ns
Bargaining Religious C0ping .09 .14 2.95 .01
Alienated Religious Coping . 15 - .14 3.32 .001

 

' p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

I 53
Table 28

Sinnmary“ of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Psychiatric Symptomatology from
Dispositional Religiousness and Religious Coping

 

 

Criterign
Predictors” AR’ _13 p‘
verall P chi ric toms (2 regressions)
Dispositional Religiousness Predictor Set .02 4.15 .01
Religious Coping Predicror Set .05 8.99 .001
W (2 regressions)
Dispositional Religiousness Predictor Set .02 4.58 .01
Religious Coping PrediCtor Set .04 7.16 .001
W (2 regressions)
Dispositional Religiousness Predictor Set .01 2.52 ns
Religious Coping Predictor Set .05 7.28 .001

 

‘ Summarizes the results of 6 regression equations.

" Regression results represent the effects of the predictor set when entered last in the equation after
demographic variables (age. gender). stress, and the alternate predictor set.

‘ p > .01 recorded as not significant (ns).

Table 29

154

Relationship between Religious Coping Variables and Psychological Adjustment

 

Sample Religious Affiliation

 

 

 

 

' Christian
Christian & Non-Christian
Middle-aged College Middle-aged College
Adults Students Adults Students
God-Centered Coping ** *"' ** ns
(Grober, 1994) Symptoms
Spiritually-Based Coping Negative “ ** ns
(Pargament et al. , 1990; Symptoms Symptoms
Pargament etal., 1991)
Collaborative Problem-Solving
(Hathaway & Pargament, 1990; Positive Negative ** "
Pargament et a1, 1988; SE/SC Anxiety
Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1990)
Spiritual Support (Maton, 1989) " ** ** Negative
Depression
People-Centered Coping *" “ ""' ns
(Grober, 1994) Symptoms
Religious Support Coping ns ** ** ns
(Pargament et al., 1990; Symptoms Symptoms
Pargament et al, 1991)
Bargaining Coping ** " “ Positive
(Grober. 1994) Symptoms
Pleading Coping ns " " Positive
(Pargament et a1. , 1990 Symptoms , Symptoms
Pargament et al., 1991)
Deferring Problem-Solving
(Hathaway & Pargament, 1990; Negative Positive '“' "
Pargament et al., 1988; SE/SC Anxiety

Schaefer & Gorsuch. 1990)

155

Table 29. Cont’d

 

Sample Religious Affiliation

 

 

 

 

 

Chrisrian
Christian & Non-Christian
Middle-aged College Middle-aged College
Adults Students Adults Students
Alienated Coping ** " ** Positive
(Grober, 1994) Symptoms
Discontent Coping Positive " ** Positive
(Pargamenteta1., 1990; Symptoms Symptoms
Pargament et al., 1991)
Self-Directed Problem-Solving Negative Positive " **
(Hathaway & Pargament, 1990; SE/SC Anxiety
Pargament et al., 1988;
Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1990)
line;
D. . [E I . I. l l E 5 I
" = not assessed Symptoms = Overall Symptom index
ns = non-significant relationship SE/SC = Measures Self-Esteem & Social Competence
Negative = negative relationship Anxiety = State/'1‘ rait Anxiety Scale

Positive = positive relationship

APPENDIX F: Figures

156

Eiggre 1a: Interactive effects model

 

 

 

COPING
STRESS V >PSYCHOLOGICAL
SYMPTOMS
Em: Additive effects model
OPING
+ ..
STRESS 9PSYCHOLOGICAL
+ SYMPTOMS

W: Two Alternative Models of Stress-Buffering, after Wheaton (1985)

157

RELIGIOUS
COPING

STRESSFUL PSYCHOLOGICAL
LIFE EVENTS + SYMPTOMS

 

Eggs}; Additive Effects Model of Religious Coping as a Stress-Buffer

158

DISPOSITIONAL

 

 

RELIGIOUSNESS
RELIGIOUS
COPING
STRESSFUL > PSYCHOLOGICAL
LIFE EVENTS + SYMPTOMS

5mm}: Summary of Proposed Relationships among Dispositional Religiousness. Religious C0ping,
Stress, and Psychological Symptomatology

159

RELIGIOUS

 

 

 

 

COPING
+ ....
+ n: -- +
+ PSYCHOLOGICAL
' SYMPTOMS
+

Summary of Expected Relationships (upper line) and Actual Relationships (lower line) testing the
Additive Effects versus Interaction Effects Models of Stress-Buffering

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Acklin, M. W., Brown, E. C., & Mauger, P. A. (1983). The role Of religious values
in coping with cancer. Journal 9f Religion and Health, 22(4), 322-333.

Allport, G. W. (1959). Religion and prejudice. In G. W. Allport (Ed.) Persppality
and social encounter: Selected essays (pp. 257-267). Boston: Beacon Press.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.
Journal Of Personalig end Smial Psychology, 5, 432-443.

Antosz, L. (1990). Reli iosi i ni dev l ment an health 0 m inal te
agelescent sample. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Armstrong, J. S., & Soelberg, P. (1968). On interpretation of factor analysis.
ngcholpgigl BplleLin, 10, 361-364.

Bakan, D. (1968). Di in n rit ° T h l f ff rin .
Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Baker, M., & Gorsuch, R. (1982). Trait anxiety and intrinsic-extrinsic religiousness.

Jeernal fer the Seiengifie Study pf Religien, 2_1, 119-122.

Batson, D. C. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double-agent? MM
Seientific Study pf Religipp, 15, 29-45.

Beck, J. R. (1986). Christian reflections on stress management. MM
Peyehplegy and flfheelegy, 14(1), 22-28.

Bellah, R. N. (1970). Beyend belief. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The seem cogfletien pf rang. New
York: Anchor Books.

Bergin, A. E. (1983). Religiosity and mental health: A critical reevaluation and meta-
analysis. Pr f i P h l 'R h i ,L4_, 170-184.

160

161

Bergin, A. E., Masters, K. S., & Richards, P. S. (1987). Religiousness and mental
health reconsidered: A study of an intrinsically religious sample. leprnel pf

Counseling Psychology, 3, 197-204.

Bernardo, M. D. (1988). R li iO i an i f its: Difference in i nxie
experiences of ha_ssles. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social
resources in attenuating the stress Of life events. ournal Of B h vi r 1
Medicine, 5, 139-157.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1984). The role Of stress, coping, and social

resources among adults with unipolar depression. Jpprnal pf Persppality and
Speial ngcholpgy, 46, 877-891.

Bjorck, J. P. (1991). M i tin ff fr [1 i i in wi
l n h 11 n . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of

Delaware, Newark, DE.

Blazer, D., & Palmore, E. (1976). Religion and aging in a longitudinal panel. he
Qerentplpgiet, _16, 82-84.

Brinkman, D. D. (1989). An v 1 i n f ir' w 11- .
W. Unpublished dissertation, Western Conservative
Baptist Seminary, Portland, OR.

Brown, D. R., & Gary, L. E. (1987). Stressful life events, social support networks,
and the physical and mental health of urban black adults. legal Of Human
Stresg, 21, 165-174.

Bufford, R. K., Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1991). Norms for the spiritual
well-being scale. JOprpal pf Psyehplegy and flfheplegy, _12, 56-70.

Capps, D. (1987). WWW. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D.
S., Ketcham, A. S., Moffat, F. L., & Clark, K. C. (1993). How coping
mediates the effect Of optimism on distress: A study of women with early stage

breast cancer. ur 1 fPr ' i P hl ,65, 375-390.

162

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping

strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality ane Social
Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Chan, T. H. (1994). The use Of prayer as a COping strategy in dealing with state-trait
anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Appliee meltiple regressienzeerrelatien aealysis fer
the behavioral sciences (2nd ed,). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, L., Towbes, L., & Flocco, R. (1988). Effects Of induced mood on
self-reported life events and perceived and received social support. Jeernal Of

Personality and Smial Psycholegy, 55, 669-674.

Cohen, S., & Edwards, 1. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators Of the
relationship between stress and disorder. In R. Neufeld (Ed.), Aeyapeesmthe

Memo—112W (pp- 235-238). New York: Wiley-

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering
hypothesis. Psychelegigl Bulletin, 28, 310-357.

Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first eeerse in faeeer Mysis. New York: Academic
Press.

Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1984). The role of predisposing and moderating

factors in the stress-illness relationship. 1 f 1 i h vi r,
25, 372-393.

Derogatis, L. R. ,,Lipman R. S., Covi, L. Rickels, K. ,& Uhlenhuth, E. H. (1970).
Dimensions Of outpatient neurotic pathology: Comparison of a clinical versus an

empirical assessment. lini [P h l ,L, 164-
171.

Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974).
The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory.
Behavieral Selena, 12, 1-15. ,

Donahue, M. J. (1985a). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and

meta-analysis. Joerpal ef Bersepalisy and Seeial Psyehelegy, 18, 400-419.

163

Donahue, M. J. (1985b). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: The empirical research.

Jeurnal for the Scientific Study Of Religion, 24, 418-423.

Ebaugh, H., Richman, L., & Chafetz, J. (1984). Life crises among the religiously

committed. DO sectarian differences matter? Journal fer the Scientific Study ef
Religion, 23,19-31.

Ellis, A. E. (1970). The case against religion. Mensa Journal, _1_3_2_, 5-6.

Ellison, C. G. (1993). Religious involvement and self perception among Black
Americans. Social Forces, 2;, 1027-1055.

Ellison, C. G., & George, L. K. (1994). Religious involvement, social ties, and social

support in a southeastern community. Jeurnal fer the Scientifie Smey ef
Religion, 53, 46-61.

Ellison, R. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement.
Jourual ef Psychology and Thgglegy, _1_1, 330-340.

Erikson, E. H. (1981). The Galilean sayings and the sense of ”1." MM, 10,
321-362.

Feagin, J. R. (1964). Prejudice and religious types: A focused study Of Southern
fundamentalists. Jeurnal fer the Sciensifie Study ef Religien, 51, 3-13.

Fehr, L. A., & Heintzelman, M. E. (1977). Personality and attitude correlates Of
religiosity: A source Of controversy. W, a, 63-66.

Ferraro, K. F ., & Albrecht-Jensen, C. M. (1991). Does religion influence adult
health?, Jourual fer the Seientifie Study ef Religien, 3_Q, 193-202.

Fichter, J. H. (1981). 61' i i ' 'ri i i fh 1 e.

New York: Crossroad.

Finney, J. N., Mitchell, R. E., Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1984).
Methodological issues in estimating main and interactive effects: Examples
from coping/social support and stress field. ur I f H

Behavier, 25, 85-98.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator Of emotions. JguuuaLef
smashing, L4, 466-475.

164

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter K., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J.
(1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping and

encounter outcomes. Journal ef Personality and Social Psychology, E, 992-
1003. '

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal,
coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal ef Persomlity apd
Social Psychology, fl, 571-579.

Fowler, 1. W. (1981). Sta es of f ith: The s chol f human evel ment 11
guest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Fowler, J . W. (1982). Stages Of faith and adults’ life cycles. In K. Stokes (Ed.),

Faith development in tee adult life eyele (pp. 179-209). New York: W. H.
Sadlier.

Frankel, B. G., & Hewitt, W. E. (1994). Religion and well-being among Canadian
university students: The rOle of faith groups on campus. Jeurnal fer the

Scientifie SMy ef Religien, 53, 62-73.

Freud, S. (1957). Leonardo Da Vinci and a memory Of his childhood. In J. Strachey
(Ed. and Trans.), Th (1 iti n f '
Sigmund Freud (Vol. 11, pp. 57-136). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work
published in 1910)

Freud, S. (1959). Obsessive actions and religious practices. In J. Strachey (Ed. and
Trans.),Th n itinfth ml chlil r fimn
Freud (Vol. 9, pp. 115-127). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work
published in 1907)

Freud, S. (1961). The future of an illusion. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), _The

stande editien ef the gamplete psyehelegigl wergs ef Sigmund Freud (Vol.
21, pp. 1-56). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published in 1927)

Fromm, E. (1950). Psycheaualysis and religien. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

Gallup, G., Jr., & Castelli, J. (1989). The l ’ reli i : Am ri n f i in
2);. New York: Macmillan.

Gallup, 6., Jr., & Poling, D. (1980). W. New York:
Abingdon Press.

165

Gartner, J., Larson, D. B., & Allen, G. D. (1991). Religious commitment and mental
health: A review Of the empirical literature. Journal of Psychology and
Theology 19 6-25.

’ —,

Geertz, C. (1968). Religion as a cultural system. In D. R. Cutler (Ed.), The religious
situation: 1968. Boston: Beacon Press.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Measurement: The boon and bane Of investigating religion.
American Psychologist, 59, 228-236.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1985) Factor analysis (Rev. ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Gore, S. (1985). Social support and styles Of coping with stress. In S. Cohen and S.
L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 263-281). New York:
Academic Press.

Graff, R. W., & Ladd, C. E. (1971). P.O.I. correlates of a religious commitment
inventory. rn l f 1' i 1 Ps h 27 502- 504.

’ _,

Grom, B. (1993). Multivariate enough? Remarks on Schaefer and Gorsuch’s
multivariate belief-motivation theory of religiousness. Jeurual fer the Seientific

Study ef Religien, 3;, 291-294.
Guntrip, H. (1956). M n l ' f l . London: Independent Press.

Hall, G. S. (1904). Alede esg 11%; its psyeh el egy audits relatier te ph ys ile egy,

W New
York: D. Appleton.

Hathaway, W. L., & Pargament, K. I. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness, religious
coping, and psychosocial competence: A covariance structure analysis. Jeurnal

for me Scientifie Study ef Religien, a2, 423-441.

Heintzelman, M., & Fehr, L. (1976). Relationship between religious orthodoxy and
three personality variables. P h 1 i l R , 58, 756-758.

Hood, R. W., Jr. (1971). A comparison Of the Allport and Feagin scoring procedures

for intrinsic/extrinsic religious orientation. Jeutual fer me Seientifie Sutdy ef
Religion, 10, 370-374.

Hood, R. W., Jr. (1970). Religious orientation and the report Of religious experience.
Jeurnal fer the Seientifie Study ef Religien, 2, 285-291.

166

Hunt, R. A., & King, M. B., (1971). The intrinsic-extrinsic concept: A review and
evaluation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1_Q, 339-356.

Idler, E. L. (1987). Religious involvement and the health of the elderly: Some
hypotheses and an initial test. Social Forces, 451, 226-238.

James, W. (1985). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original edition 1902)

Jenkins, R., & Pargament, K. (1988). Cognitive appraisals in cancer patients. Sgial
Science and Medieine, 26, 625-633.

Jung, C. G. (1933). M ern man in ch f soul. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Kessler, R. C. (1983). Methodological issues in the study of psychosocial stress. In
H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), P ch 5 i l s : Tr n in th re h (pp.
198-221). New York: Academic Press.

Kessler, R. C. & McLeod, J. D. (1985). Social support and mental health. In S.
Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Msuppelaudhefl (pp. 219-240). New

York: Academic Press.

Kierkegaard, S. K. (1983). Fear; and tsemhling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. (Original work published in 1843)

King, K. M. (1991). Rel ne t 'An m iri linv i in f

relio .n- moiv io ._ m ah .o - -i. o-frli'iurr' .. men hl .
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, New
York.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1990). Intrinsic-extrinsic religious
orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Jeumal

fer the Seientifte Study ef Religien, 22, 442-462.

Koening, H., Cohen, H. J., Blazer, D. G., Pieper, C., Meador, K. G., Shelp, F.,
Goli, V., & DiPasquale, B. (1992). Religious coping and depression among

elderly, hospitalized medically ill men. m ri l f P hi , fig,
1693-1700.

Koening, H., George, L., & Siegler, J. (1988). The use of religion and other emotion-
regulating coping strategies among older adults. QeLeutelegist, 23, 303-310.

167

Krause, N., & Van Tran, T. (1989). Stress and religious involvement among older
blacks. Journal of Geruntulugy: Social Sciences, fl, 4-13.

Larson, D. B., Sherrill, K. A., Lyons, J. S., Craigie, F. C., Thielman, S. B.,
Greewold, M. A., & Larson, S. S. (1992). Associations between dimensions of
religious commitment and mental health reported in the American Juurual uf

Psychiatry and Archives of General Psychiatg; 1978-1989. American Journal
of Psychiam, M, 557-559.

Lazarus, R. S., Averill, J. R., & Opton, E. M., Jr. (1974). The psychology of
coping: Issues of research and assessment. In G. V. Coelho, D A. Hamburg,

& J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptatiun (pp. 249-315). New York: Basic
Books.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Suess, appraisal, and aging. New York:
Springer.

Ledbetter, M. F., Smith, L. A., Fischler, J. D., Vosler-Hunter, W. A. & Chew, G. P.
(1991). An evaluation of the construct validity of the spiritual well-being scale:

A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Juutfl uf Psycholugy auu Theolugy,
12, 94-102.

Lilliston, L., & Brown, P. (1981). Perceived effectiveness of religious solutions to

personal problems. Juurual uf Clinical Psyuhulugy, 31, 118-122.

Lindenthal, J., Myers, J., Pepper, M., & Stern, M. (1970). Mental status and
religious behavior. f th ien ifc f l' i n, 2, 143-149.

Little, D., & Twiss, S. B., Jr. (1974). Basic terms in the study of religious ethics. In

G. Outka & J. Reeder, Jr. (Eds.), Religiun Ed murality (pp. 13-31). New
York: Doubleday.

Lovekin, A., & Malony, H. N. (1977). Religious glossolalia: A longitudinal study of
personality changes. Juumal fut the Sgientifiu Study uf Rgligiun, 16, 383-393.

Marty, M. E. (1990). Health, medicine, and the faith traditions. In M. Marty (Ed.),

Haaltuy mp1; 29m; A rula fur Amarit‘a’s religiuus mmmunitigs (pp. 1-25).
Chicago: Joint publication of the Carter Center & the Park Ridge Center.

Maton, K. 1. (1989). The stress-buffering role of spiritual support: Cross-sectional

and prospective investigations. Jourml fur tug Sgiantifig Study uf Raligiun, 23,
310-323.

168

May, R. (1940). The rin s of reative livin ' A st d f human n t re an
New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping
effectiveness in an adult sample. Journ l f Person lit , 5_4, 385-405.

Meissner, W. W. (1984). Psychdanalysis and religious experience. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.

Minton, B., & Spilka, B. (1976). Perspectives on death in relation to powerlessness
and form of personal religion. Omega, 1, 261-267.

Moberg, D. O. (1967). Religiosity in old age. Tha Gardntologist, 5, 78-87.

Moody, A. V. (1989). The effect of deliberate faking good and faking bad on spiritual
well-being scale scores in a church sample. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, OR.

Nelson, D., & Cohen, L. (1983). Locus of control and control perceptions and the
relationship between life stress and psychological disorder. Amerigu qurtfl pf

Cpmmunity Psydhulpgy, 11, 705-722.
Niebuhr, R. (1941). Th; uatura and dastiuy at man; A Christiau intet'pretatipu (Vol.

1). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Numbers, L., & Amundsen, D. W. (1986). in , rin ° i ine
in the western raligidus uaditidds. New York: Macmillan.

O’Reilly, C.T., & Pembroke, M. (1957). Older pm]; in a Chimp mmmunity.
Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University School of Social Work, Chicago,

IL.

Pargament, K. I. (1990). God help me: Towards a theoretical framework for the
psychology of religion. In M. L. Lynn & D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Rasmh in

me Supial Sgiantifig Study at Raligipn, V91, 2, (pp. 195-224). Greenwich, CT:
Jai Press.

Pargament, K. 1., Ensing, D. S., Falgout, K., Olson, H., Reily, B., VanderMeulen,
K., & Warren, R. (1990). God help me (I): Religious coping efforts as
predictors of the outcomes to significant negative life events. Amarign Juutml
pf Community Psyphuldgy, 1_8, 793-824.

169

Pargament, K. 1., & Hahn, J. (1986). God and the just world: Causal and coping

attributions to God in health situations. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 2_5, 193-207.

Pargament, K. I., Ishler, K., Dubow, E., Sanik, P., Cullman, E., Rouiller, R.,
Crowe, P., Albert, M., & Royster, B. J. (1991, November). Religidus coping

activities as; predictdrs pf the impact of the Gulf Wat Crisis. Paper presented at

the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Pargament, K. I., & Hathaway, W. L. (1991). The religious dimensions of coping:
Implications for prevention and promotion. Prevention in Human Servicg, 2,
65-92.

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 fur tug Sgientifig Study pf Raligipn, 23, 19-31.

Pargament, K. l., Steele, R. E., & Tyler, F. B. (1979). Religious participation,
religious motivation and psychosocial competence. MW
Study pf Raligiun, _1_8, 412-419.

Pargament, K. 1., Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Falgout, K., Ensing, D., & VanHaitsma, K.
(1992). God help me (II): The relationship of religious orientations to religious
coping with negative life events. r f r ci n ifi f li i n
3_1, 504-513. ‘

Park, C. L., & Cohen, L. H. (1993). Religious and nonreligious coping with the death
of a friend. W11, 561-577.

Park, C., Cohen, L. H., & Herb, L. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness and religious
coping as life stress moderators for Catholics versus Protestants. qurufl of

Per 1i i P h , 5_2, 562-574.
Pearlin, L. 1., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. MW

W12. 2-21.

Petersen, L., & Roy, A. (1985). Religiosity, anxiety, and meaning and purpose:

Religion’s consequences for psychological well-being. Raviuty pt Rgligiuus
Resgrph 27 49-63.

, —,

Princeton Religious Research Center (1982). Religipn in Ameriua. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

170

Pruyser, P. W. (1963). Anxiety: Affect or cognitive state? In S. Hiltner & K.

Menninger (Eds.), Consmctive aspects of anxiety (pp. 51-76). New York:
Abingdon Press.

Rickels, K., Lipman, R. S., Garcia, C. R., & Fisher, E. (1972). Evaluation of
clinical improvement in anxious outpatients. American Journal of Psychiam,
_1_2__8_, 119-123.

Rizzuto, A. M. (1979). The birth pf the living God: A psychoatglytic study.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1973). M res fS i 1 Ps ch 10 i l Attitu e
(revised edition). Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social
Research.

Rokeach, M., & Kemp, C. (1960). Open and closed systems in relation to anxiety and
childhood experience. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The ppen apd elesed mind. New
York: Basic B0016.

Roof, W. C. (1993). ne i n f
pdpm generatidn. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Sandler, 1., & Lakey, B. ( 1982). Locus of control as a stress moderator: The role of

control perceptions and social support. Amerigu Jeurm 9f Cummunity
Psyehulegy, 10, 65-78.

Schaefer, C. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1991). Psychological adjustment and
religiousness: The multivariate belief-motivation theory of religiousness.

Jeurnal fer the Seientifie Sutdy pf Religion, 3_Q, 448-461.

Shaver, P., Lenauer, M., & Sadd, S. (1980). Religiousness, conversion, and
subjective well-being: The "healthy-minded" religion of modern American

women. Ameriean Iguana! pf Esyehiagy, 131, 1563-1568.

Spilka, B. L., Hood, R. W., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1985). The psychuldgy uf religion;
An empirigl apprdaeh. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Spilka, B. L., Shaver, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. (1985). A general attributional theory for

the psychology of religion. mum fer the Seientific Study pf Religien, Alt, 1-
20.

Spilka, B. L., Stout, B., Minton, T., & Sizemore, D. (1977). Death and personal

faith: A psychometric investigation. qurual fur the Seientifie Study df
Religien, 16, 169-178.

171

Starbuck, E. D. (1897). A study of conversion. American Journal of Psychology, 8,
268-308.

Stevens, G. & Featherman, D. L. (1981). A revised socioeconomic index of
occupational status. Smial Seience Reseapeh, 10, 364-395.

Stokes, K. (1987). Faith development and the life cycle: The report of a research

project. New Haven, CT: Religious Education Association.

Stokes, K. (1989). Faith is a verb; The dynamics of adult faim development. Mystic,
CT: Twenty-Third Publications.

Stone, A. A., & Neal, J. M. (1984). New measure of daily coping: Development and
preliminary results. Jeurual pf Perspnality and Smial Psychology, 46, 892-906.

Sturgeon, R. S., & Hamley, R. W. (1979). Religiosity and anxiety. Juurual pf Smial
Psycholpgy, 108, 137-138.

Sullivan, L. E. (1989). H in r in ' H th i in in the
reljgjeusmm. New York: Macmillan.

Swearingen, E., & Cohen, L. (1985). Measurement of adolescents’ life events: The

Junior High Life Experiences Survey. WW
Psychology, .13. 69-85.

Swensen, C. H., Fuller, 8., & Clements, R. (1993). Stage of religious faith and

reactions to terminal cancer. qutual df Psychdldgy aud Theeldgy, 2_1, 238-
245.

Thoits, P. A. (1982). Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in
studying social support as a buffer against life stress. Wand
Smial Behavipr, 23, 145-159.

Tillich, P. (1957). W. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Tinsley, H. B., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling
psychology research. I f in hol , fl, 414-424.

Uhlenhuth, E. H., Lipman, R. S., Balter, M. B., & Stern, M. (1974). Symptom

intensity and life stress in the city. Arehives pf Genetal Psyehiatn, 3_1, 759-
764.

Walker, A. (1982). The mldr putple. New York: Simon & Schuster.

172

Watson, P. J., Hood, R. W., Jr., & Hall, J. R. (1985). Religiosity, sin, and
self-esteem. Journal pf Psychology and Theology, 13, 116-128.

Webster, S. M. (1988). The role of religious and persdnal control beliefs in the eoping
process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,

CA.
Westerhoff, J. (1976). Will our children have faith? New York: Seabury Press.

Wheaton, B. (1985). Models for the stress-buffering functions of coping resources.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 352-364.

 

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Tavistock.

Wulff, D. M. (1991). Psycholdgy and religion: Clgsic and mntemporm views. New
York: John Wiley.

Zuckerman, D. M., Kasl, S. V., & Ostfeld, A. M. (1984). Psychological predictors
of mortality among the elderly poor: The role of religion, well-being, and

social contacts. W. 11.2. 710723.

I'll-l

.A'IJ I! L‘ I. i ll.

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV.

LIBRRRIES

 

31293014096220