COMPARING ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ CARDIOVASCULAR REACTIVITY: A LABORATORY STRESSOR

Rolf A. Ritchie

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

December 2019

Committee:

William O'Brien, Advisor

Danielle C. Kuhl Graduate Faculty Representative

Verner P. Bingman

Eric F. Dubow

Joshua B. Grubbs ii ABSTRACT

William H. O’Brien, Advisor

Atheists and the non-religious have historically been excluded from cardiovascular research assessing the relation between religion and reactivity. Researchers have suggested that atheists and the non-religious ought to have increased cardiovascular reactivity and decreased recovery following a stressor. The primary theoretical justifications for this hypothesized difference are atheists/non-religious lack religious coping resources or that they are exposed to minority stress. However, few previous studies have incorporated atheists, had adequate methodology to explore this relation, or used measures designed to appropriately categorize atheist/non-religious participants. In order to explore this relation, 61 participants were recruited and using the Non-Religious Non-Spiritual Scale, were separated into three groups: atheist, non- religious, or religious. Participants were then exposed to a social stressor to elicit cardiovascular reactivity. Heart rate, high-frequency heart rate variability, and blood pressure were recorded during the experimental procedure. Results indicated that contrary to the hypotheses derived from extant literature, atheists, non-religious, and religious participants did not significantly differ on measures of cardiovascular reactivity or recovery. iii

This dissertation is dedicated to my late Great-Aunt Jennie Lawrich. A wonderful woman, nurse,

and WWII veteran, who was kind enough to invest in my future. Without her support, I would

not have had the ability to pursue my academic ambitions to their fullest extent. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank Dr. William O’Brien for his patient tutelage throughout our ten years of working together. Without his backing, this project would not have been possible. I would like to thank my committee members, Eric Dubow, Verner Bingman, Josh Grubbs, and

Danielle Kuhl for their thoughtful suggestions and feedback in shaping this dissertation. I was also blessed to have worked with several excellent undergraduate assistants/confederates who donated endless hours to professionally stressing out participants. Without their work, this project could not have been completed; thank you. Furthermore, I cannot thank enough the participants who tolerated the social stressor and provided the data from which this project is based.

I would like to thank my dear friends, family, and cohort (AKA “The Coolhort”). I could not have completed this task without your support. I would like to extend my gratitude to my father, Dr. R. B. Ritchie for sparking my early interest in psychology and for all the support he has given to me in school throughout my life. Finally, I would like to thank my wife and Falcon

Flame Dr. Gina Mattei, without whom I probably would have never learned how commas really work and for all the emotional support/proofreading throughout the years. Her patience, support, and love throughout my graduate career made all the difference.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

The Relation Between Religion and Health...... 2

The Religious Coping Theory ...... 5

The Minority Stress Model ...... 7

Experimental Literature Review ...... 9

. Cardiovascular reactivity and religiosity ...... 9

Cold pressor studies assessing religion and pain tolerance ...... 18

Atheist Minority Stress Literature Review ...... 22

Potential Mediators: Mindfulness and Cognitive Defusion ...... 24

Current Project ...... 26

METHODS ...... 28

Participants ...... 28

Measures ...... 28

Demographics Questionnaire ...... 28

Perceived Stress Scale...... 29

Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire ...... 29

Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire ...... 30

Brief COPE ...... 30

The Non-Religious – Non-Spiritual Scale ...... 31

Measure of Atheist Discrimination Experiences ...... 33

The Religious Commitment Inventory –10 ...... 34 vi

RCOPE ...... 35

Heart Rate ...... 35

Blood Pressure ...... 36

High Frequency Heart Rate Variability ...... 36

Trier Social Stress Test ...... 37

Procedure ...... 38

RESULTS ...... 40

Religious Group Formation ...... 40

Correlations Among Self-Report Measures ...... 41

Religious and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants ...... 41

Between Group Comparisons on Stress and Coping ...... 42

High-Frequency Heart Rate Variability Data Reduction and Preliminary

Analyses ...... 43

Manipulation check and HF-HRV ...... 43

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for HF-HRV ...... 44

Heart Rate Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses ...... 44

Manipulation Check and Heart Rate ...... 44

Relative Religious Group and Heart Rate ...... 45

Systolic Blood Pressure Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses ...... 45

Manipulation Check and Systolic Blood Pressure ...... 46

Relative Religious Group and Systolic Blood Pressure ...... 46

Diastolic Blood Pressure Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses ...... 47

Manipulation Check and Diastolic Blood Pressure ...... 47 vii

Relative Religious Group and Diastolic Blood Pressure ...... 47

Commitment to Religion and Religious Discrimination Among Atheists ...... 48

Religious Commitment Inventory and High-Frequency Heart Rate

Variability ...... 48

Religious Commitment Inventory and Heart Rate...... 49

Religious Commitment Inventory and Systolic Blood Pressure...... 49

Religious Commitment Inventory and Diastolic Blood Pressure ...... 49

Measure of Atheist Discrimination and High-Frequency Heart Rate

Variability ...... 50

Pairwise Comparisons ...... 50

Measure of Atheist Discrimination Experiences and Heart Rate ...... 51

Measure of Atheist Discrimination Experiences and Systolic Blood

Pressure ...... 51

Measure of Atheist Discrimination Experiences and Diastolic Blood

Pressure ...... 52

Exploratory Residual Analyses ...... 52

DISCUSSION ...... 54

Minority Stress ...... 60

Limitations and Future Directions ...... 63

Conclusion ...... 64

REFERENCES ...... 65

APPENDIX A. TABLES FROM RELATIVE GROUP ANALYSES AND RESULTS ..... 82

APPENDIX B. RECRUITMENT PROMPTS FOR NEW PARTICIPANTS ...... 104 viii

APPENDIX C. DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 105

APPENDIX D. THE PERCEIVED STRESS SCALE ...... 107

APPENDIX E. FIVE FACTOR MINDFULNESS QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 108

APPENDIX F. AVOIDANCE AND FUSION QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 110

APPENDIX G. BRIEF MEASURE OF COPING ...... 111

APPENDIX H. NON-RELIGIOUS NON-SPIRITUAL SCALE ...... 112

APPENDIX I. MEASURE OF ATHEIST DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCES...... 114

APPENDIX J. RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT INVENTORY ...... 115

APPENDIX K. BRIEF MEASURE OF RELIGIOUS COPING ...... 116

APPENDIX L. INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 117

APPENDIX M. PROTOCOLS FOR BIOPAC AND RECORDING EQUIPMENT ...... 119

APPENDIX N. CONFEDERATE SCRIPTS ...... 122

APPENDIX O. DEBRIEFING FORM ...... 123

APPENDIX P. SCALE AND SELF-REPORT ANALYSES AND RESULTS ...... 124

APPENDIX Q. TABLES FROM SCALE AND SELF-REPORT ANALYSES AND

RESULTS ...... 131

Running head: ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 1

INTRODUCTION

Strong religious beliefs have been associated with improved mental and physical wellbeing in longitudinal, cross-sectional, and meta analytic studies (Lucchese & Koenig, 2013;

Obisesan, Livingston, Trulear, & Gillum, 2006; Powell, Shahabi, & Thoresen, 2003).

Systematic reviews have shown that few researchers have incorporated atheists and the

non-religious into their samples and the few that do generally combine low religious persons

with atheists and non-religious persons (Brewster, Robinson, Sandil, Esposito, & Geiger, 2014;

Hwang, Hammer, & Cragun, 2011). Atheists and other non-religious persons may react

differently to stressors or rely on different coping strategies than lower religious persons in

response to stress. Additionally, religious coping strategies may not benefit them in the same way

as religious individuals (Speed & Fowler, 2016).

Atheists and other non-religious persons disavow many of the tenets of religion thought

to provide health benefits and often report no religious coping strategies (Granqvist & Moström,

2014). Researchers have suggested that incorporating atheist and non-religious samples into

psychological research is important, as it may promote a better understanding of how religiosity

relates to physical and mental well-being (Galen & Kloet, 2011).

The religious coping and minority stress theories can be used to explain why lower

religiosity is often related with poorer health outcomes. Proponents of the Religious Coping

Theory argue that religiosity provides a buffer to stress by allowing religious persons to shift

their attention to the sacred and a positive relationship with God (Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2015;

Pargament & Raiya, 2007). This shift in focus is thought to promote reduced stress reactivity by

allowing religious persons to feel comforted by the presence of a loving God, which over time

leads to less stress and better health (Friedman, 2007; Neves et al., 2012). ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 2

The Minority Stress Theory provides an alternative model for understanding the association between lower religiosity and lower health. National surveys indicate that approximately 40% of people in the United States hold negative views of atheists (Gervais &

Najle, 2017). Americans have reported that they view atheists as amoral, unscrupulous, and less likely to share the same vision of American society when compared to other minority groups

(e.g. Muslims; Edgell, Gerteis, & Hartmann, 2006; Gervais, Shariff, & Norenzayan, 2011).

Atheists likely experience this stigma as a stressor, which would be associated with poorer health

(Chandra et al., 2012; Low, Salomon, & Matthews, 2009). Thus, the relation between religion and health may not be due to the buffering effects outlined by the religious coping theory.

Instead, the differences in health between the religious and non-religious may be partly due to increased stress levels among atheists from discrimination and lower social capital (Abbott &

Mollen, 2018; Brown-Iannuzzi, McKee, & Gervais, 2018; Doane & Elliott, 2015).

The primary aim of this dissertation is to explore how religious coping and minority stress are related to atheist and non-religious stress responses following a laboratory stressor and to determine how atheists may fit into the complex observed health differences noted in the current research. In the following literature review, I will further explore research examining association between religiosity and health. Specifically, I will examine how religious coping and minority stress are viewed in the literature and discuss applications of the Religious Coping and

Minority Stress Theory in atheist populations.

The Relation Between Religion and Health

Religion can be defined broadly as the feelings, thoughts, experiences, and behaviors that arise from a search for the sacred (Hill et al., 2000). Religion is considered a protective factor

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 3

against poor mental and physical health and has been reported to be cardioprotective (Chida,

Steptoe, & Powell, 2009; Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001; Schnall et al., 2010).

Results within the literature have been mixed indicating that the relation between religion

and health is complex. A systematic metanalysis conducted by Chida, Steptoe, & Powell (2009)

reviewed 69 studies that investigated the longitudinal association between religiosity and

mortality. A protective effect for religiosity was detected in 39.1% of the studies sampling a

healthy population and 22.7% of studies sampling individuals with cardiovascular diseases.

Three studies (4.4%) indicated that increased religiosity was harmful. Null effects were observed

in 56.5% for healthy and 77.3% for diseased populations. Cardiovascular mortality was also

assessed, and increased religiosity was associated with a 16% reduction in relative risk for

healthy populations and a 28% reduction for diseased populations.

Effect sizes for religiosity on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cancer, respiratory disease, and digestive disease in healthy populations (Studies: n = 44) were calculated by taking the natural logarithms of reported hazard ratios and relative risk ratios. The results for digestive disease (HR = 0.84; p = 0.84), cancer (HR = 0.76; p = 0.10), and respiratory disease

(HR = 0.56; p = 0.55), were non-significant. The relation between all-cause mortality (HR =

0.84; p = <.001), cardiovascular mortality (HR = 0.72; p = <.001), and religiosity were significant. However, there were no significant effect sizes detected in diseased populations

(Studies: n = 13). Overall, Chida, Steptoe, & Powell noted that there is a general positive association between religiosity and health in healthy populations, but that the mechanisms underlying these effects are not well understood.

Laboratory researchers assessing religion and health have indicated that higher levels of religiosity are associated with healthier blood pressure, lower heart rate, and lower rates of

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 4

hypertension (Chida & Steptoe, 2010; Koenig, 2015; Schnall et al., 2010). Using a theological

perspective, some researchers suggest that “a better relationship with God” (as measured by the

Core Spiritual Experience Index) is associated with improved cardiovascular functioning. This

association has been observed during resting baseline comparisons between those with higher

core spirituality compared to those with lower core spirituality (Berntson, Norman, Hawkley, &

Cacioppo, 2008). Additionally, higher relative religiosity has been associated with reduced blood

pressure (Lawler & Younger, 2002; Edmondson et al., 2005) and lower cortisol responses to

stress (Tartaro, Luecken, & Gunn, 2005).

Despite substantial research indicating religiosity is associated with improved health,

atheists and the non-religious have not typically been included in these studies. Atheists can be

defined as people who are a-religious, do not believe in a God, gods, or a higher power (Toosi &

Ambady, 2011). The non-religious can be defined as peoples who are not religious and do not

identify with any religious identity, including atheist. The non-religious specifically lack a strong

religious identity and are generally indifferent rather than opposed to the idea of a God, gods, or

higher power (Kosmin, Keysar, Cragun, & Navarro-Rivera, 2009) If religiosity is good for health, one would expect atheists to have poorer health outcomes relative to religious individuals. However, there has been little consistency in the literature regarding atheist identities compared to other religious groups. Some researchers have found that atheists experience more distress than non-atheists, tend to be more socially isolated, and have higher

rates of depression (Abbott & Mollen, 2018; Chan, Michalak, & Ybarra, 2019; Doane & Elliott,

2015; Smith, 2011). Other researchers have found no evidence of these associations (Galen &

Kloet, 2011). Overall, the lack of a clear relation between health, atheism and non-religiousness

indicates additional research is necessary.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 5

There has been limited research directly assessing how atheists’ and non-religious peoples’ health relates to people with higher religiosity. Previous research has typically focused on comparing people who are more religious to the less religious, rather than directly recruiting atheists or the non-religious. Results from comparisons between the more and less religious indicate that higher religiosity is associated with improved physical health, reduced all-cause mortality, and improved cardiovascular functioning (Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009; Koenig,

McCullough, & Larson, 2001; Schnall et al., 2010). Despite the limited direct assessments of atheist and non-religious persons, these findings would suggest that atheists will generally have poorer health compared to religious participants. Two theories explaining this potential relation will be explored in detail: the Religious Coping Theory and the Minority Stress Theory.

The Religious Coping Theory

Religious coping is thought to serve as a buffer against stress. It has been proposed to be a mechanism that may account for the association between religiosity and health (Pargament &

Raiya, 2007). Religious coping provides an avenue for people who are religious to use benevolent religious reappraisals, utilize collaborative religious coping with others, and seek spiritual support (Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2015). When religious people are faced with stress, they may shift their focus to positive aspects of religion, for instance, thinking of a caring and benevolent God (Harris et al., 2008). Religious coping can also provide individuals with emotional support during periods of high stress and uncertainty (e.g. the loss of a loved one).

Researchers have suggested that religiously affiliated people are better able to tolerate daily stressors because of the use of this type of coping (Pargament & Raiya, 2007).

The religious coping literature contains studies that generally confirm a relation between religious coping and health. However, researchers have found that there are types of religious

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 6 coping that are not associated with improved mental or physical health (O’Brien et al., 2018).

Researchers often separate the construct of religious coping into positive religious coping and negative religious coping (Exline, Park, Smyth, & Carey, 2011). Positive religious coping is characterized by firm belief in a loving and caring God, while negative religious coping is characterized by a conflicted relationship with God and with the presence of spiritual struggle

(Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2015). Researchers have found negative religious coping to be associated with a variety of poor health outcomes (Ano & Vasconcelles, 2005). Furthermore, additional research has indicated that positive religious coping can buffer the effects of negative religious coping on health (Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2015; O’Brien et al., 2018).

Researchers have suggested that atheists and the non-religious may demonstrate higher levels of negative religious coping combined with the absence of positive religious coping (Ai,

Seymour, Tice, Kronfol, & Bolling, 2009; Weber, Pargament, Kunik, Lomax, & Stanley, 2012).

However, an atheist who is secure in their belief that there is no God, gods, or higher power, would experience minimal conflict or spiritual struggle and may therefore avoid adverse health effects (Galen & Kloet, 2011; Weber, Pargament, Kunik, Lomax, & Stanley, 2012).

Atheists may have a different relationship with religious coping and may not uniformly benefit from engaging in religious practices. Speed and Fowler (2016) reviewed data collected from the 2008 – 2012 American General Social Survey (n = 3210) in order to examine how atheists experience common religious practices, i.e. religious attendance, prayer, and religiosity in general. They split the sample into 6 groups: Positive Atheists (Atheists who are certain in their disbelief in God), Agnostics, Deists, Weak-Theists (people who are not certain about their belief in God), Moderate Theists, and Strong Theists. Speed and Fowler found that Positive

Atheists who reported engaging in more religious practices had significantly lower self-reported

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 7

health when compared to the other religious categories. This finding indicates that atheists may

have a different relationship with religious content and that religious coping may not be as

beneficial for atheists and the non-religious.

The Minority Stress Model

The Minority Stress Theory provides an alternative framework for understanding how

and why there may be a gap between the health of the religiously affiliated and the non-religious.

In America, non-religiously affiliated individuals are a minority group, with the predominant religious identity being forms of Christianity. Being Christian in America is a privileged identity and the values of Christians are specifically perceived to be closely aligned with those of general

American culture (Gervais, 2013). Minority Stress Theory explains that groups of people who deviate from majority norms or hold alternative positions relative to privilege have less social power, reduced access to social benefits (e.g., support, capital), and can face stigmatization from others (Pinel, 1999; Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014).

The atheist identity is stigmatized in the United States and other countries (Brown-

Iannuzzi, McKee, & Gervais, 2018; Cragun, Kosmin, Keysar, Hammer, & Nielsen, 2012;

Gervais et al., 2017). In the United States atheists are consistently rated as the least trustworthy and most immoral people compared to other minority groups (McClure, 2017; Doane & Elliott,

2015; Gervais, 2014). The Minority Stress Theory would suggest that atheists would thus be exposed to increased daily stress due to having to hide their identity, covert discrimination from others, and overt discrimination from others. These stressful experiences would subsequently be related to poorer health outcomes (Brewster, Hammer, Sawyer, Eklund, & Palamar, 2016).

It is important to note that atheism is considered a concealable stigmatized identity. A concealable stigmatized identity is one where there are opportunities to hide membership in the

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 8

stigmatized group. These individuals are afforded some measure of control over when, where,

and to whom they express their identity and can choose to suppress or express their identity on

their own terms (Cragun, Kosmin, Keysar, Hammer, & Nielsen, 2012; Doane & Elliott, 2015).

Despite this level of control, there are still areas where stigma can impact functioning, for

example: anticipated stigma, experienced stigma, internalized stigma, and managing responses to

disclosures in social settings (Edgell, Gerteis, & Hartmann, 2006). Researchers assessing

concealable stigmatized identities have typically focused on HIV+ and LGBTQ identities, but

recently begun to explore atheism in this context as well (Abbott & Mollen, 2018; Brown-

Iannuzzi et al., 2019). While research into the minority stress experience of atheists remains

limited, one study found that atheists experience stigma and discrimination in three ways:

negative stereotypes, pressure to “pass” as religious, and direct experiences of prejudice

(Brewster, Hammer, Sawyer, Eklund, & Palamar, 2016).

Researchers have found that perceived experiences of stigma and discrimination are

associated with poorer cardiovascular and psychological health across samples of ethnic, sexual,

and religious minorities (Hodge, Zidan, & Husain, 2016; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009;

Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014). Researchers have further indicated that acute

exposure to discrimination is associated with increased cardiovascular reactivity to stress

(Wagner, Tennen, Finan, Ghuman, & Burg, 2013). Ambulatory blood pressure studies have

demonstrated that perceived discrimination is associated with less complete nocturnal blood

pressure recovery (Brondolo, Rieppi, Kelly, & Gerin, 2003), as well as higher resting blood

pressure during the day (Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009). Furthermore, meta-analytic research of perceived stigma and health (k = 36) has indicated that perceived stigma is related to poorer physical health (k = 36; r = -.13), elevated stress responses (k = 12; r = -.11), and poorer mental

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 9

health (k = 105; r = -.18; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009). While no current studies explore the

impact of perceived stigma on the health of atheists and the non-religious, the Minority Stress

Theory provides a framework that describes how experiences of marginalization may produce negative health effects (Meyer, 2003). The Minority Stress Theory would support a prediction that that people in the United Stated who identify as atheist or non-religious are likely to experience negative health effects from exposure to these chronic low-level stressors (Brewster

& Moradi, 2010; Mereish, Katz-Wise, & Woulfe, 2017; Pinel, 1999).

Experimental Literature Review

There has been some exploration of the relation between cardiovascular reactivity and religiosity in a laboratory setting (Brewster, Robinson, Sandil, Esposito, & Geiger, 2014). Nine studies examined religiosity and stress in a laboratory setting. I will review these nine studies in detail. All tables are listed in Appendix A. An overview of each laboratory study can be found in

Table 1.

Cardiovascular reactivity and religiosity. Campbell (2018) explored the use of

Christian prayer as a method to reduce college student test anxiety. Campbell recruited 48 college students from a Christian university. The sample had a mean age of 20.2 years and consisted of 17 men and 31 women. Participants were separated into four groups based on their scores on the Westside Test Anxiety Scale: Low, Low Normal, Moderately High/High, and

Extremely High Test Anxiety (Driscoll, 2007). Participants from each of the four test anxiety based groups were then randomly assigned to three different conditions: guided meditation, studying, or Christian prayer. The meditation condition consisted of a 20-minute period where participants were asked to engage in a guided meditation task, the Christian prayer section included reciting the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9 – 13, ESV), and a silent personal prayer period

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 10

where participants asked Jesus to help them do well on the stressor task, the study guide section

included content from practice IQ tests. To elicit a stress response, Campbell told participants

that they would be taking an IQ test and that the scores from this test would be posted publicly.

However, no test was administered, and participants were informed of the deception following a

20-minute anxiety induction period after heart rate and salivary cortisol data had been collected.

Participants then engaged in their assigned group condition task: meditation, prayer, or studying.

Heart rate and salivary cortisol levels were taken four times: during the initial meeting before

participants were administered the Westside Test Anxiety Scale, after seven days when

participants returned (before any experimental conditions), after the stressor condition, and then

after the meditation, prayer, or studying condition.

Campbell’s results indicated that Christian prayer was not significantly more effective than guided meditation or studying in reducing heart rate or salivary cortisol levels. Campbell continued with some exploratory analyses and divided the sample into three groups, people who rated prayer as very important, somewhat important, or not important. These additional analyses indicated that people who found prayer very important had lower heart rate and salivary cortisol levels when averaged across all conditions compared to those who did not rate prayer as important.

Campbell’s study contained methodological issues that makes interpreting results difficult. First, no grouping sizes, means, or standard deviations were reported for any aspect of the study, excluding biomarker means for the exploratory analyses. The absence of reported group sizes makes interpreting the exploratory analyses examining self-reported value of prayer and biomarkers difficult, as it is unclear if the three groups were formed from the entire sample or just the group who was assigned the prayer condition. Another major flaw in the study was

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 11 that the baseline levels for heart rate and salivary cortisol levels were not significantly different from the stress condition values, indicating that participants did not react to the IQ test stressor.

Without evidence of significant stress reactivity, recovery-based analyses are uninterruptable.

Data comparing the groups formed using the Westside Test Anxiety Scale were also not reported.

Finally, there appeared to be some significant effects following the meditation, prayer, and study condition that were not reported or discussed. Due to the lack of means, standard, deviations and group sizes, it is difficult to interpret, however visual analyses of presented detailed graphs indicated that participants during the guided meditation condition had much lower heart rate

~73.6 bpm compared to ~79.8 bpm (prayer condition) and ~80.1 bpm (study guide) and lower salivary cortisol ~0.04 pg/dL compared to ~0.20 pg/dL (prayer) and ~0.16 pg/dL (study guide).

However, these differences were not discussed anywhere within the manuscript.

Masters and Knestel (2011) explored the relation between religious motivation and cardiovascular reactivity. Masters and Knestel recruited 131 community members between the ages of 40 and 70 years old and split the sample into four categories (Extrinsic, Intrinsic, Pro- religious, and Non-religious) by using the Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religious Motivation Scale

(Gorsuch and McPherson 1989). Extrinsically religious participants were conceptualized as people who are motivated to engage in religious practice for non-religious reasons (e.g. social connections), Intrinsic as those that embrace a religious creed due to a desire for spiritual growth.

Pro-religious participants were participants who scored above the median on both Extrinsic and

Intrinsic sub-scales; the authors noted that Pro-religious participants must endorse contradictory reasons for engaging in religious tasks to be sorted in this group. Non-religious participants were conceptualized as those who were below the median on both the Extrinsic or Intrinsic subscales.

Masters and Knestel used serial subtraction and a confrontational role play procedure to elicit

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 12

cardiovascular reactivity. The role play condition consisted of a confrontational role play task

where participants had to imagine negotiating with an insurance adjuster who had just rejected an

application for a medically necessary intervention.

Their findings indicated that the Pro-religious participants demonstrated the lowest cardiovascular reactivity (blood pressure and heart rate) relative to baseline in response to the stressor compared to the Intrinsic and Non-religious. Pro-religious participants also demonstrated

higher scores on measures of cynical hostility and aggression and lower engagement during the

experimental condition than other groups. The researchers noted that the lower engagement of

the pro-religious participants may have resulted in lower reactivity.

Despite the interesting findings, this study contained a common methodological concern

in this research area. The non-religious group was created by assigning participants who scored

below the median on Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religious Motivation. However, with this measure it is

not possible to determine whether persons scoring below the median were atheists or religious

persons who report a low level of involvement in religious activities. The former would be

subject to minority stress experiences while the latter would not.

Berntson, Norman, Hawkley, & Cacioppo (2008) explored the relation between

religiosity and biomarkers including: high-frequency heart rate variability and pre-ejection

period, as well as two derived indices of autonomic balance, Cardiac Autonomic Balance and

Cardiac Autonomic Regulation. Berntson, Norman, Hawkley, & Cacioppo used a population

sample (Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relation Study data) and reviewed data from 229

participants. Religiosity was quantified using three measures: a single item question relating to

frequency of religious service attendance, the religious well-being sub-scale of the Spiritual

Well-Being Scale, and a multidimensional relationship satisfaction questionnaire, which included

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 13

questions related to participants’ relationship with God. Due to high collinearity between these

two questionnaires, an aggregate measure of spirituality was derived from the religious well- being sub-scale and the satisfaction with God subscale of the Multidimensional Relationship

Satisfaction questionnaire. Psychosocial data was also collected and included the Big “Three”

measure of personality, the revised University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale, the

Perceived Stress Scale, the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, the Cook Medley Hostility

Scale, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Survey. Log-transformed median

values for gender, ethnicity, age, education levels, BMI, cardiovascular medication, and

household income were entered as covariates for all relevant analyses. Experimental conditions

for all biomarkers were limited to baseline data and participants provided five minutes of

cardiovascular data after a ten-minute adaption period.

Results indicated that that Cardiac Autonomic Regulation and the aggregate spirituality

measure were significantly correlated. After accounting for physiological covariates (BMI, blood

pressure, cardiovascular medications, health status, and health behaviors) and psychological

covariates (loneliness, perceived stress, social support, hostility, and depression) the relation was

still significant (effect size = 0.04). The aggregate spirituality measure was not a significant

predictor of Cardiac Autonomic Balance. Regarding individual biomarkers, high-frequency heart

rate variability and pre-ejection period were both significantly related to the aggregate

spirituality measure after accounting for demographic, physiological, and psychological

variables (effect size = 0.02). Due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, additional analyses

were conducted, and higher aggregate spirituality was associated with a lower relative risk for

myocardial infarctions, after accounting for demographic and physiological factors. For every

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 14

unit of increase on the aggregate spirituality measure, myocardial infarction relative-risk odds

decreased by a factor of 0.62.

There were no significant methodological concerns within this study, however it is

important to note that this study only compared baseline levels of activity, rather than reactivity

to stress. The only methodological concern noted within this study was due to the questionnaires

used to assess for religiosity. The Spiritual Well-Being scale and the satisfaction with God

subscale of the Multidimensional Relationship Satisfaction questionnaire have limited ability to assess for non-religious or atheist populations. However, despite the concern of applicability to

non-religious populations, this study provides further support to the theory that relatively less

religiosity is associated with poorer health outcomes.

Edmondson et al., (2005) examined the relation between religiosity, self-reported health,

and cardiovascular responses to two different stressors. Edmondson et al., recruited 52 female

college students with a mean age of 21.24 years and assessed their religiosity using the Spiritual

Well-Being Scale. Additional psychological measures were also administered: the Satisfaction

with Life Scale, the Cohen-Hoberman Physical Symptoms Checklist, the Transgression-related

Interpersonal Motivations Inventory, and the Acts of Forgiveness Scale. Cardiovascular measures

consisted of heart rate and blood pressure. Blood pressure measurements were taken three times

during the 10-minute baseline period, every two minutes during the stressors (four times in total),

and 8 times during the 7-minute recovery condition. The betrayer interview procedure requested

that participants recall a time where a parent or primary caregiver betrayed or deeply hurt them,

and to describe this event in as much detail as they could. Following the interview, participants

were given the Acts of Forgiveness Scale and the Transgression-related Interpersonal

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 15

Motivations Inventory. This procedure was followed by another structured interview where participants were asked questions designed to elicit frustration.

Their findings indicated that scores on the Spiritual Well-Being Scale were correlated with lower perceived stress and greater life satisfaction. The Existential Well-Being sub-scale

(from the Spiritual Well-Being Scale) was linked with fewer self-reported physical health symptoms. The total score on the Spiritual Well-Being Scale was associated with taking fewer prescribed medications. Regarding physiological results, none of the analyses for the betrayal interview were significant. During the second structured interview, both subscales of the

Spiritual Well-Being Scale (Existential Well-Being and Religious Well-Being) were significantly associated with heart rate. Edmondson et al., calculated reactivity change scores using subtraction (structured interview – baseline) for blood pressure and heart rate. These results indicated that higher levels of religious well-being were associated with smaller systolic blood pressure increases and higher levels of spiritual well-being and existential well-being predicted smaller increases in heart rate.

This study contained one principle methodological concern. While the authors reported a reactivity analysis for the betrayal interview (which was significant), they did not report any reactivity related analyses for the second structured interview. This brings into question the validity of the reactivity analyses, as it is generally considered inappropriate to continue with recovery/reactivity analyses when there is no evidence that participants reacted to a stressor.

Additionally, Edmondson et al., ought to have compared the structured interview data to the recovery condition as participants never returned to baseline functioning after the betrayal stressor. Due to the omission of reactivity analyses, it is difficult to interpret their results that religiosity is positively associated with improved heart rate and blood pressure.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 16

Lawler and Younger (2002) explored the relation between spirituality, religion, physical symptoms of illness, stress, psychological mood and cardiovascular responses. Lawler and

Younger recruited 19 men and 61 women from the local community with a mean age of 42.2 years. The sample was split into 9 categories, 11 participants who reported non-religious/atheist affiliation, 15 Baptists, 13 Methodists, 7 Episcopalians, 2 Lutherans, 13 Christians, 1 Mormon, 6

Roman Catholics, and 12 unclassified which the authors described as a variety of new age, agnostic, 12 Step, course in miracles, etc. Worship frequency was also assessed, and 4 participants reported worshiping less than once a year, 4 less than once a month, 21 as once a week and 51 as more than once a week. Participants completed the following questionnaires:

Perceived Stress Scale, RestQ, the Cohen-Hoberman Inventor of Physical Symptoms, the Profile

Mood States, Tendency to Give Social Support Scale, the Acts of Forgiveness Scale, Spiritual

Well-Being Scale, the Stanford Spiritual Experiences Scale, the Religious Orientation Survey, and the Spiritual Experiences Index. Physiological measurements consisted of blood pressure and heart rate. Heart rate was collected continuously and blood pressure was recorded three times during baseline, and every minute of the interview and recovery sections. Lawler and

Younger used a two part interview to elicit stress reactivity, the first portion was a betrayal interview protocol where participants were asked to imagine and then report on details from a time when they were betrayed by a relationship partner, parent, spouse or close friend and the second portion requested participants to provide additional information relating to the betrayal.

Participants were then given 5 minutes to recover while they completed questionnaires.

Their findings indicated that higher scores on the religion subscale of the Spiritual Well-

Being Scale were associated with lower diastolic blood pressure during baseline and higher scores on the Stanford Spiritual Experiences Scale was also associated with lower diastolic blood

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 17 pressure during recovery. Lawler and Younger also computed correlations between physiological and religiosity measures. These results indicated that intrinsic religiosity was related to baseline diastolic blood pressure. Existential Well-Being was related to less use of medications and fewer illness related symptoms. Correlations for psychological functioning and religiosity were also computed and the Existential Well-Being subscale was associated with lower levels of negative moods during the past week. Specific analyses comparing the 56 religious participants and 11 non-religious were conducted and religious affiliation was associated with lower diastolic blood pressure.

This study contained multiple methodological issues and did not report any reactivity analyses. With regards to grouping, there was no report as to how the religious groups were formed and the report that only four of the participants did not attend religious services in one year is incongruent with the 11 participants placed in the non-religious group. Reviewing the rest of the data, four of these non-religious/atheist participants likely attended church once a month and three likely attended church once a week. Combined with the lack of reported grouping methods it makes interpreting the non-religious/religious group comparisons difficult.

Additionally, their results indicated that gender was associated with lower blood pressure and increased religiosity and while gender was entered as a covariate in the initial analyses, it was not included as a covariate in the non-religious/religiosity comparison analyses, which serves as a potential confound since gender was associated with both baseline data and religiosity.

In summary, there is a limited amount of evidence supporting the hypothesis that higher levels of religiosity are associated with reduced cardiovascular reactivity to laboratory stressors.

Four of the five studies did not report reactivity analyses (Berntson, Norman, Hawkley, &

Cacioppo, 2008; Campbell, 2018; Edmondson et al., 2005; Lawler & Younger, 2002). The three

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 18

studies that reported data for atheist or non-religious participants did not use measures that are

designed to assess for non-religious/atheist populations. The most popular measure across studies was the Spiritual Well-Being Scale which does not directly assess for atheist or non-religious beliefs. Without appropriately assessing for atheist/non-religious persons, it is difficult to make strong conclusions about how their lack of religious beliefs impact their responses to stress.

Consequently, further research into the relation between religiosity, cardiovascular reactivity, and non-religious/atheist persons is necessary.

Cold pressor studies assessing religion and pain tolerance. Feuille and Pargament

(2015) examined the association between standardized mindfulness, spiritualized mindfulness, simple relaxation and cold-pressor pain tolerance in migraineurs. 167 college students who reported experiencing migraines were recruited, 74 completed all required experimental procedures. Participants were first screened for study eligibility using the ID-Migraine Screener.

In order to establish religiosity, participants were asked to provide their self-reported religious

affiliation, frequency of attendance at religious services, and frequency of prayer/religious

meditation. Trait mindfulness was assessed using The Toronto Mindfulness Scale. In order to be

included in analyses, participants were required to complete ten daily diaries over the two-week

protocol. Participants were randomly assigned to three different experimental conditions:

standardized mindfulness, spiritualized mindfulness, and simple relaxation. After being trained in

these techniques, participants were asked to practice these skills for 20 minutes a day at home

and record their experiences over a two-week period. The standardized mindfulness meditation

condition adapted a common mindfulness protocol from Kabat-Zinn (2011). The spiritualized

mindfulness condition framed mindful breathing practice as being related to the Christian Holy

Spirit which was described as “the breath of God” and included a spiritualized conceptualization

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 19 of “wholeness.” The relaxation condition was described as “sitting quietly with eyes closed, relaxing your muscles, and calming your mind.”

No significant differences were found between the three conditions relating to subjective relaxation, subjective helpfulness, or self-reported fit with participant’s spirituality. There were no significant differences for self-reported cold-pressor pain and time in water detected between the standardized mindfulness group, spiritualized mindfulness group, and relaxation group. Self- reported cold-pressor stress varied by condition and the standardized mindfulness group’s cold- pressor stress was significantly lower than the relaxation groups. The spiritualized mindfulness group reported higher levels of state mindfulness relative to the standardized mindfulness condition following the cold-pressor task.

There were limited methodological concerns within this study. Researchers tracked and analyzed drop outs and other common concerns associated with managing longer protocols.

Researchers also appropriately randomized and blinded participant group identity when appropriate. However, there were few significant findings from this study as well and Feuille and

Pargament noted few significant differences between the different mindfulness groups.

Meints and Hirsh (2015) explored whether prayer and catastrophizing mediated the difference between Black-White experiences with pain sensitivity. Meints and Hirsh recruited

190 White and Black college students. Participants completed a demographics questionnaire and then completed a cold pressor task. During the cold pressor task, participants rated the intensity of their pain every ten seconds using a visual pain analog scale. When the cold sensation of the task shifted from discomfort to pain, participants were instructed to say “pain” to indicate this shift. After completing the cold pressor task, participants completed the Coping Strategies

Questionnaire-Revised that measures in-vivo coping strategies in six domains: diverting

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 20 attention, reinterpreting pain sensations, coping self-statements, ignoring pain sensations, praying/hoping, and catastrophizing. Meints and Hirsh used data from the cold pressor task to create two indices, pain threshold and pain tolerance. Pain threshold was conceptualized as the amount of time after immersing their hands before participants said “pain” and pain tolerance was the length of time they kept their hands immersed in the water.

Meints and Hirsh’s initial hypotheses that Blacks would have lower pain tolerance than

Whites was supported. Correlation analyses were conducted and praying and catastrophizing were both negatively related to pain tolerance, while ignoring and distancing were positively associated with pain tolerance. Mediation analyses were conducted and indicated that in-vivo coping accounted for 29% of variability in pain tolerance and mediated the relation between pain tolerance and race. Significant effects for race, catastrophizing, prayer, and ignoring were also present. Indirect effects were also significant and catastrophizing and praying each individually mediated the relation between race and pain tolerance. The authors noted that they did not conduct any direct analyses of which indirect effect was stronger but stated that visual inspection of data indicated that praying had the strongest indirect effect on the race pain tolerance relation.

There were several methodological concerns within this study. It would have been beneficial for the authors to assess strength of religiosity instead of only frequency of prayer used during the cold pressor task.

Wachholtz and Pargament (2008) explored the associations between spiritual meditation, secular meditation, and relaxation. Wachholtz and Pargament recruited 92 college students and

83 completed all experimental protocols. All participants met inclusion criteria for migraineurs and were randomly assigned into four groups: Spiritual Meditation, Internal Secular Meditation,

External Secular Meditation, and Relaxation. There were no significant differences between any

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 21

of the groups on any pre-test variables. All participants excluding the relaxation group were

instructed to meditate the same way and were told to engage in Mantra meditation where

participants think and say a phrase repeatedly. The Spiritual Meditation group were instructed to

choose one of four phrases, “God is peace,” “God is joy,” “God is good,” or God is Love.” The

Internal Secular Meditation group were given the options of “I am content,” I am joyful,” “I am good,” or “I am happy,” The External Secular Meditation group were given the options of “grass is green,” “sand is soft,” “cotton is fluffy,” or “cloth is smooth.” The relaxation group consisted of a progressive muscle relaxation protocol and participants were not instructed to use any

Mantra. All participants were trained by facilitators during an initial meeting and were then further instructed to practice their respective meditation practice for 20 minutes a day for one month and to track their progress with a daily diary. In addition to the meditation procedure, participants also completed a number of questionnaires: The Positive and Negative Affect Scale,

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Quality of Life, The Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale, portions of The Brief Multidimensional

Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality, The Spiritual Well-Being Scale and The Daily Spiritual

Experiences Scale. The experimental procedure consisted of participants first resting for 5 minutes, completing The State Trait Anxiety Inventory and engaging in a 20-minute meditation/relaxation period according to their group assignment. Participants then completed the cold pressor task “until it become too uncomfortable.”

Wachholtz and Pargament noted a number of significant findings. A manipulation check using anxiety/stress questionnaires completed before and after the stressor indicated that participants found the cold pressor task stressful. The Spiritual Meditation group reported significantly fewer headaches, reduced trait anxiety, headache self-efficacy and increased pain

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 22

tolerance over the course of the study when compared the Internal, External, and Relaxation

groups. Both the Spiritual Meditation group and Relaxation Group reported a reduction in

positive affect compared to the other groups. Spiritual Well Being was not associated with any

experimental condition but increased for all groups relative to baseline measures.

There were no observed methodological concerns for this study and overall the study

demonstrates that spiritual meditation is associated with positive outcomes relative to other

forms of meditation. However, it may have been beneficial to assess the religiosity among

participants in order to determine if there was an interaction effect between religiosity and

condition effectiveness.

In summary, the association between cold pressor stress induction, religion and

spirituality has been mixed. One study found no evidence of a relation between spiritualized

mindfulness and cold-pressor task performance (Feuille & Pargament, 2015), one study found

that prayer was negatively associated with pain tolerance (Meints & Hirsh, 2015), and another

found that spiritualized mindfulness was associated with improved cold-pressor task

performance (Wachholtz & Pargament, 2008). It is important to note that that despite only one

study finding a positive relation between religiosity and pain, the study by Wachholtz &

Pargament (2008) had the largest sample size and was the most methodologically sound.

Atheist Minority Stress Literature Review

Atheists are viewed negatively in most countries around the world and anti-atheist sentiment has been routinely documented in many different populations (Gervais et al., 2017).

Within the literature there have been two types of studies assessing minority stress in an atheist population, first surveys that assess people’s attitudes towards atheists and second, atheist’s

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 23 experiences of minority stress. Both types of studies from the literature will be reviewed below

(see Table 2).

Atheist discrimination has been well documented when using explicit face valid surveys as well as conjunction task protocols (Brewster, Hammer, Sawyer, Eklund, & Palamar, 2016;

Edgell, Gerteis, & Hartmann, 2006; Gervais et al., 2017). Researchers have demonstrated atheists are generally considered to be the least trusted minority group in the United States

(Gervais, 2014). Using conjunction task protocols, researchers found that participants are more likely to view atheists as immoral, more likely to commit murder, rape, incest, and necro- bestiality than many other gender/race/ethnic minorities (Gervais, 2013; Gervais, 2014). This association between atheist identity and negative perceptions relative to other minorities has been established in multiple studies (Gervais et al., 2017; Schafer & Shaw, 2009).

Researchers have also demonstrated that these discriminatory beliefs alter the ways in which people interact with atheists. Brown-Ianuzzi et al. (2019) found that after indirectly learning that a fictional rape victim was an atheist, participants (n = 418) were less likely to believe her testimony and more likely to consider her responsible for her own rape. This association was found to be mediated by mock juror’s perception of the victim’s morality. This study highlights how negative perceptions of atheists may be impacting how atheists are treated.

Despite the evidence that people generally view atheists negatively, there have been few studies assessing how atheists experience this discrimination. Cragun et al. (2012) demonstrated that 43% of atheists reported experiencing some type of discrimination due to their atheist identity (n = 1106). Abbot and Mollen (2018) surveyed 1024 atheists in the United States about identity, magnitude of anticipated stigma, psychological wellbeing and physical well-being.

Correlational analyses indicated that atheists who experienced higher anticipated stigma for

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 24 disclosing their atheist identity were less likely to share their identity with others. Furthermore, atheists who reported higher levels of anticipated stigma reported poorer psychological and physical well-being. Doane and Elliot (2015) assessed perceived discrimination in atheist populations as well as self-esteem, life satisfaction, negative affect, and physical well-being in an atheist sample (n = 960). Their results indicated that atheists who perceive discrimination have poorer psychological and physical well-being.

In summary, there is support that atheists experience minority stress as well as support that this minority stress impacts mental health and self-reported physical health factors.

However, there has been no formal assessment of how minority stress may impact cardiovascular responses in this population.

Potential Mediators: Mindfulness and Cognitive Defusion

Mindfulness can be defined as taking an accepting and non-judgmental stance towards ones cognitions, emotions, and sensations occurring in the present moment (Burg, Wolf, &

Michalak, 2012). This focused, non-judgmental awareness is thought to promote improved cognitive flexibility and reduce the saliency of stress (Burg, Wolf, & Michalak, 2012;

Christopher et al., 2018; Lindsay, Young, Smyth, Brown, & Creswell, 2018; Hoge et al., 2013).

Mindfulness is thought to have originated as a religious practice, however, mindful practice and meditation can take on secular forms; atheists and the non-religious also report high levels of mindfulness (Lazaridou & Pentaris, 2016).

Higher reported mindfulness is associated with reduced stress reactivity following a stressor (Azam et al. 2015; Kadziolka, Di Pierdomenico, & Miller, 2015; Mankus, Aldao, Kerns,

& Mayville, 2013). Specifically, mindfulness is thought to attenuate stress in two ways: by reducing avoidance behaviors that can prolong stress exposure, and by allowing the associated

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 25 anxiety and stress responses to be evaluated non-judgmentally, reducing the intensity of the stressor. The relation of higher mindfulness with improved health and reduced stress reactivity has been robustly supported by research in multiple settings and research modalities

(Brockmeyer et al., 2015; Burg, Wolf, & Michalak, 2012; Chiesa & Serretti, 2011; Nijjar,

Puppala, Dickinson, & Duval, 2014).

Researchers have suggested that mindfulness may reduce the saliency of minority stress and people with higher mindfulness may be less reactive to discriminatory experiences. People with minority identities often feel ostracized and rejected by society, and mindfulness can allow people to focus more on the present, rather than ruminate on past discrimination experiences

(Brown-Iannuzzi, Adair, Payne, Richman, & Fredrickson, 2014). Furthermore, higher relative mindfulness has been found to be protective against perceived racial discrimination while lower mindfulness has been associated with increased minority stress (Li et al., 2019).

Cognitive defusion is a component of mindfulness, defined as the ability to perceive thoughts and feelings as transient rather than stressors that require an immediate behavioral/autonomic response (Krafft, Haeger, & Levin, 2019). This self-distanced perspective is thought to reduce the saliency of stressors when they occur and may result in a less avoidant stance towards distressful experiences (Bolderston et al., 2019). Consequently, cognitive defusion may facilitate increased control of adaptive behavioral choices when individuals are faced with stress (i.e., reducing stress reactivity).

Exploration of cognitive defusion as a factor in stress reactivity and minority stress has been limited. No studies have explicitly evaluated how minority stress and cognitive fusion are associated and only one study has explicitly examined how cognitive defusion and stress reactivity are associated. Gil-Luciano, Ruiz, Valdivia-Salas, and Suárez-Falcón (2017) found that

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 26 participants who received a cognitive defusion training protocol had higher cold-pressor and distress tolerance than those that received a control training. Despite the lack of direct stress reactivity research, there have been multiple studies that assess how cognitive fusion is related to factors that are historically associated with stress recovery and health. Researchers have demonstrated that higher levels of cognitive defusion are associated with reduced depressive symptoms, improved therapeutic outcomes, and fewer mental health symptoms following a traumatic event (Krafft, Haeger, & Levin, 2019; Nitzan-Assayag, Aderka, & Bernstein, 2015;

Nitzan-Assayag et al., 2017).

Current Project

The current study examined relations among minority stress, religious coping, and cardiovascular reactivity and recovery among atheists, the non-religious, and religious. Religious coping and minority stress were assessed using measures designed to specifically measure these constructs. The Non-Religious Non-Spiritual Scale (NRNSS) was used to measure strength of belief and disbelief. In order to assess atheists’ and the non-religious’ stigma experiences, the

Measuring Atheist’s Discrimination Experiences (MADE) was used. Finally, the Brief Measure of Religious Coping (RCOPE) was used to assess positive and negative religious coping

(Pargament, Feuille, & Burdzy, 2011). Reactivity was measured using high-frequency heart rate variability (HF-HRV), systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR).

HF-HRV has been demonstrated to be an accurate measure of parasympathetic functioning while blood pressure and heart rate are considered confluent measures of autonomic functioning

(Draghici & Taylor, 2016; Panaite, Salomon, Jin, & Rottenberg, 2015).

The Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire (AFQ) was used to assess cognitive defusion and mindfulness was assessed using the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 27

Mindfulness and defusion were selected as potential mediators because mindfulness and defusion have been independently associated with improved cardiovascular reactivity/recovery and reduced stigma saliency and while these constructs are secular, they have similarities to religiosity (Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014; Watford & Stafford, 2015; Yang &

Mak, 2017).

Aim 1. Evaluated whether atheists and non-religious persons exhibit higher cardiovascular reactivity and poorer recovery following exposure to a social stressor relative to the religious.

Aim 2. Examined if minority stress and subsequent protective factors (higher mindfulness and less fusion) mediate cardiovascular reactivity and recovery differences among atheists and the non-religious.

Aim 3. Examined if religious coping mediates cardiovascular reactivity and recovery differences among atheists and the non-religious.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 28

METHODS

Participants

Sixty-one participants were recruited from the Bowling Green State University (BGSU) undergraduate and graduate student body population as well as from nearby cities and towns near

Bowling Green. The sample consisted of 23 men and 38 women. The sample had 45 White, 5

African-American, 5 Bi-racial, 2 Asian, 1 Hispanic, 1 Middle Eastern, and 1 Indian participant.

One participant marked “other” on the demographic survey but did not report their identity. The average age of the sample was 23 years-old. Participant demographic information is presented in

Table 3. Participants were recruited using BGSU Campus Updates and emails to religious and non-religious organizations (see Appendix B). Two recruitment e-mails were used, one targeted at religious participants and one towards atheists. These two e-mails were alternated every week.

This was done to reduce anxiety related to the purpose of the study, an issue that had been noted in previous qualitative research conducted in the same population (see Appendix B).

Measurement of High-Frequency Heart Rate Variability (HF-HRV), Heart Rate (HR),

Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), and Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) are sensitive to many environmental factors. To account for this sensitivity, participants were asked to abstain from: marijuana, caffeine, and alcohol for 24 hours prior to the laboratory assessment. Participants were excluded from study participation if they reported any of the following: a history of diabetes, a history of severe mental illness or cardiovascular disease, or use of medications that affect cardiovascular activity (e.g. beta blockers). No participants met exclusion criteria.

Measures

Demographics Questionnaire. Demographic data was collected using a demographic survey. Information included: age, sex, race, household income, education level, religious

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 29 identity, parent’s religious identity, and occupation (see Appendix C). Additional questions relating to who they share their religious identity with were included in this section.

Perceived Stress Scale. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is a 10-item questionnaire that measures participant’s stress related feelings and thoughts over the past month (Fergus,

Valentiner, Gillen, & Hiraoka, 2011; see Appendix D).

Participants were asked to rate each item (e.g. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?) as occurring never, almost never, sometimes, fairly often, or very often. The PSS has demonstrated good psychometric properties and has good internal consistency (Cronbachs α = .89) and good test-retest reliability over a two-week period (r = .77). The PSS has also demonstrated concurrent validity and scores on the PSS were significantly related to scores on other measures such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (r = .71; Fergus, Valentiner, Gillen, & Hiraoka, 2011). The PSS demonstrated poor internal consistency in the current study Cronbach’s α = 0.75.

Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire. The five factor mindfulness questionnaire

(FFMQ) is a questionnaire used to measure an individual’s level of trait mindfulness (Baer et al.

2008; Christopher, Neuser, Michael, & Baitmangalkar, 2012). The FFMQ consists of 39 items which comprise five subscales. Each of these subscales measure a different component of mindfulness: observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience, and non-reactivity to inner experience (Baer et al. 2008; see Appendix E)

Participants were asked to rate each item on the FFMQ (e.g. I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions) as never or very rarely true, rarely true, sometimes true, often true, very often or always true. The individual FFMQ subscales have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties for measuring mindfulness (Baer et al. 2008). Each of the five

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 30

factors of the FFMQ display an adequate to good range of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α =

0.75 - .91; Christopher et al., 2012). Using hierarchical modeling tests, researchers have

demonstrated that the five subscales of the FFMQ contribute to an overall mindfulness construct

(Baer et al. 2008; Christopher et al., 2012). Furthermore, the five subscales have been found to

have a Comparative Fit Index of .90. The FFMQ has also been independently associated with

mental health outcomes and the acting with awareness, non-judgment, and non-reactivity

subscales were found to predict overall mental health (Baer et al. 2008). The FFMQ

demonstrated adequate internal consistency in the current study Cronbach’s α = 0.87.

Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire. The Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire (AFQ)

is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that measures psychological flexibility and willingness to

accept thoughts as thoughts. The AFQ was initially modeled off the AAQ-II, but has

demonstrated superior psychometric properties (Fergus, Valentiner, Gillen, & Hiraoka, 2011; see

Appendix F).

The AFQ has demonstrated adequate fit (CFI = .95, NNFI = .96, RMSEA = .09, SRMR

= .06) and all of the AFQ items loaded significantly (p < .01) on a single factor (loading = .66).

The AFQ has demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbachs α = .90). Furthermore, the

AFQ has shown to predict anxiety and depression more reliably than the AAQ-II (Fergus,

Valentiner, Gillen, & Hiraoka, 2011). The AFQ demonstrated good internal consistency in the current study Cronbach’s α = 0.84.

Brief COPE. The Brief COPE is a 28 item self-report questionnaire that was created as an abbreviated measure of coping derived from the full COPE. The Brief COPE measures coping strategies in 14 different domains: Active Coping, Planning, Positive Reframing, Acceptance,

Humor, Religion, Using Emotional Support, Using Instrumental Support, Self-Distraction,

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 31

Denial, Venting, Substance Use, Behavioral Disengagement, and Self-Blame (Carver, 1997; see

Appendix G).

Participants were asked to rate each item on the 14 domains: I haven’t been doing this at all, I’ve been doing this a little bit, I’ve been doing this a medium amount, or I’ve been doing this a lot. These domains have repeatedly demonstrated adequate psychometric properties for measuring the construct of mindfulness (Carver, 1997). The Brief COPE also displays a moderate to good range of internal consistency for each of its indices (Cronbach’s α = 0.50 - .90;

Carver, 1997). The Brief COPE demonstrated adequate internal consistency in the current study

Cronbach’s α = 0.78 (Carver, 1997).

The Non-Religious – Non-Spiritual Scale. The Non-Religious – Non-Spiritual Scale

(NRNSS) is a 17-item self-report scale designed to measure dimensions of religiosity (Cragun &

Nielsen, 2015; see Appendix H). This measure was specifically created to address common validity concerns when assessing atheist religious identities. In a recent analysis of 126 measures of religiousness and religious identity, researchers noted that there were only 39 published measures of religious identity that allowed for accurate differentiation between people who disagree with aspects of a religious belief (atheists) and people who strongly held religious beliefs (Cragun & Nielsen, 2015). The authors noted that 20 of these measures assumed participants held Christian beliefs and the remaining 9 assessed religious beliefs in a limited context. The NRNSS can also be differentiated from other measures of religiosity because it provides an objective definition of both religion and spirituality which is presented before each relevant section:

“Many people have heard the word “religion” before and probably have some

understanding of what that means. For this survey, we want you to think about religion in

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 32

a specific way. When you think about religion for the following questions, we want you

to think of institutionalized religion, or groups of people that share beliefs regarding the

supernatural (i.e., gods, angels, demons, spirits) that are members of an organization. In

this sense, the Roman Catholic Church would be a religion as it is a group of people with

shared beliefs toward the supernatural and who are members of an organization.

Members of a soccer club would not be considered a religion because they do not have

shared beliefs toward the supernatural, while Hindus or Mormon would, as they belong to

an organization that emphasizes the memberships shared beliefs toward the

supernatural.”

Spirituality was defined as:

“Some people use the terms “spirituality” and “spiritual” in a broad, NON-

supernatural sense. They see those terms as just having to do with: a special or intense

experience, an appreciation for existence, meaning in life, peacefulness, harmony, the

quest for well-being, or emotional connection with people, humanity, nature, or the

universe. In this way, an atheist could technically describe her or himself as being

“spiritual” or as having had a “spiritual experience.” In contrast to that broad approach,

when you answer the items in THIS questionnaire wed like you to think about

“spirituality” and “spiritual” in the specific, SUPERNATURAL sense. And by

“SUPERNATURAL” we mean: having to do with things which are beyond or transcend

the material universe and nature. God, gods, ghosts, angels, demons, sacred realms,

miracles, and telepathy are all supernatural by this specific definition.”

After reading each prompt, participants were asked to complete each section rating each item

(e.g., “Religion is my most powerful guide of what is right and wrong,” “I feel a sense of

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 33

connection to something beyond what we can observe, measure, or test scientifically”) selecting

an answer from the following options: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly

disagree. The NRNSS yields a total score of religiosity and two sub-scales: institutional

religiousness (8 items) and individualistic spirituality (9 items). The NRNSS has been used to

separate “Positive Atheists” (those that are certain there is no God or higher power) from the non-religious within college student samples (Cragun & Nielsen, 2015). Higher scores on the

NRNSS indicate less religiosity.

The NRNSS has exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) and high test- retest reliability (r = .92). Two exploratory factor analyses and one confirmatory factor analysis of the NRNSS supported the two-factor solution for institutional religiousness and individualistic spirituality (Cragun & Nielsen, 2015). In the current study, the internal consistency for the

NRNSS was Cronbach’s α = 0.88.

Measure of Atheist Discrimination Experiences. The Measure of Atheist

Discrimination Experiences (MADE) is a 24-item questionnaire that assesses participants’ experiences with stigma/prejudice due to their atheist identity in five domains: General, Social

Ostracism, Overt Maltreatment, Asked to Pass, Bringing Shame, and Immorality (Brewster,

Hammer, Sawyer, Eklund, & Palamar, 2016; see Appendix I). The MADE includes a prompt participants are required to read and the instructions indicate that participants are only to report on discrimination that occurred in the last year. Participants were asked to rate each item (e.g.,

People have treated me as if my atheism is just a rebellious phase of my life, not a sincere set of beliefs) as occurring to them never, once in a while, sometimes, a lot, most of the time, almost all of the time. Furthermore, the individual items are given specific time delineations e.g. “Select the

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 34

3rd bubble = If this has happened to you SOMETIMES (10%-25% of the time).” Higher scores indicate more discrimination.

The MADE has demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.94 and .95) and good omega hierarchical coefficients of .90 and .92 across two separate studies (Brewster, Hammer,

Sawyer, Eklund, & Palamar, 2016). Higher scores on the MADE have also been associated with negative psychological outcomes (e.g., with awareness of public devaluation, β = .37 and stigma consciousness β = .56) as well as demonstrating evidence for concurrent validity with loneliness

(β = .18) and psychological distress (β = .27). The religious sample did not complete this measure (Brewster, Hammer, Sawyer, Eklund, & Palamar, 2016). The MADE demonstrated good internal consistency in the current study Cronbach’s α = 0.92.

The Religious Commitment Inventory –10. The Religious Commitment Inventory

(RCI-10) is a 10-item questionnaire designed to measure the level of commitment or the degree to which a person adheres to their religious values and uses them to guide their life direction among a diverse set of religious groups (Worthington et al., 2003; see Appendix J). This scale has been used to differentiate people who engage in behaviors that promote religious belief or are a consequence of religious belief from people who are not engaged in religious behaviors

(Worthington et al., 2003).

Participants are asked to rate each item (e.g., “It is important to me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and reflection”) as not at all true of me, somewhat true of me, moderately true of me, mostly true of me, totally true of me. Higher scores indicate more religious commitment. The RCI-10 has demonstrated good internal validity (Cronbach’s α = 0.79

- .95) and reliability across multiple studies (r = .83-.87; Harris, Schoneman, & Carrera, 2002).

The RCI has also demonstrated good criterion-related validity and was significantly related to

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 35

frequency of attendance of religious activities (r (154) = .70, p = .0001) among a sample of college students with a variety of religious beliefs (Worthington et al., 2003). The RCI demonstrated good internal consistency in the current study Cronbach’s α = 0.93.

RCOPE. The RCOPE is a 14-item self-report scale designed to measure positive and

negative religious coping strategies (Pargament, Feuille, & Burdzy, 2011; see Appendix K). With

positive religious coping (RCOPEp) relating to a sense of connectedness with a transcendental

force and negative religious coping (RCOPEn) characterized by feeling abandoned by God or the

presence of satanic influences. The RCOPE prompts participants to think of ways that they have

coped with a significant trauma or negative events in their lives and then asks them to report if

they used various religion-based strategies to cope with this experience.

Participants were asked to rate each item (e.g., Sought help from God in letting go of my

anger) as occurring not at all, somewhat, quite a bit, or a great deal. Higher scores indicate more

religious coping. A recent review, which collected psychometric data from 30 studies, found that

The RCOPE demonstrated good internal consistency (positive religious coping subscale median

Cronbach’s α = 0.92 and negative religious coping subscale median Cronbach’s α = 0.81;

Pargament, Feuille, & Burdzy, 2011. The RCOPE has also demonstrated positive concurrent

validity and the positive religious coping subscale has been associated with improved

psychological functioning (e.g. post traumatic growth r =.37; Pargament, Feuille, & Burdzy,

2011) and the negative religious coping subscale is associated with poorer psychological

functioning (e.g. depression r = .42; Dyke, Glenwick, Cecero, & Kim, 2009). The RCOPE

demonstrated good internal consistency in the current study Cronbach’s α = 0.89.

Heart Rate. Heart rate or the frequency of heart beats in a minute was collected using a

Biopac Systems MP135 and Biopac analysis software. Electrocardiograph (ECG) electrodes

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 36 were attached to participants using a Lead II configuration. Heart rate represents a confluence of sympathetic and parasympathetic influences and is often used as a general measure of reactivity

(Lovallo, 2015).

Blood Pressure. Systolic (blood pressure in the blood vessels when the heart beats and diastolic (blood pressure in the blood vessels when the heart rests between beats) blood pressure

(measured in mmHg) was recorded using a non-continuous blood pressure cuff. Blood pressure was recorded every 2.5 minutes and at the start and end of every condition (Brondolo, Rieppi,

Kelly, & Gerin, 2003).

High Frequency Heart Rate Variability. High-frequency heart rate variability (HF-

HRV) or the variation of timing between heart beats was collected using a Biopac Systems

MP135 and Biopac analysis software. Electrocardiograph (ECG) electrodes were attached to participants using a Lead II configuration. The Biopac MP135 samples EKG activity at a rate of

1000Hz which is twice the minimum required sampling rate of 500Hz. Researchers have indicated 500Hz is the minimum sampling rate necessary to accurately measure HF-HRV (Allen,

Chambers, & Towers, 2007; Berntson et al., 1994).

High frequency heart rate variability (HF-HRV) was calculated by determining the variations in timing between individual heartbeats (R-R intervals). Biopac AcqKnowledge software uses template matching software to identify individual heart beats and the time periods

(measured in milliseconds) between them. In order to filter the collected data, band pass filters with values between 0.5 and 35Hz were utilized. This process allowed for the removal of high- frequency noise and baseline drift from the ECG data. The AcqKnowledge QRS template matching software was then used to identify individual QRS complexes. After the QRS complexes were identified, spectral analysis was used to delineate the HF-HRV band from other

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 37 frequencies of HRV. HF-HRV has been shown to be associated with vagal and parasympathetic activity and higher levels of HF-HRV have been associated with increased levels of parasympathetic activity in ambulatory and laboratory research (Draghici & Taylor, 2016;

Goldstein, Bentho, Park, & Sharabi, 2011; Reyes del Paso, Langewitz, Mulder, van Roon, &

Duschek, 2013). Short term HF-HRV divergence from baseline due to a laboratory stressor is a well-validated method of assessing parasympathetic activity (Allen, Chambers, & Towers, 2007).

Trier Social Stress Test. The Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) consists of three conditions: anticipation, speech, and math (Kudielka, 2007). The anticipation condition starts after participants are informed, they must deliver a speech. The anticipation condition typically lasts

5-minutes and participants are told they must develop a five-minute speech, then deliver their speech to a confederate judge. Participants are then left alone to prepare for five minutes. After the five-minute anticipation condition, the performance condition starts, and the confederate judge returns. Participants are typically required to continue speaking for the entire five minutes and if they discontinue early, they are instructed to continue. After the public speaking task, participants are then asked to engage in a serial subtraction task starting at the number 1022 and are told to subtract 13 concurrently from this number. If they make any errors, they are instructed to restart this task from the beginning, continuing until the five minutes elapses (Kudielka,

2007).

Researchers have shown that the Trier Social Stress Test can reliably instigate stress responses in the two stress pathways hypothalamic-pituitary–adrenal axis and the sympathetic- adrenal-medullary system (Allen, Kennedy, Cryan, Dinan, & Clarke, 2014).

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 38

Procedure

Laboratory testing periods were offered to participants throughout the week to fit

participant schedules. To better control for circadian rhythm effects on HF-HRV, these testing

periods occurred in the same 4-hour block (3:00pm to 7:00pm). After arriving at the lab,

participants were provided an informed consent document and instructed to review the document

(Appendix L). After signing the informed consent form, participants were sat at a laptop to complete self-report measures. After they completed the self-report measures, weight and height were measured so a BMI score could be calculated. EKG electrodes were then attached, and participants were seated in a reclining chair.

The laboratory procedure consisted of five conditions: baseline, anticipation, speech, math and recovery. Heart rate, HF-HRV, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) data were collected throughout all experimental conditions (Appendix M). The

first condition was a 10-minute resting baseline. During the resting baseline condition,

participants were asked to stay relaxed and focus on their breathing. The second condition was

the anticipation condition. The anticipation condition started after participants were played an

audio recording informing them that they were required to deliver a five-minute speech about

why they deserved their dream job. Participants were then left alone to prepare for five minutes

while biomarker data was collected (Appendix N). The third condition was the speech condition

and after the confederate judge returned, participants were instructed to deliver their prepared

speech for five minutes to the judge. The fourth condition was the math condition and

participants were instructed to engage in serial subtraction, subtracting 13 from 1022

concurrently. If they made an error, they were instructed to start over until the five minutes had

elapsed. At the end of this condition the confederate judge left the room and the participant was

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 39

told the laboratory procedure was over (Appendix N). The fifth condition was a 10-minute recovery period that started after the judge left the room. HR, HF-HRV, SBP, and DBP data were collected during all conditions. At the completion of the recovery condition, electrodes were removed, and participants were debriefed verbally and provided a debriefing document

(Appendix O).

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 40

RESULTS

Religious Group Formation

The sample was split into three groups using three different methods: The first method split the sample into three groups using cutoff values from the NRNSS religious subscale. As noted earlier, the NRNSS uses a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree) with lower scores on the NRNSS indicating higher religiosity. If a participant’s average score on the NRNSS religious subscale ranged between a

3.5 and 5, that participant was classified as atheist. If a participant’s score ranged between a 2.5 and 3.49 that participant was classified as non-religious. If a participant’s score ranged from 1 to

2.49 that person was classified as religious. This method of grouping resulted in 38 atheists, 10 non-religious, and 13 religious participants.

The second method of grouping was based on trichotomizing participant scores on the

NRNSS religious subscale. Ranges for the group cutoffs were determined using SPSS cut point analyses to create three equal groups. Equivalent group formation was not possible due to many participants sharing the same score, particularly atheists. In cases where equivalent groups are not possible, SPSS attempts to create groupings that are close in size. Participants were placed in the religious group if their scores ranged from 1 to 3.13, the non-religious group if their scores ranged from 3.14 to 4.53, and the atheist group if their scores ranged from 4.54 to 5. This method of grouping resulted in 25 atheists, 17 non-religious, and 19 religious participants.

The last method used to form groups used self-reported religious identity. Participants were asked “What religious identity do you most identify with?” and were presented the following choices: Christian, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheist, Agnostic, Non- religious and Other. Three people responded to the Other category and wrote: “Orthodox

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 41

Christian,” “Catholic,” and “Buddhist leanings but non-religious.” Participants who indicated they were Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu were classified as religious. Participants who indicated that they were agnostics or non-religious were classified as non-religious.

Participants who indicated that they were atheist were classified as atheists. This method of grouping resulted in 21 atheists, 7 non-religious participants, and 33 religious participants.

Sociodemographic data from the relative religious group are listed in Table 4. The findings among the three different grouping methods were equivalent. The relative religious grouping results will be presented below as those analyses demonstrate the most power due to a more even distribution of participants into each group. The results and analyses using the scale religious grouping method and the self-identified religious grouping are presented in Appendix P.

Correlations Among Self-Report Measures

Table 5 presents correlations among the Non-Religious Non-Spiritual Scale (NRNSS),

Brief Measure of Coping (COPE), Brief Measure of Religious Coping (RCOPE), Religious

Commitment Inventory (RCI) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Tables 6-8 present the means and standard deviations for self-report measures of coping. Higher religiosity was associated with higher religious commitment and both greater negative and positive religious coping, and general coping was associated with positive religious coping, but not negative religious coping on the RCOPE.

Religious and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants

One-way between subjects ANOVAs were conducted to examine potential group differences in sociodemographic variables. Results indicated that there were no significant between-group differences for BMI or Age (Table 9). Chi square analyses were conducted to examine potential group differences between race, gender, and household income. Results

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 42 indicated that there were no significant differences for race, gender, or household income (Table

10).

Between Group Comparisons on Stress and Coping

One-way between subjects ANOVAs were conducted to examine potential group differences between the PSS, RCOPEp RCOPEn, COPE, and RCI. The descriptive statistics for analyses with the PSS, NRNSS, RCOPEp, RCOPEn, RCI, FFMQ, AFQ, and MADE are presented in Table 6. The descriptive statistics for the COPE are presented in Table 8.

Results indicated that there were significant between-group differences between the groups on the RCOPEp, RCOPEn, COPE Blame, COPE Religion, and RCI (Table 11). Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to examine these significant between-group differences. For the

RCOPEp, results indicated that atheists reported using positive religious coping less than, non- religious participants and religious participants. Non-religious participants reported using positive religious coping less than religious participants. For the RCOPEn, results indicated that atheists used negative religious coping less than religious participants. For Cope Blame, non- religious participants reported using blame as a method of coping more than both atheists and religious participants. For COPE Religion, results indicated that atheists reported using religious coping less than non-religious participants and religious participants. Non-religious participants reported using religious coping less than religious participants. Finally, for the RCI, results indicated that atheist participants reported lower religious commitment than religious participants. Non-religious participants demonstrated lower religious commitment than religious participants. Atheists and non-religious participants did not differ on self-reported religious commitment (Table 12).

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 43

High-Frequency Heart Rate Variability Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses

High frequency heart rate variability (HF-HRV) was averaged across each condition of

the experiment yielding five values: HF-HRV baseline, HF-HRV anticipation, HF-HRV speech,

HF-HRV math, and HF-HRV recovery. HF-HRV baseline consisted of 10 minutes of seated

resting before the experimental procedures. HF-HRV anticipation consisted of 5 minutes of the

anticipatory condition where participants were instructed to prepare a speech. HF-HRV speech

consisted of the 5 minutes the participants were engaging in the Trier speech task. HF-HRV math

consisted of the 5 minutes participants completed mental math during the Trier. HF-HRV

recovery consisted of the 10 minutes participants were instructed to rest quietly following the

completion of the Trier. HF-HRV values from the five conditions were then examined for skewness and kurtosis. As shown in Table 13, there was substantial skew and kurtosis during the anticipation, speech, and math conditions. Due to skew and kurtosis concerns, log transformations of HF-HRV values were used in all following analyses (Feng, Wang, Lu, & Tu,

2013). Means and standard deviations for HF-HRV are reported in Table 14.

Manipulation Check and HF-HRV

A 1 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of the Trier on

HF-HRV. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) =

52.21, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of

freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .680). After adjusting for

sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on HF-H RV, F (2.72,

163.16) = 24.28, p < .001, η2 = .288.

The Newman Keuls method was used to determine which experimental conditions were

significantly different from each other. Results indicated there were significant differences

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 44 between: baseline and speech, baseline and math, baseline and anticipation, recovery and speech, recovery and math, anticipation and speech, anticipation and math (Table 15).

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for HF-HRV

The means levels of HF-HRV for each group across conditions are presented in Table 14.

A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of relative religious grouping on HF-HRV. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 46.93, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .694).

After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on HF-

H RV, F (2.776, 160.99) = 23.57, p ≤ .001, η2 = .289. Results indicated that the main effect for relative religious grouping on HF-HRV was not significant F (2, 58) = .747, p = .478, η2 = .025.

The interaction between relative religious grouping and HF-HRV was not significant F (5.55,

160.99) = 1.35, p = .172, η2 = .051.

Heart Rate Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses

Heart rate (HR) was averaged across each condition of the experiment, this averaging procedure for HR generated five values: HR baseline, HR anticipation, HR speech, HR math, and HR recovery (Table 16). HR values from the five conditions did not indicate the presence of substantial skew or kurtosis (Table 13).

Manipulation Check and Heart Rate

Table 16 presents the mean levels of HR across conditions. A 1 x 5 repeated measures

ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of the Trier on HR. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 104.06, p < .001. Therefore, the

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 45

used to determine significance (ε = .579). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on HR, F (2.32, 138.88) = 98.81, p < .001, η2 = .622.

The Newman Keuls method was used to determine which experimental conditions were

significantly different from each other. Results from post hoc testing indicated there were

significant differences between: baseline and anticipation, baseline and speech, baseline and

math, anticipation and speech, anticipation and recovery, speech and math, speech and recovery,

and math and recovery (Table 17).

Relative Religious Group and Heart Rate. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was

conducted to evaluate the relation of relative religious grouping on HR. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 102.60, p < .001. Therefore, the

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

used to determine significance (ε = .574). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on HR, F (2.30, 133.21) = 93.46, p ≤ .001, η2 = .617. Results

indicated that the main effect for relative religious grouping on HR was not significant F (2, 58)

= .791, p = .458, η2 = .027. The interaction between relative religious grouping and HR was not

significant F (4.59, 133.21) = .193, p = .957, η2 = .007.

Systolic Blood Pressure Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was collected every two and half minutes during the

experimental condition. SBP was averaged across each condition of the experiment. This

averaging procedure generated five values: SBP baseline, SBP anticipation, SBP speech, SBP

math, and SBP recovery (Table 18). SBP values from the five conditions were examined for

skewness and kurtosis. No substantial skew or kurtosis was observed (see Table 13).

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 46

Manipulation Check and Systolic Blood Pressure

A 1 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of the Trier on

SBP. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) =

57.32, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of

freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .690). After adjusting for

sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on SBP, F (2.76, 165.49) =

75.65, p < .001, η2 = .558.

The Newman Keuls method was used to determine which experimental conditions were

significantly different from each other. Results from post hoc testing indicated there were

significant differences between: baseline and anticipation, baseline and speech, baseline and

math, anticipation and speech, anticipation and math, anticipation and recovery, speech and

math, speech and recovery, and math and recovery (see Table 19).

Relative Religious Group and Systolic Blood Pressure. The mean levels of SBP for

each group across conditions are presented in Table 18. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was

conducted to evaluate the relation of relative religious grouping on SBP. Mauchly’s test indicated

that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 52.95, p < .001. Therefore, the

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

used to determine significance (ε = .701). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on SBP, F (2.80, 162.56) = 77.33, p ≤ .001, η2 = .571. Results indicated that the main effect for relative religious grouping on SBP was not significant F (2, 58)

= 2.27, p = .112, η2 = .073. The interaction between relative religious grouping and SBP was not

significant F (5.61, 162.56) = 1.07, p = .381, η2 = .036.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 47

Diastolic Blood Pressure Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses

Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was collected every two and half minutes during the experimental condition. DBP was averaged across each condition of the experiment (see Table

20). This averaging procedure generated five values: DBP baseline, DBP anticipation, DBP speech, DBP math, and DBP recovery DBP values from the five conditions were then examined for skewness and kurtosis. No substantial skew or kurtosis was observed (Table 13).

Manipulation Check and Diastolic Blood Pressure

A 1 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of the Trier on

DBP. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) =

41.59, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .763). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on DBP, F (3.05, 183.01) =

97.31, p < .001, η2 = .619.

The Newman Keuls method was used to determine which experimental conditions were significantly different from each other. Results from post hoc testing indicated there were significant differences between: baseline and anticipation, baseline and speech, baseline and math, baseline and recovery, anticipation and speech, anticipation and math, speech and recovery, and math and recovery (Table 21).

Relative Religious Group and Diastolic Blood Pressure. The mean levels of DBP for each group across conditions are presented in Table 20. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of relative religious grouping on DBP. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 41.38, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 48

used to determine significance (ε = .752). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on DBP, F (3.01, 174.38) = 97.06, p ≤ .001, η2 = .626.

Results indicated that the main effect for relative religious grouping on DBP was not significant

F (2, 58) = 1.10, p = .339, η2 = .037. The interaction between relative religious grouping and

DBP was also not significant F (6.01, 174.38) = .968, p = .449, η2 = .032.

Commitment to Religion and Religious Discrimination Among Atheists

Scores on the RCI were tricitomized creating a low, medium, and high religious

commitment group. Four repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to examine the

association between the RCI group and HR, HF-HRV, SBP, and DBP. As noted above, the

MADE was only administered to atheist participants. Scores on the MADE were also

tricitomized creating a low, medium, and high atheist discrimination group. Four repeated

measures ANOVAs were conducted to examine the association between the MADE and HR, HF-

HRV, SBP, and DBP.

Religious Commitment Inventory and High-Frequency Heart Rate Variability. A

repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of religious commitment on

HF-HRV. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9)

= .672, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of

freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .403). After adjusting for

sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on HF-H RV, F (2.69,

155.87) = 24.25, p ≤ .001. Results indicated that the main effect for RCI on HF-HRV was not significant F (2, 58) = .114, p = .892. The interaction between RCI and HF-HRV was also not significant F (5.38, 155.87) = .962, p = .471.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 49

Religious Commitment Inventory and Heart Rate. A repeated measures ANOVA was

conducted to evaluate the relation of religious commitment on HR. Mauchly’s test indicated that

the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = .577, p < .001. Therefore, the

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

used to determine significance (ε = .164). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on HR, F (2.31, 133.82) = 95.71, p ≤ .001. Results indicated

that the main effect for RCI on HR was not significant F (2, 58) = .1.05, p = .358. The interaction

between RCI and HR was also not significant F (4.61, 5.07) = .840, p = .991.

Religious Commitment Inventory and Systolic Blood Pressure. A repeated measures

ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of religious commitment on SBP. Mauchly’s test

indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = .692, p < .001. Therefore,

the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

used to determine significance (ε = .377). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on SBP, F (2.77, 160.53) = 75.35, p ≤ .001. Results indicated

that the main effect for RCI on SBP was not significant F (2, 58) = 2.22, p = .118. The

interaction between RCI and SBP was also not significant F (5.54, 160.53) = .755, p = .596.

Religious Commitment Inventory and Diastolic Blood Pressure. A repeated measures

ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of religious commitment on DBP. Mauchly’s test

indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = .762, p < .001. Therefore,

the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

used to determine significance (ε = .494). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on DBP, F (3.01, 176.77) = 96.94, p ≤ .001. Results indicated

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 50 that the main effect for RCI on DBP was not significant F (2, 58) = .193, p = .825. The interaction between RCI and DBP was also not significant F (6.10, 176.77) = .856, p = .530.

Measure of Atheist Discrimination and High-Frequency Heart Rate Variability. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of discrimination on HF-H RV.

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had not been violated, X2 (9) = .006, p

= .300. There was a significant and large main effect for condition on HF-H RV, F (4, 76) = 9.60, p ≤ .001. Results indicated that the main effect for MADE on HF-HRV was not significant F (2,

19) = .131, p = .878. The interaction between MADE and HF-HRV was significant F (8, 76) =

2.42, p = .022.

Pairwise Comparisons. Pairwise comparisons were used to determine which MADE group reacted differently to the stressor. Adjustment for multiple comparisons were made using the Least Significant Difference method. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using only data from the low discrimination group (n = 7) to evaluate the relation of discrimination on HF-

HRV. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had not been violated, X2 (9)

= .026, p = .080. There was a significant and large main effect for condition on HF-H RV, F (4,

24) = 11.88, p ≤ .001. Pairwise comparions indicated baseline was significantly different from anticipation, speech, math, and recovery. Anticipation was significantly different from baseline and recovery. Speech was significantly different from baseline, and recovery. Math was significantly different from baseline and recovery. Recovery was significantly different from baseline, anticipation, speech, and math.

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using only data from the medium discrimination group (n = 8) to evaluate the relation of discrimination on HF-HRV. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had not been violated, X2 (9) = .061, p = .101. The

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 51 main effect for condition on HF-HRV was not significant, F (4, 28) = .857, p = .501.

Consequently, the medium discrimination group did not significantly react to the stressor and no pairwise comparisons could be completed.

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using only data from the high discrimination group (n = 7) to evaluate the relation of discrimination on HF-HRV. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = .002, p = .002.

Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .486). After adjusting for sphericity, the main effect for condition on HF-HRV was not significant, F (1.94, 11.66) = 2.48, p = .128.

Consequently, the high discrimination group did not significantly react to the stressor and no pairwise comparisons could be completed.

Measure of Atheist Discrimination Experiences and Heart Rate. A repeated measures

ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of discrimination on HR. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 36.23, p ≤ .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .125). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on HR, F (2.30, 43.70) = 39.34, p ≤ .001. Results indicated that the main effect for MADE on HR was not significant F (2, 19) = .438, p = .652. The interaction between MADE and HR was also not significant F (4.60, 43.70) = .886, p = .492.

Measure of Atheist Discrimination Experiences and Systolic Blood Pressure. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of discrimination on SBP.

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity been violated, X2 (9) = .642, p = .013.

Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 52 critical values used to determine significance (ε = .299). There was a significant and large main effect for condition on SBP, F (2.57, 48.79) = 26.25, p ≤ .001. Results indicated that the main effect for MADE on SBP was not significant F (2, 19) = .032, p = .913. The interaction between

MADE and SBP was also not significant F (5.14, 48.79) = .672, p = .651.

Measure of Atheist Discrimination Experiences and Diastolic Blood Pressure. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of discrimination on DBP.

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 33.55, p

≤ .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .585). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on DBP, F (2.34, 44.49) = 28.71, p

≤ .001. Results indicated that the main effect for MADE and DBP was not significant F (2, 19)

= .043, p = .958. The interaction between MADE and DBP was not significant F (4.68, 44.49)

= .320, p = .888.

Exploratory Residual Analyses

Residuals can be used to evaluate reactivity and recovery from a stressor by removing between-group variance due to baseline differences. Two sets of standardized residual scores were generated. The first set was generated by regressing the mean level of HF-HRV, HR, SBP, or DBP during each recovery period on the mean levels of HF-HRV, HR, SBP, or DBP during baseline. These standardized residual scores provided an index of recovery that was statistically uncorrelated with baseline (Burt & Obradović, 2013). The second set was generated by regressing the mean level of HF-HRV, HR, SBP, or DBP during each speech period on the mean levels of HF-HRV, HR, SBP, or DBP during the baseline period. These standardized residual scores provided an index of reactivity that was statistically uncorrelated with baseline activity

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 53 levels (Burt & Obradović, 2013). These residual scores were correlated with the PSS, NRNSS,

COPE, RCI, RCOPEp, RCOPEn, FFMQ, AFQ, and MADE (Table 22). Correlations indicated that higher religiousness (lower scores on the NRNSS) was significantly associated with less

SBP recovery. Additionally, lower mindfulness (FFMQ) was associated with more complete recovery.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 54

DISCUSSION

Three different groupings were used for the current study: the relative religious group, scale religious group, and self-report religious group. Results indicated that the different groupings were largely congruent in findings and significance. The relative religious grouping was selected as the method for determining religious grouping because it allowed for approximately equal sized groups and was effective in distinguishing religious, non-religious, and atheist participants from each other using scores from the Non-Religious Non-Spiritual Scale

(NRNSS).

Self-report data from questionnaires were broadly consistent with hypotheses. Religious participants demonstrated higher religious commitment and coping relative to atheist and non- religious participants and non-religious participants demonstrated higher religious commitment and coping relative to atheist participants. Atheist participants also reported experiencing discrimination on the Measure of Atheist Discrimination (MADE). The magnitude of this discrimination was relatively minor and was predominantly related to hiding one’s identity, rather than experiences of overt discrimination.

The first aim of the current study was to determine if atheists and non-religious persons exhibited poorer cardiovascular health relative to religious persons. It was hypothesized that atheists would demonstrate higher levels of cardiovascular reactivity and poorer cardiovascular recovery relative to persons who were more religious on high-frequency heart rate variability

(HF-HRV), heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP).

None of the proposed hypotheses for cardiovascular variables were supported and there were no patterns of significant differences detected between atheists, non-religious, and religious participants.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 55

The only significant cardiovascular finding was that people who were more religious had poorer residual systolic blood pressure recovery. However, given the number of analyses conducted, it is plausible to attribute this finding to random error rather than a very specific and physiologically unlikely difference among the three samples.

The second aim of this study was to examine whether perceived stigma or other cognitive factors (i.e., mindfulness, cognitive fusion) mediated cardiovascular reactivity and recovery among atheists and the non-religious. It was hypothesized that higher levels of perceived stigma would account for the hypothesized difference between religious and atheist persons and positive coping would reduce this association. Due to the lack of observed between-group differences for the previous hypothesis’s, mediator analyses were not explored.

A power analysis was conducted to determine the sufficient sample size needed to test a moderate effect size (d = .25) with an alpha of .05 and power of .80. Results indicated a sample size of 102 would be needed. The current study did not have sufficient power by these standards

(n = 61). Additionally, the effect sizes observed in the current study were far below the predicted range with most interactions between religious variables and cardiovascular variables having an effect size below d = .10. This indicates that even with the larger sample, the proposed hypotheses that atheists/non-religious would not have reached significance. Finally, a recent adequately powered investigation of a very similar hypothesis also obtained null findings (Farias

& Newheiser, 2019). Thus, the effect of religiosity on cardiovascular reactivity and recovery from stress may be much smaller than anticipated and reported in the literature (Masters &

Knestel, 2011).

Contrasts between the hypothesized results derived from the religious coping and minority stress literature and the results of the current study are explored below. Researchers

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 56 have posited that having a strong religious identity can be cardioprotective, although the mechanism associated with this benefit is unclear (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001;

Schnall et al., 2010). It has been reported that atheists and non-religious people have poorer health status and outcomes relative to religious persons (Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009; Gillum

& Ingram, 2006; Schnall et al., 2010). This poorer health is typically attributed to their lack of religious identity and nonuse of religious coping (Koenig, 2015; Pargament & Raiya, 2007). An alternative hypothesis is that the poorer health experienced by atheists and non-religious persons is due to religious discrimination. Exposure to discrimination can produce acute and chronic stress responses that tax the cardiovascular system. Chronic exposure to discrimination and the resultant stress responses has been associated with poorer health status (Abbott & Mollen, 2018;

Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009).

Religious coping is thought to serve as a buffer against stress and has been argued to be a mechanism for the observed association between religion and improved health (Pargament &

Raiya, 2007). Positive religious coping is believed to provide an avenue for people who are religious to attune to benevolent religious reappraisals, utilize collaborative religious coping, and seek spiritual support (Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2015). It is thought that by focusing on these positive aspects, religiously affiliated people are better able to tolerate daily stressors and consequently demonstrate improved stress responses (e.g. lower heart rate), which subsequently reduces the load placed on the cardiovascular system and results in lower rates of cardiovascular disease (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001). However, there have been mixed findings on the benefits of religious coping; for instance, researchers have found high degrees of heterogeneity between religious belief groups and the subsequent health benefits (Ano &

Vasconcelles, 2005).

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 57

Laboratory research studies assessing the benefits of religious coping and religious identity in response to stress are relatively limited and have produced a series of mixed results.

At the time this manuscript was completed, there were seven published laboratory experiments assessing religious coping/religious identity and stress responses: Two found no association

(Farias & Newheiser, 2019; Feuille & Pargament, 2015), one found a negative association

(Meints & Hirsh, 2015), and four found a positive association (Edmondson et al., 2005; Lawler

& Younger, 2002; Masters & Knestel, 2011; Wachholtz & Pargament, 2008). It is important to note that only Farias and Newheiser (2019) included a non-religious or atheist sample. These researchers found no difference between religious coping and science-based coping strategies where non-religious participants were asked to focus on their beliefs in science in response to the

Trier Social Stress Test (Farias & Newheiser, 2019).

In the current study, religious participants reported having higher religious coping than non-religious and atheist participants. Despite the availability of this type of coping for religious participants, there were no observed differences in cardiovascular stress responses between atheist and non-religious participants. The current study supports the previous findings in the literature that religiosity and religious coping are not generally associated with more adaptive stress responses in a laboratory setting. Considering that religious coping has been associated with improved health outside of laboratory studies (Krägeloh, Chai, Shepherd, & Billington,

2012), these results suggest that religious participants may not use this type of coping in response to laboratory stressors. Additionally, this type of coping may not be associated with reduced cardiovascular reactivity or improved recovery in response to laboratory stressors. It may be the case that participants only use religious coping in response to specific types of stressors or when prompted. Three reasons for why higher religiosity has been historically associated with

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 58

improved cardiovascular responses and the noted absence of the anticipated religious stress

buffering results are discussed below.

One of the common critiques/limitations of the religious coping and cardiovascular response literature is that laboratory protocols do not typically include a religious coping condition where participants are explicitly asked to use religious coping. The current study also lacked this condition, meaning that religious participants may not have been provided an opportunity to utilize their religious coping. However, other researchers have included religious coping prompts and not found any significant results or found negative associations between religious coping and stress reactivity (Edmondson et al., 2005; Farias & Newheiser, 2019;

Meints & Hirsh, 2015).

Another critique is that The Trier Social Stress Test and other laboratory stressors may not create the kind of stress that religious coping ameliorates. People tend to utilize religious coping most often when confronted with high degrees of existential stress (e.g. loss of life, threat of death, or grave bodily harm; Pargament & Raiya, 2007). These types of stressors cannot realistically be created in a contrived laboratory context. Second, from a functional perspective, one of the unique elements of religious coping that differentiates it from other methods of coping is that it provides answers to existential questions (e.g. the meaning of life and what happens after people die; Pargament et al., 1999). Social stressors may simply not evoke existential stress, limiting opportunity for religious coping to be used in response to an appropriate stressor.

Finally, the methods in which the other studies sort and identify people’s religious affiliation are not systematic and do not typically include atheists. Atheists are an important population to include in studies that examine religious coping/religious identity, as they are least likely to employ religious coping strategies and most likely to lack the benefits provided from

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 59 religious identity. Most previous research has typically focused on comparing more religious participants to less religious participants, which is problematic, as not including atheists excludes an important section of the religious affiliation spectrum. Of the seven laboratory studies evaluating religious variables, only one study adequately assessed for non-religious/atheist religious identities (Farias & Newheiser, 2019). It may be the case that people with less certainty in their beliefs (regardless of religious content) have greater reactivity to stress. From this perspective, atheists and the strongly religious would have healthier cardiovascular stress responses relative to those who are less firm in their religious beliefs.

A recently published study by Farias & Newheiser (2019) addressed many of these common criticisms in the literature and shared many methodological features of the current study. Farias & Newheiser (2019) recruited 51 religious individuals and 49 non-religious scientists from two British Universities. Participants were sorted into the religious category by use of a single item measure “How religious do you consider yourself to be,” the highest score on this measure was 7, which indicated participates considered themselves to be very much religious, and the lowest was 1, which indicated participants were not religious at all.

Participants sorted into the religious group had to both score higher than a 5 on this single item measure and report attending religious services at least one to three times a month. In order to qualify for the scientist group, participants had to be current post-graduate students in a science related field and score 3 or lower on the religious measure, as well as reporting rarely or never attending religious services. Prior to the stress induction task, participants were randomly assigned to two conditions: a belief condition or a control condition. For the belief condition (N

= 51), participants were instructed to write about what [the participant’s] religious or science beliefs meant to them, depending on what grouping they were in. Participants sorted into the

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 60

control condition (N = 49) wrote about their favorite season. Participants were then instructed to

focus on this respective content during the recovery condition. Consequently, the sample was

split into four groups: non-religious scientists who were asked to use beliefs in science as a coping mechanism, non-religious scientists who were provided no religious prompt, religious

participants who were instructed to use religious coping, and religious participants who received

no religious prompt. The stressor condition consisted of the initial portion of the Trier Social

Stress Test, Farias & Newheiser’s procedure was identical to the current study, however they did

not have participants give their speech or complete mental math. Their recovery condition started

immediately after informing participants that they would not need to deliver a speech. Multiple

biomarkers were collected, and heart rate and blood pressure were collected during the entire

procedure. Salivary cortisol was also collected before and after the stressor condition.

Results indicated that all participant groupings reacted to the stressor, but there were no

significant differences between any of the groupings on self-report measures of stress or

biomarker reactivity. Farias & Newheiser conducted exploratory analyses and excluded all

participants within the science grouping who did not score a 1 on the single item religious belief

measure. This new grouping method (N = 37) did not alter any of the relations detected

previously and no significant relations were identified. In conclusion, these findings, the mixed

results of other laboratory studies, and the results of the present study cumulatively suggest that

stress buffering effect of higher religiosity and religious coping may not be the mechanism

through which religious identity provides health benefits.

Minority Stress

Results also indicated that The Minority Stress Model was not supported in the current

study. While atheists and non-religious participants reported experiencing discrimination, the

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 61

magnitude of reported discrimination was relatively small and not the type of discrimination

associated with poorer cardiovascular responses to stress (e.g., unpredictable and overt

discrimination; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009). The most common form of discrimination

reported by participants was having to hide their atheist identity around people who are religious.

Further, only two participants reported experiencing any overt discrimination on the MADE.

This lack of substantial discrimination experiences likely contributed to the observed null findings. However, previous researchers have linked discrimination experiences in atheist populations to negative mental health outcomes and micro-aggressions against atheists have been

found to predict depression symptoms. It is important to note that this significant association was

quite small and detected in a large sample (n = 1485; Cheng, Pagano, & Shariff, 2018). Reasons

why The Minority Stress Model was not supported are explored below.

The application of the minority stress model to atheists is recent, however, the literature

boasts a substantial number of studies examining the impact of minority stress on other

populations. LGBTQ and HIV+ populations are conceptually related to atheists because like

atheism, these identities can be hidden. In other populations researchers have found that people

belonging to these “invisible minority groups” generally have more control over disclosure of

their minority status. This increased level of control may buffer the levels of discrimination and

exposure to stress which, in turn, would be associated with improved cardiovascular functioning

relative to other visible minority groups (Juster et al., 2019). The present study was also

conducted in a Midwestern college town with a sample of mostly University students who likely

have control over disclosure of their religious identity.

Furthermore, the types of discrimination experienced by LGBTQ and HIV+ populations and the underlying beliefs driving people to discriminate against these individuals are

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 62 substantively different than those experienced by atheists. Content analyses of discriminatory thoughts towards LGBTQ and HIV+ populations have been found to broadly contain concepts related to disgust and fear of contamination (Morrison, Kiss, Bishop, & Morrison, 2018).

Discriminatory thoughts related to atheists are typically related to distrust due the perception of a lack of shared values (Gervais, Shariff, & Norenzayan, 2011). The different underlying discriminatory content likely influences the ways in which these populations experience discrimination and consequently, it is difficult to determine if the type of minority stress that atheists experience is of a sufficient magnitude or type to produce cardiovascular associations detectable in a laboratory study (Hill et al., 2017; Juster et al., 2019; Meyer, 2003; Yang & Mak,

2017).

Another consideration is that even within populations of individuals who have been traditionally discriminated against (e.g. African American and LGBTQ individuals), the effects of perceived discrimination on physical health tend to be small to moderate after accounting for more systemic issues (e.g., lower SES). After these additional demographics are controlled for, less than half of examined findings in a meta analyses (n = 36) continue to find a significant relation between physical health factors and perceived discrimination (Hill et al., 2017; Juster et al., 2019; Meyer, 2003; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Yang & Mak 2017). As noted above, atheists are an invisible minority, meaning that there are generally few outward signs signifying membership in this group. Further, atheists tend to be wealthier and have higher educational attainment and these systemic advantages may offset discriminatory influences (Caldwell-Harris,

Wilson, LoTempio, & Beit-Hallahmi, 2011).

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 63

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study had three major limitations. The first was the relatively small sample size. However, even studies that possessed a larger sample size than the current study reported null findings (Farias & Newheiser, 2019). It is also important to note that the observed effect sizes in the current study were quite small and it may be the case that the effect size of religion on cardiovascular reactivity to stress is smaller than hypothesized. This is supported by the pattern of non-significant findings in laboratory studies in previous research (Edmondson et al.,

2005; Farias & Newheiser, 2019; Feuille & Pargament, 2015; Lawler & Younger, 2002; Masters

& Knestel, 2011; Meints & Hirsh, 2015; Wachholtz & Pargament, 2008).

Second, the participants of the current study may not have been religious enough to benefit from their religious identity. The distribution of scores on the NRNSS in the current study was uneven and there were significantly more strong atheists than equivalently strong religious participants. Researchers have found that participants who are less religious tend to use less religious coping strategies than participants who are relatively more religious and this may account for the lack of significant results. This limitation was noted by other researchers when recruiting participants from Western Europe and a lack of sufficiently religious participants may account for both sets of null results (Farias & Newheiser, 2019).

The primary future direction for researchers is to incorporate stressors that more accurately assess the proposed benefits of religious coping. Religious coping is often used for existential stressors (e.g. loss of a family member, using a stressor that incorporates existential elements, such as imagining a recent loss, may help provide a context for religious people to use religious coping in a natural way). Stressors that incorporate reflecting on the nature of the universe, meaning of life, or thinking about deceased relatives may provide a better opportunity

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 64 for religious participants to demonstrate how religious coping can be protective when faced with stressors.

Conclusion

At current writing there are only two laboratory studies – including the current study – that examined the association between cardiovascular reactivity, general religiosity, and religious coping using a non-religious/atheist sample. The importance of this inclusion from a methodological perspective is that it allows researchers to compare the presence of religious variables to the absence of religious variables. The literature has produced a number of laboratory stressor studies that compare different types of religious participants and religious content to each other (Edmondson et al., 2005; Lawler & Younger, 2002; Masters & Knestel,

2011; Wachholtz & Pargament, 2008). However, despite the absence of studies that support the hypotheses, it has broadly been suggested that being more religious serves as a buffer against stress (Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009; Gillum & Ingram, 2006; Schnall et al., 2010). It may be that specific aspects of religiosity and religious coping in specific stressor contexts are beneficial.

The current study adds to the growing evidence that when compared to the non-religious/atheist populations in general, religious participants do not demonstrate less cardiovascular reactivity to a laboratory stress or better recovery from a laboratory stressor.

The Minority Stress Model was also not supported. Previous researchers have noted that atheists experience discrimination, but this discrimination may not be sufficient to influence cardiovascular responses to stress (Brewster, Hammer, Sawyer, Eklund, & Palamar, 2016;

Gervais, 2014). Considering that atheists typically have other forms of privilege and are an invisible minority, it may be the case that these protective factors prevent the relatively mild reported discrimination from impacting atheists’ cardiovascular responses to stress.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 65

REFERENCES

Abbott, D. M., & Mollen, D. (2018). Atheism as a Concealable Stigmatized Identity: Outness,

Anticipated Stigma, and Well-Being. The Counseling Psychologist, 46(6), 685–707.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018792669

Abu-Raiya, H., & Pargament, K. I. (2015). Religious coping among diverse religions:

Commonalities and divergences. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(1), 24–33.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037652

Ai, A. L., Seymour, E. M., Tice, T. N., Kronfol, Z., & Bolling, S. F. (2009). Spiritual struggle

related to plasma interleukin-6 prior to cardiac surgery. Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality, 1(2), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015775

Allen, A. P., Kennedy, P. J., Cryan, J. F., Dinan, T. G., & Clarke, G. (2014). Biological and

psychological markers of stress in humans: Focus on the Trier Social Stress Test.

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 38, 94–124.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.11.005

Allen, J. J. B., Chambers, A. S., & Towers, D. N. (2007). The many metrics of cardiac

chronotropy: A pragmatic primer and a brief comparison of metrics. Biological Psychology,

74(2), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.08.005

Ano, G. G., & Vasconcelles, E. B. (2005). Religious coping and psychological adjustment to

stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(4), 461–480.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20049

Azam, M. A., Katz, J., Fashler, S. R., Changoor, T., Azargive, S., & Ritvo, P. (2015). Heart rate

variability is enhanced in controls but not maladaptive perfectionists during brief

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 66

mindfulness meditation following stress-induction: A stratified-randomized trial.

International Journal of Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.06.005

B. M. Kudielka, D. H. (2007). Ten years of research with the Trier Social Stress Test—Revisited.

56–83.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., & Button, D. (2008). Construct Validity of the Five Facet

Mindfulness Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples. Assessment, 15(3),

329–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107313003

Berntson, G. G., Norman, G. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Spirituality and

Autonomic Cardiac Control. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35(2), 198.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9027-x

Bolderston, H., Gillanders, D. T., Turner, G., Taylor, H. C., Ní Mhaoileoin, D., & Coleman, A.

(2019). The initial validation of a state version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire.

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 207–215.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.04.002

Brewster, M. E., Hammer, J., Sawyer, J. S., Eklund, A., & Palamar, J. (2016). Perceived

experiences of atheist discrimination: Instrument development and evaluation. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000156

Brewster, M. E., & Moradi, B. (2010). Perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice:

Instrument development and evaluation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(4), 451–468.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021116

Brewster, M. E., Robinson, M. A., Sandil, R., Esposito, J., & Geiger, E. (2014). Arrantly absent:

Atheism in psychological science from 2001 to 2012 ψ. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(5),

628–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000014528051

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 67

Brockmeyer, T., Holtforth, M. G., Krieger, T., Altenstein, D., Doerig, N., Zimmermann, J., …

Bents, H. (2015). Preliminary Evidence for a Nexus between Rumination, Behavioural

Avoidance, Motive Satisfaction and Depression. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,

22(3), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1885

Brondolo, E., Rieppi, R., Kelly, K. P., & Gerin, W. (2003). Perceived racism and blood pressure:

A review of the literature and conceptual and methodological critique. Annals of Behavioral

Medicine, 25(1), 55–65.

Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Adair, K. C., Payne, B. K., Richman, L. S., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2014).

Discrimination hurts, but mindfulness may help: Trait mindfulness moderates the

relationship between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms. Personality and

Individual Differences, 56, 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.015

Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Golding, J. M., Gervais, W. M., Lynch, K. R., Wasarhaley, N. E., &

Bainter, S. (2019). Will jurors believe nonbelievers? Perceptions of atheist rape victims in

the courtroom. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000278

Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., McKee, S., & Gervais, W. M. (2018). Atheist horns and religious halos:

Mental representations of atheists and theists. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General, 147(2), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000376

Burg, J. M., Wolf, O. T., & Michalak, J. (2012). Mindfulness as Self-Regulated Attention. Swiss

Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de

Psychologie, 71(3), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000080

Burt, K. B., & Obradović, J. (2013). The construct of psychophysiological reactivity: Statistical

and psychometric issues. Developmental Review, 33(1), 29–57.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.10.002

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 68

Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Binkley, P. F., Quigley, K. S., Uchino, B. N., & Fieldstone, A.

(1994). Autonomic cardiac control. II. Noninvasive indices and basal response as revealed

by autonomic blockades. Psychophysiology, 31(6), 586–598.

Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Wilson, A. L., LoTempio, E., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2011). Exploring the

atheist personality: Well-being, awe, and magical thinking in atheists, Buddhists, and

Christians. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(7), 659–672.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2010.509847

Campbell, D. (n.d.). Testing Faith: An Investigation of the Relationship Between Prayer and Test

Anxiety. SOCIAL WORK, 16.

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’ too long: Consider the brief

cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92–100.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

Chan, T., Michalak, N. M., & Ybarra, O. (2019). When God is your only friend: Religious beliefs

compensate for purpose in life in the socially disconnected. Journal of Personality, 87(3),

455–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12401

Chandra, P., Sands, R. L., Gillespie, B. W., Levin, N. W., Kotanko, P., Kiser, M., … Saran, R.

(2012). Predictors of heart rate variability and its prognostic significance in chronic kidney

disease. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 27(2), 700–709.

Cheng, Z. H., Pagano, L. A. Jr., & Shariff, A. F. (2018). The development and validation of the

Microaggressions Against Non-religious Individuals Scale (MANRIS). Psychology of

Religion and Spirituality, 10(3), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000203

Chida, Y., & Steptoe, A. (2010). Greater Cardiovascular Responses to Laboratory Mental Stress

Are Associated With Poor Subsequent Cardiovascular Risk Status A Meta-Analysis of

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 69

Prospective Evidence. Hypertension, 55(4), 1026–1032.

https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.146621

Chida, Y., Steptoe, A., & Powell, L. H. (2009). Religiosity/Spirituality and Mortality.

Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1159/000190791

Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2011). Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain: A

Systematic Review of the Evidence. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary

Medicine, 17(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2009.0546

Christopher, M. S., Hunsinger, M., Goerling, Lt. R. J., Bowen, S., Rogers, B. S., Gross, C. R., …

Pruessner, J. C. (2018). Mindfulness-based resilience training to reduce health risk, stress

reactivity, and aggression among law enforcement officers: A feasibility and preliminary

efficacy trial. Psychiatry Research, 264, 104–115.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.059

Christopher, M. S., Neuser, N. J., Michael, P. G., & Baitmangalkar, A. (2012). Exploring the

Psychometric Properties of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Mindfulness, 3(2),

124–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0086-x

Cragun, R. T., Kosmin, B., Keysar, A., Hammer, J. H., & Nielsen, M. (2012). On the Receiving

End: Discrimination toward the Non-Religious in the United States. Journal of

Contemporary Religion, 27(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2012.642741

Cragun, R. T., & Nielsen, M. (2015). The NonReligious-NonSpiritual Scale (NRNSS):

Measuring Everyone from Atheists to Zionists. Science, Religion and Culture, 2(3), 36–53.

https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.src/2015/2.3.36.53

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 70

Doane, M. J., & Elliott, M. (2015). Perceptions of discrimination among atheists: Consequences

for atheist identification, psychological and physical well-being. Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality, 7(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000015

Draghici, A. E., & Taylor, J. A. (2016). The physiological basis and measurement of heart rate

variability in humans. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 35.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40101-016-0113-7

Driscoll, R. (n.d.). Westside Test Anxiety Scale Validation. 6.

Dyke, C. J. V., Glenwick, D. S., Cecero, J. J., & Kim, S.-K. (2009). The relationship of religious

coping and spirituality to adjustment and psychological distress in urban early adolescents.

Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 12(4), 369–383.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670902737723

Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as “Other”: Moral Boundaries and

Cultural Membership in American Society. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 211–234.

https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100203

Edmondson, K. A., Lawler, K. A., Jobe, R. L., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., & Jones, W. H.

(2005). Spirituality Predicts Health and Cardiovascular Responses to Stress in Young Adult

Women. Journal of Religion and Health, 44(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-

005-2774-0

Exline, J. J., Park, C. L., Smyth, J. M., & Carey, M. P. (2011). Anger toward God: Social-

cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 129–148.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021716

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 71

Farias, M., & Newheiser, A.-K. (2019). The effects of belief in God and science on acute stress.

Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice.

https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000185

Feng, C., Wang, H., Lu, N., & Tu, X. M. (2013). Log transformation: Application and

interpretation in biomedical research. Statistics in Medicine, 32(2), 230–239.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5486

Fergus, T. A., Valentiner, D. P., Gillen, M. J., & Hiraoka, R. (2011). Assessing psychological

inflexibility: The psychometric properties of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for

youth in two adult samples. Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025776

Feuille, M., & Pargament, K. (2015). Pain, mindfulness, and spirituality: A randomized

controlled trial comparing effects of mindfulness and relaxation on pain-related outcomes in

migraineurs. Journal of Health Psychology, 20(8), 1090–1106.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313508459

Friedman, B. H. (2007). An autonomic flexibility–neurovisceral integration model of anxiety and

cardiac vagal tone. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 185–199.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.08.009

Galen, L. W., & Kloet, J. D. (2011). Mental well-being in the religious and the non-religious:

Evidence for a curvilinear relationship. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(7), 673–689.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2010.510829

Gervais, W. M. (2013). In godlessness we distrust: Using social psychology to solve the puzzle of

anti‐atheist prejudice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(6), 366–377. (2013-

21796-005).

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 72

Gervais, W. M. (2014). Everything is permitted? People intuitively judge immorality as

representative of atheists. PloS One, 9(4), e92302.

Gervais, W. M., & Najle, M. B. (2017). How Many Atheists Are There? Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 1948550617707015. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617707015

Gervais, W. M., Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is

central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6),

1189–1206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025882

Gervais, W. M., Xygalatas, D., McKay, R. T., van Elk, M., Buchtel, E. E., Aveyard, M., …

Bulbulia, J. (2017). Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists.

Nature Human Behaviour, 1(8), 0151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0151

Gil-Luciano, B., Ruiz, F. J., Valdivia-Salas, S., & Suárez-Falcón, J. C. (2017). Promoting

psychological flexibility on tolerance tasks: Framing behavior through deictic/hierarchical

relations and specifying augmental functions. The Psychological Record, 67(1), 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0200-5

Gillum, R. F., & Ingram, D. D. (2006). Frequency of attendance at religious services,

hypertension, and blood pressure: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination

Survey. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68(3), 382–385.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000221253.90559.dd

Goldstein, D. S., Bentho, O., Park, M.-Y., & Sharabi, Y. (2011). Low-frequency power of heart

rate variability is not a measure of cardiac sympathetic tone but may be a measure of

modulation of cardiac autonomic outflows by baroreflexes. Experimental Physiology,

96(12), 1255–1261. https://doi.org/10.1113/expphysiol.2010.056259

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 73

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/Extrinsic Measurement: I/E-Revised and

Single-Item Scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348–354.

Granqvist, P., & Moström, J. (2014). There are plenty of atheists in foxholes—In Sweden. Archiv

Für Religionspsychologie / Archive for the Psychology of Religions, 36(2), 199–213.

https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341285

Harris, J. I., Erbes, C. R., Engdahl, B. E., Olson, R. H. A., Winskowski, A. M., & McMahill, J.

(2008). Christian religious functioning and trauma outcomes. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 64(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20427

Harris JI, Schoneman SW, & Carrera SR. (2002). Approaches to religiosity related to anxiety

among college students. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 5(3), 253–265. Retrieved from

rzh.

Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough, J., Michael E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D.

B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing Religion and Spirituality: Points of

Commonality, Points of Departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(1), 51–

77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00119

Hodge, D. R., Zidan, T., & Husain, A. (2016). Depression among Muslims in the United States:

Examining the Role of Discrimination and Spirituality as Risk and Protective Factors.

Social Work, 61(1), 45–52.

Hoge, E. A., Bui, E., Marques, L., Metcalf, C. A., Morris, L. K., Robinaugh, D. J., … Simon, N.

M. (2013). Randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation for generalized anxiety

disorder: Effects on anxiety and stress reactivity. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74(8),

786–792. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.12m08083

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 74

Hwang, K., Hammer, J. H., & Cragun, R. T. (2011). Extending Religion-Health Research to

Secular Minorities: Issues and Concerns. Journal of Religion and Health, 50(3), 608–622.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-009-9296-0

Juster, R.-P., Doyle, D. M., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Everett, B. G., DuBois, L. Z., & McGrath, J. J.

(2019). Sexual orientation, disclosure, and cardiovascular stress reactivity. Stress: The

International Journal on the Biology of Stress.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2019.1579793

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2011). Some reflections on the origins of MBSR, skillful means, and the trouble

with maps. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 281–306.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14639947.2011.564844

Kadziolka, M. J., Di Pierdomenico, E.-A., & Miller, C. J. (2015). Trait-like mindfulness

promotes healthy self-regulation of stress. Mindfulness. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-

0437-0

Koenig, H. G. (2015). Religion, spirituality, and health: A review and update. Advances in Mind-

Body Medicine, 29(3), 19.

Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195118667.001.0001

Kosmin, B. A., Keysar, A., Cragun, R., & Navarro-Rivera, J. (2009). American nones: The profile

of the no religion population, a report based on the American religious identification survey

2008. Retrieved from

http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=facpub

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 75

Krafft, J., Haeger, J. A., & Levin, M. E. (2019). Comparing cognitive fusion and cognitive

reappraisal as predictors of college student mental health. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy,

48(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2018.1513556

Krägeloh, C. U., Chai, P. P. M., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2012). How Religious Coping is

Used Relative to Other Coping Strategies Depends on the Individual’s Level of Religiosity

and Spirituality. Journal of Religion and Health, 51(4), 1137–1151.

Lawler, K. A., & Younger, J. W. (2002). Theobiology: An Analysis of Spirituality, Cardiovascular

Responses, Stress, Mood, and Physical Health. Journal of Religion and Health, 16.

Lazaridou, A., & Pentaris, P. (2016). Mindfulness and spirituality: Therapeutic perspectives.

Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 15(3), 235–244.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2016.1180634

Li, M. J., DiStefano, A. S., Thing, J. P., Black, D. S., Simpson, K., Unger, J. B., … Bluthenthal,

R. N. (2019). Seeking refuge in the present moment: A qualitatively refined model of

dispositional mindfulness, minority stress, and psychosocial health among Latino/a sexual

minorities and their families. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity.

https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000338

Lindsay, E. K., Young, S., Smyth, J. M., Brown, K. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Acceptance

lowers stress reactivity: Dismantling mindfulness training in a randomized controlled trial.

Psychoneuroendocrinology, 87, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.09.015

Lovallo, W. R. (2015). Can exaggerated stress reactivity and prolonged recovery predict negative

health outcomes? The case of cardiovascular disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 77(3), 212–

214. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000173

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 76

Low, C. A., Salomon, K., & Matthews, K. A. (2009). Chronic life stress, cardiovascular

reactivity, and subclinical cardiovascular disease in adolescents. Psychosomatic Medicine,

71(9), 927–931. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181ba18ed

Lucchese, F. A., & Koenig, H. G. (2013). Religion, spirituality and cardiovascular disease:

Research, clinical implications, and opportunities in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of

Cardiovascular Surgery, 28(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.5935/1678-9741.20130015

Mankus, A. M., Aldao, A., Kerns, C., Mayville, E. W., & Mennin, D. S. (2013). Mindfulness and

heart rate variability in individuals with high and low generalized anxiety symptoms.

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(7), 386–391.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2013.03.005

Masters, K., & Knestel, A. (2011). Religious motivation and cardiovascular reactivity among

middle aged adults: Is being pro-religious really that good for you? Journal of Behavioral

Medicine, 34(6), 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-011-9352-6

McClure, A. I. (2017). “Becoming a Parent Changes Everything”: How Nonbeliever and Pagan

Parents Manage Stigma in the U.S. Bible Belt. Qualitative Sociology, 40(3), 331–352.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-017-9359-6

Meints, S. M., & Hirsh, A. T. (2015). In vivo praying and catastrophizing mediate the race

differences in experimental pain sensitivity. The Journal of Pain, 16(5), 491–497.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2015.02.005

Mereish, E. H., Katz-Wise, S. L., & Woulfe, J. (2017). Bisexual-Specific Minority Stressors,

Psychological Distress, and Suicidality in Bisexual Individuals: The Mediating Role of

Loneliness. Prevention Science, 18(6), 716–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0804-2

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 77

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual

populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–

697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

Morrison, T. G., Kiss, M. J., Bishop, C., & Morrison, M. A. (2018). “we’re disgusted with

queers, not fearful of them”: The interrelationships among disgust, gay men’s sexual

behavior, and homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1490576

Neves, V. R., Takahashi, A. C. M., do Santos-Hiss, M. D. B., Kiviniemi, A. M., Tulppo, M. P., de

Moura, S. C. G., … Catai, A. M. (2012). Linear and nonlinear analysis of heart rate

variability in coronary disease. Clinical Autonomic Research: Official Journal Of The

Clinical Autonomic Research Society, 22(4), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10286-012-

0160-z

Nijjar, P. S., Puppala, V. K., Dickinson, O., & Duval, S. (2014). Modulation of the autonomic

nervous system assessed through heart rate variability by a mindfulness based stress

reduction program. International Journal of Cardiology.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.08.116

Nitzan-Assayag, Y., Aderka, I. M., & Bernstein, A. (2015). Dispositional mindfulness in trauma

recovery: Prospective relations and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,

36, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.07.008

Nitzan-Assayag, Y., Yuval, K., Tanay, G., Aderka, I. M., Vujanovic, A. A., Litz, B., & Bernstein,

A. (2017). Reduced Reactivity to and Suppression of Thoughts Mediate the Effects of

Mindfulness Training on Recovery Outcomes Following Exposure to Potentially Traumatic

Stress. Mindfulness, 8(4), 920–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0666-x

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 78

Obisesan, T., Livingston, I., Trulear, H. D., & Gillum, F. (2006). Frequency of attendance at

religious services, cardiovascular disease, metabolic risk factors and dietary intake in

Americans: An age-stratified exploratory analysis. International Journal of Psychiatry in

Medicine, 36(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.2190/9W22-00H1-362K-0279

O’Brien, B., Shrestha, S., Stanley, M. A., Pargament, K. I., Cummings, J., Kunik, M. E., …

Amspoker, A. B. (2018). Positive and negative religious coping as predictors of distress

among minority older adults. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4983

Panaite, V., Salomon, K., Jin, A., & Rottenberg, J. (2015). Cardiovascular recovery from

psychological and physiological challenge and risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and

all-cause mortality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 77(3), 215–226.

https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000171

Pargament, K., Feuille, M., & Burdzy, D. (2011). The Brief RCOPE: Current Psychometric

Status of a Short Measure of Religious Coping. Religions, 2(1), 51–76.

https://doi.org/10.3390/rel2010051

Pargament, K. I., & Raiya, H. A. (2007). A decade of research on the psychology of religion and

coping: Things we assumed and lessons we learned. Psyke & Logos, 28(2), 25.

Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic

review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016059

Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 114.

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 79

Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Religion and spirituality: Linkages to

physical health. American Psychologist, 58(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066X.58.1.36

Reyes del Paso, G. A., Langewitz, W., Mulder, L. J. M., van Roon, A., & Duschek, S. (2013). The

utility of low frequency heart rate variability as an index of sympathetic cardiac tone: A

review with emphasis on a reanalysis of previous studies. Psychophysiology, 50(5), 477–

487. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12027

Schafer, C. E., & Shaw, G. M. (2009). Trends—Tolerance in the United States. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 73(2), 404–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp022

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of

perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review.

Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 921–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035754

Schnall, E., Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Swencionis, C., Zemon, V., Tinker, L., O’Sullivan, M. J., …

Goodwin, M. (2010). The relationship between religion and cardiovascular outcomes and

all-cause mortality in the women’s health initiative observational study. Psychology &

Health, 25(2), 249–263. Retrieved from s3h.

Smith, J. M. (2011). Becoming an Atheist in America: Constructing Identity and Meaning from

the Rejection of Theism. Sociology of Religion, 72(2), 215–237.

https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srq082

Speed, D., & Fowler, K. (2016). What’s God Got to Do with It? How Religiosity Predicts

Atheists’ Health. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(1), 296–308.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-015-0083-9

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 80

Tartaro, J., Luecken, L. J., & Gunn, H. E. (2005). Exploring Heart and Soul: Effects of

Religiosity/Spirituality and Gender on Blood Pressure and Cortisol Stress Responses.

Journal of Health Psychology, 10(6), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105305057311

Toosi, N. R., & Ambady, N. (2011). Ratings of Essentialism for Eight Religious Identities.

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21(1), 17–29.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2011.532441

Wachholtz, A. B., & Pargament, K. I. (2008). Migraines and meditation: Does spirituality matter?

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31(4), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-008-9159-

2

Wagner, J. A., Tennen, H., Finan, P. H., Ghuman, N., & Burg, M. M. (2013). Self-reported racial

discrimination and endothelial reactivity to acute stress in women. Stress and Health:

Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 29(3), 214–221.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2449

Watford, T. S., & Stafford, J. (2015). The impact of mindfulness on emotion dysregulation and

psychophysiological reactivity under emotional provocation. Psychology of Consciousness:

Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000039

Weber, S. R., Pargament, K. I., Kunik, M. E., Lomax, J. W., & Stanley, M. A. (2012).

Psychological Distress Among Religious Nonbelievers: A Systematic Review. Journal of

Religion and Health, 51(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-011-9541-1

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J.

W., … O’Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory--10: Development,

refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.84

ATHEIST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 81

Yang, X., & Mak, W. W. S. (2017). The Differential Moderating Roles of Self-Compassion and

Mindfulness in Self-Stigma and Well-Being Among People Living with Mental Illness or

HIV. Mindfulness, 8(3), 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0635-4

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 82

APPENDIX A. TABLES FROM RELATIVE GROUP ANALYSES AND RESULTS Table 1 Summary of Religiosity and Laboratory Research Protocols and Results

Title Author Year Stressor Type Participants n Cardiovascular Measures Religious Self-report Measures Findings

Cardiovascular Studies Assessing Religion and Reactivity

The Effects of Belief in God and Farias and 2019 Trier Social 51 religious 100 HR and BP Questions related to belief in Neither belief in science nor religion was associated with Science on Acute Stress. Newheiser Stress Test and 49 non- science/religion cardiovascular reactivity. religious individuals

Testing Faith: An Investigation Campbell 2018 Sample IQ College 52 Cortisol, Heart Rate Single Item Measure No significant difference between Christian prayer, a study of the Relationship between Test Students guide, or meditation was detected. However, students who Prayer and Test Anxiety. valued prayer more experienced significantly lower stress markers while engaging in prayer than those who did not.

Religious Motivation and Masters and 2010 Mental math Community 131 Blood Pressure, Heart Rate Intrinsic/Extrinsic-Revised Pro-religious participants demonstrated improved heart- Cardiovascular Reactivity Knestel and members Scale of Religious Motivation rate and blood pressure following a stressor. However, among Middle Aged Adults: is Confrontation aged 40-70 researchers noted that pro-religious participants were Being Pro-Religious Really that Role Play years old significantly less engaged with stressor tasks and had Good for You? poorer mental health.

Spirituality and Autonomic Berntson et 2008 Baseline 50 – 68- 229 HF-H RV, P E P Religious service attendance, Participants who reported having a more positive Cardiac Control al. yearolds Spiritual well-being scale relationship with God demonstrated improved resting HF- HRV and PEP.

Spirituality Predicts Health and Edmondson 2005 Betrayal Female 52 Blood pressure and heart Spiritual Well-being Scale The religious well-being subscale was associated with Cardiovascular Responses to et al. Interview college rate in response to a reduced systolic blood pressure reactivity in response to Stress in Young Adult Women students stressful interview the structured interview.

Theobiology: An Analysis of Lawler and 2002 Betrayal University 80 Blood Pressure, Heart Spiritual Well-being Scale, Following a structured interview, higher religiosity was Spirituality, Cardiovascular Younger Interview Staff Rate, Mean Arterial Stanford Spiritual Experiences associated with higher diastolic blood pressure. Responses, Stress, Mood, and Pressure Scale, the Religious Physical Health Orientation Survey and the Spiritual Experiences Index

Cold Pressor Studies Assessing Religion and Pain Tolerance

Pain, Mindfulness, and Feuille and 2015 Cold Pressor College 74 -- -- After 3 weeks of practice, participants in the mindfulness + Spirituality: a Randomized Pargament Student spirituality grouping reported equivalent pain-related stress Controlled Trial Comparing Migraineurs relative to the mindfulness only grouping. Effects of Mindfulness and Relaxation on Pain-Related outcomes in migraineurs

In-Vivo Praying and Meints and 2015 Cold Pressor College 190 -- -- Praying behaviors were inversely related to pain tolerance Catastrophizing Mediate the Hirsh Students and were significant mediators of the relationship between Race Differences in race and pain tolerance. Experimental Pain Sensitivity

Migraines and Meditation: does Wachholtz 2008 Cold Pressor Migraineurs 83 -- -- Migraineurs who practiced Mantra spiritual meditation Spirituality Matter? and reported a greater reduction in the number of headaches Pargament they experienced and displayed more pain tolerance.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 83

Table 2

Summary of Research Assessing Discrimination and Atheist Identity Title Author Yea r Minority Stress Participants n Religious Self-report Measures Findings Type Studies Assessing Atheist Mental Health and Minority Stress Atheism as a Concealable Abbot and 2018 Anticipated Community 1024 Psychological Well-Being Scale, Anticipated Stigma was associated with poorer self-reported Stigmatized Identity: Outness, Mollen Stigma Atheists Pennebaker Inventory of Limbic psychological and physical well-being. Higher rates of atheist Anticipated Stigma, and Well-Being Languidness identity disclosure were associated with higher psychological and physical well-being. Perceptions of Discrimination Doan and 2015 Reported Members of 960 Single Item Religious Measure Atheists who reported more discrimination reported having Among Atheists: Consequences for Elliot Discrimination Atheist poorer mental and physical health as measured by The Atheist Identification, Psychological Alliance Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, The Satisfaction with Life Scale, and Physical Well-Being International The Negative Affect Scale, and a single item assessing physical health. On the Receiving End: Cragun et 2012 Reported Nones, 1106 Single Item Religious Measure 43% of atheists and 22% of Nones reported experiencing Discrimination toward the Non- al. Discrimination agnostics, discrimination from family, the workplace, school, military, Religious in the United States atheists socially, or from a volunteer organization.

Studies Assessing Discriminatory Beliefs about Atheists Will Jurors Believe Nonbelievers? Brown- 2019 Implicit Biases Community 418 Mock juror paradigm for a rape When compared to a control and a Christian, an atheist rape Perceptions of Atheist Rape Victims Iannuzzi et Members trial victim was viewed as being more responsible for her own rape, in the Courtroom al. to have less credibility, and her testimony was less likely to result in a conviction. Global Evidence of Extreme Gervais et 2017 Intuitive Global 3256 Conjunction task All groupings across all countries made significantly more Intuitive Moral Prejudice Against al. Conjunction Community conjunction errors with atheists than believers, indicating that Atheists Biases Members participants intuitively assume that the perpetrators of immoral acts e.g. murder are more likely to be atheists. Everything Is Permitted? People Gervais 2014 Intuitive Mechanical 237 Conjunction task Results indicated that participants made significantly more Intuitively Judge Immorality as Conjunction Turk Sample conjunction errors for all negative behaviors e.g. murder, incest, Representative of Atheists Biases rape, and necro-bestiality for atheists than all other ethnic/racial/gender minorities.

Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Gervais 2011 Overt Biases American 351 Feeling Thermometer Atheists were rated as less liked in general than average people is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice Intuitive Sample from Conjunction task and gay men. Atheists were rated as less trustworthy, but less Conjunction Zoomerang disgusting than gay men on a single item scale. Following a Biases conjunction task, atheists were rated as less trustworthy than Christians, Muslims, and Rapists. The Polls, Trends in Tolerance in the Schafer and 2009 Overt Biases Gallop Poll 1223 Single Items on Beliefs towards Poll trends from 93, 96, 03 and 06 were compared. Results United States Shaw Responders groups indicated that while many groups have had an increase in positive perceptions, atheists have experienced little growth and are still generally perceived negatively. Atheists As "Other": Moral Edgall et al. 2006 Overt Biases Mosaic 2081 Single Items on Beliefs towards Participants rated atheists as not sharing their vision of American Boundaries and Cultural Project groups Society the most compared to other racial/ethnic groups and Membership in American Society Respondents were least likely to approve of their child marrying an atheist compared to other minority groups.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 84

Table 3

Demographic and Religious Characteristics of the Sample Demographic n Total Sample Percent Gender Male 23 37.7 Female 38 62.3 Race/Ethnicity White 45 73.8 African American 5 8.2 Bi-racial 5 8.2 Asian 2 3.3 Hispanic 1 1.6 Middle Eastern 1 1.6 Indian 1 1.6 Other 1 1.6 Years of College First Year 15 24.6 One or two 24 39.3 Three or four 6 9.8 College Graduate 5 8.2 Post-Graduate 11 18.0 Household Income Low 22 36.0 Medium 30 50.8 High 6 9.8 Highest 3 3.3 Measure Mean SD NRNSS 54.3 17.2 Age 23.3 9.5 BMI 25.70 6.57 Note. Low income = 0 – 40,000, Medium = 40,001 – 70,000, High = 70,001 – 100,000, Highest > 100,000. BMI = Body Mass Index

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 85

Table 4 Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Relative Religious Group Relative Religious Grouping Low Medium High Demographic n (25) percent n (17) percent n (19) percent Gender Male 8 13.1 5 8.2 10 16.1 Female 17 27.9 12 19.7 9 14.8 Race White 20 32.8 13 21.3 8 13.1 Black -- -- 2 3.3 2 3.3 Bi-racial 3 4.9 1 1.6 1 1.6 Asian 1 1.6 -- -- 1 1.6 Hispanic ------1 1.6 Middle Eastern 1 1.6 ------Indian -- -- 1 1.6 -- -- Other ------Years of College First year 6 9.8 5 8.2 5 8.2 One or two 17 27.9 5 8.2 2 3.3 Three or four 3 4.9 1 1.6 3 4.9 College 3 4.9 6 9.8 1 1.6 graduate Post-Graduate 9 14.9 -- -- 2 3.3 Household Income Low 14 23.0 3 5.0 5 8.2 Medium 17 27.9 7 11.5 6 9.8 High 4 6.6 -- -- 2 3.3 Highest 3 5.0 -- -- 3 5.0 Measure Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD NRNSS 69.3 7.7 54.3 10.7 34.4 8.8 Age 21.9 5.5 25.8 13.5 22.95 9.26 BMI 26.2 6.0 24.6 7.1 26.2 7.0 Note. NRNSS refers to the Non-Religious Non-Spiritual Scale higher NRNSS scores indicate lower religiosity. Low income = $0 – $40,000, Medium = $40,001 – $70,000, High = $70,001 – $100,000, Highest > $100,000. BMI = Body Mass Index.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 86

Table 5 Correlations Between Self-Report Measures for All Participants Measure PSS NRNSS COPE RCI RCOPEp RCOPEn PSS -- NRNSS .155 -- COPE .230 -.271* -- RCI -.175 -.702** .216 -- RCOPEp -.108 -.823** .270* .651** -- RCOPEn .226 -.336** .138 .136 .319* -- *Correlations significant at the .05 level **Correlations significant at the .01 level Note. PSS refers to the Perceived Stress Scale, NRNSS refers to the Non-religious Non- spirtual Subscale, COPE refers to the Brief Cope, RCI refers to the Religious Commitment Inventory, RCOPEp refers to the Short Measure of Religious Coping Positive Subscale, RCOPEn refers to the Short Measure of Religious Coping Negative Subscale,

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 87

Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Report Measures by Religious Grouping All Participants Mean SD PSS 28.10 6.27 NRNSS 29.89 9.79 RCOPEp 12.17 6.48 RCOPEn 9.20 3.22 RCI 21.02 10.24 COPE 2.34 .348 FFMQ 125.59 16.00 AFQ 39.49 10.72 MADE 43.09 13.74 Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD SD Mean PSS 28.16 5.87 30.59 5.87 25.79 6.12 NRNSS 38.80 1.38 30.70 6.35 17.42 5.15 RCOPEp 7.40 .866 11.47 4.58 19.00 6.06 RCOPEn 7.84 1.31 10.13 3.78 10.26 3.93 RCI 15.00 5.58 18.94 9.57 18.94 8.44 COPE 2.18 .307 2.50 .369 2.39 0.31 FFMQ 125.40 16.16 122.71 15.10 128.42 16.90 AFQ 40.20 10.50 42.24 10.15 42.24 11.15 MADE 40.67 13.13 54.00 12.25 ------Note. For all measures excluding the NRNSS, higher scores indicate more of the measured construct. PSS Perceived Stress Scale: higher Scores indicate higher stress, NRNSS refers to the Non-Religious Non-Spiritual Scale: higher scores indicate lower religiosity, RCOPEp refers to the Religious Coping Positive Subscale, RCOPEn refers to the Religious Coping Negative Subscale, RCI refers to the Religious Commitment Inventory, COPE refers to the Brief Measure of Coping, FFMQ refers to the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire, AFQ refers to the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire, MADE refers to the Measure of Atheist Discrimination.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 88

Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations for the COPE All Participants Mean SD COPE Total Mean 2.34 .035 COPE Distraction 5.51 1.60 COPE Active 5.52 1.60 COPE Denial 2.79 1.36 COPE AOD 2.90 1.60 COPE Emotional Support 5.31 1.78 COPE Institutional Support 5.28 1.69 COPE Disengagement 3.26 1.54 COPE Venting 4.18 1.41 COPE Reframing 5.25 1.47 COPE Planning 5.72 1.71 COPE Humor 4.87 1.88 COPE Acceptance 6.08 1.28 COPE Religion 3.77 1.99 COPE Blame 4.92 1.94 COPE AOD refers to Brief COPE Alcohol and Other Drug Scale

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 89

Table 8

Means and Standard Deviations for the COPE by Religious Grouping Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD COPE Total 2.18 0.31 2.50 0.37 2.39 0.31 COPE Distraction 5.00 1.47 5.76 1.71 5.95 1.54 COPE Active 5.16 1.62 5.94 1.43 5.63 1.67 COPE Denial 2.68 1.22 3.00 1.58 2.74 1.37 COPE AOD 2.88 1.51 3.47 2.07 2.42 1.07 COPE Emotional 4.96 1.93 5.29 1.49 5.79 1.78 COPE Institutional 4.80 1.73 5.35 1.46 5.84 1.74 COPE 3.32 1.38 3.65 1.54 2.84 1.71 Disengagement COPE Venting 4.36 1.41 4.29 1.57 3.84 1.26 COPE Reframing 4.92 1.66 5.53 1.33 5.42 1.30 COPE Planning 5.28 1.93 6.47 1.70 5.63 1.21 COPE Humor 4.68 1.55 5.71 2.31 4.37 1.71 COPE Acceptance 6.12 1.20 5.82 1.42 6.26 1.28 COPE Religion 2.36 0.91 3.71 1.90 5.68 1.53 COPE Blame 4.52 1.92 6.12 1.87 4.37 1.64 COPE AOD refers to Brief COPE Alcohol and Other Drug Scale

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 90

Table 9

Demographic Variables and Relative Religious Grouping ANOVA Analyses Source SS df F p BMI 26.19 2 .297 .744 Age 163.22 2 .907 .409 Note. BMI = Body Mass Index

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 91

Table 10 Demographic Variables and Religious Grouping Chi Square Analyses Source Value df p

Gender 2.64 2 .266 Race 7.96 10 .633 Household Income 3.69 6 .718 Note. Low income = $0 – $40,000, Medium = $40,001 – $70,000, High = $70,001 – $100,000, Highest > $100,000.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 92

Table 11

Measures of Stress and Coping Between Relative Religious Grouping using ANOVA Analyses Source SS df MS F p Between Subject Effects PSS 206.77 2.00 103.39 2.79 .070 RCOPEp 1462.57 2.00 731.29 42.14 .000 RCOPEn 80.78 2.00 40.39 4.36 .017 COPE Distraction 11.24 2.00 5.62 2.30 .110 COPE Active 6.49 2.00 3.25 1.28 .285 COPE Denial 1.11 2.00 0.55 0.29 .747 COPE AOD 9.90 2.00 4.95 2.00 .144 COPE Emotional Support 7.43 2.00 3.72 1.19 .312 COPE Institutional Support 11.85 2.00 5.93 2.14 .127 COPE Disengagement 5.95 2.00 2.98 1.27 .288 COPE Venting 3.20 2.00 1.60 0.80 .454 COPE Reframing 4.60 2.00 2.30 1.07 .349 COPE Planning 14.57 2.00 7.28 2.61 .082 Cope Humor 17.56 2.00 8.78 2.61 .082 COPE Acceptance 1.80 2.00 0.90 0.54 .587 COPE Religion 119.39 2.00 59.70 29.00 .000 COPE Blame 34.16 2.00 17.08 5.15 .009 RCI 2792.88 2.00 1396.44 23.18 .000 Note: PSS refers to the Perceived Stress Scale, RCOPEp refers to Short Measure of Religious Coping Positive Coping, RCOPEn refers to Short Measure of Religious Coping Negative Subscale, RCI refers to the Religious Commitment Inventory

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 93 Table 12 Tukey Post Hoc Analyses for Measures of Stress and Coping Between Relative Religious Grouping Group 1 Group 2 Mean Difference MSE p RCOPEp Atheist Non-religious -4.06* 1.36 .011 Atheist Religious -11.60* 1.27 .000 Non-religious Religious -7.53* 1.44 .000 RCOPEn Atheist Non-religious -2.29 0.99 .063 Atheist Religious -2.42* 0.93 .030 Non-religious Religious -0.13 1.05 .992 COPE Religion Atheist Non-religious -1.34* 0.45 .011 Atheist Religious -3.32* 0.44 .000 Non-religious Religious -1.97* 0.48 .000 COPE Blame Atheist Non-religious -1.59* 0.57 .019 Atheist Religious 0.15 0.55 .960 Non-religious Religious 1.74* 0.61 .015 RCI -1.59* 0.57 .019 Atheist Non-religious -3.94 2.44 .247 Atheist Religious -15.78* 2.36 .000 Non-religious Religious -11.84* 2.59 .000 * Significant at .05 Note: PSS refers to the Perceived Stress Scale, RCOPEp refers to Short Measure of Religious Coping Positive Subscale, RCOPEn refers to Short Measure of Religious Coping Negative Subscale, RCI refers to the Religious Commitment Inventory

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 94

Table 13

Skew and Kurtosis of Biomarkers Demographic Skewness Kurtosis HRV Baseline 1.44 1.72 Anticipation 2.69* 8.73* Speech 2.86* 9.65* Math 2.37* 6.04* Recovery 1.40 1.56 HR Baseline .641 .398 Anticipation 1.33 2.38 Speech 1.02 1.55 Math .640 .121 Recovery .866 .991 Systolic BP Baseline .476 -.441 Anticipation .798 -.260 Speech .591 -.306 Math .559 .038 Recovery .525 -.181 Diastolic BP Baseline .445 -.189 Anticipation .247 .358 Speech .375 -.171 Math .275 -.313 Recovery .547 1.06 * Critical value exceeded

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 95

Table 14

Biomarker Means and Standard Deviations from Repeated Measures ANOVA with High- Frequency Heart Rate Variability Reactivity All Participants Mean SD Baseline 2.92 .476 Anticipation 2.80 .467 Speech 2.58 .572 Math 2.65 .485 Recovery 2.85 .435 Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Relative Group Baseline 2.95 .442 2.77 .430 3.00 .547 Anticipation 2.79 .397 2.71 .334 2.89 .635 Speech 2.62 .494 2.57 .368 2.54 .801 Math 2.65 .431 2.53 .375 2.76 .621 Recovery 2.86 .400 2.70 .409 2.97 .478 Self-Report Group Baseline 2.88 .410 2.80 .684 2.96 .475 Anticipation 2.75 .393 2.76 .442 2.83 .522 Speech 2.55 .497 2.63 .483 2.59 .644 Math 2.67 .412 2.49 .536 2.67 .525 Recovery 2.79 .372 2.76 .573 2.91 .446 Note. High-frequency heart rate variability has been log transformed and is measured in power spectral density (watts per hertz).

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 96

Table 15

Newman Keuls Post Hoc ANOVA Analyses for High-Frequency Heart Rate Variability Reactivity Condition 1 Condition 2 Mean Difference MSE Outcome Baseline Speech .334 .072 9.73* Math .235 .072 7.73* Anticipation .120 .072 3.48* Recovery .007 .072 1.91

Recovery Speech .269 .072 7.82* Math .120 .072 5.82* Anticipation .054 .072 1.58

Anticipation Speech .215 .072 6.24* Math .069 .072 4.24*

Math Speech .069 .072 2.00 Note. High-frequency heart rate variability has been log transformed and is measured in watts per hertz * Outcomes that exceed the critical value

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 97

Table 16

Biomarker Means and Standard Deviations from Repeated Measures ANOVA Heart Rate Reactivity All Participants Mean SD Baseline 73.86 12.39 Anticipation 82.92 14.73 Speech 91.09 16.08 Math 84.58 14.58 Recovery 75.42 11.33 Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Relative Group Baseline 74.99 12.13 75.55 10.60 70.87 14.20 Anticipation 84.34 13.00 84.18 10.51 79.92 19.65 Speech 92.59 15.37 92.05 9.81 88.26 21.19 Math 86.04 13.44 86.92 11.63 80.56 17.96 Recovery 77.00 11.61 76.21 9.76 72.62 12.30

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 98

Table 17

Newman Keuls Post Hoc ANOVA Analyses for Heart Rate Reactivity Condition 1 Condition 2 Mean Difference MSE Outcome Baseline Speech 17.23 53.01 18.48* Math 10.72 53.01 11.50* Anticipation 9.05 53.01 9.71* Recovery 1.56 53.01 1.67

Recovery Speech 15.67 53.01 16.81* Math 9.16 53.01 9.83* Anticipation 7.49 53.01 8.03*

Anticipation Speech 8.18 53.01 8.77* Math 1.67 53.01 1.79

Math Speech 6.51 53.01 6.98* * Outcomes that exceed the critical value

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 99

Table 18

Biomarker Means and Standard Deviations from Repeated Measures ANOVA Systolic Blood Pressure Reactivity All Participants Mean SD Baseline 120.18 11.65 Anticipation 128.31 13.70 Speech 136.54 16.00 Math 132.24 13.54 Recovery 123.19 11.99 Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Relative Group Baseline 118.06 10.50 121.24 13.51 122.02 11.50 Anticipation 124.39 12.34 130.12 13.32 131.84 15.08 Speech 131.39 14.22 139.88 14.97 140.33 17.94 Math 127.31 13.25 136.53 13.21 134.89 12.79 Recovery 119.48 10.60 125.72 13.17 125.80 11.94

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 100

Table 19 Newman Keuls Post Hoc ANOVA Analyses for Systolic Blood Pressure Reactivity Condition 1 Condition 2 Mean Difference MSE Outcome Baseline Speech 16.36 51.25 17.85* Math 12.06 51.25 13.16* Anticipation 8.13 51.25 8.87* Recovery 3.01 51.25 3.28

Recovery Speech 13.35 51.25 14.56* Math 9.05 51.25 9.87* Anticipation 5.12 51.25 5.59*

Anticipation Speech 8.23 51.25 8.98* Math 3.93 51.25 4.28*

Math Speech 4.3 51.25 4.69* * Outcomes that exceed the critical value

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 101

Table20 Biomarker Means and Standard Deviations from Repeated Measures ANOVA Diastolic Blood Pressure Reactivity All Participants Mean SD Baseline 72.15 9.77 Anticipation 78.98 10.93 Speech 85.93 13.08 Math 83.96 11.91 Recovery 77.20 10.80 Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Relative Group Baseline 73.58 8.62 72.74 12.28 69.76 8.71 Anticipation 79.17 10.30 81.98 10.84 76.04 11.62 Speech 86.77 12.20 88.27 13.40 82.74 13.97 Math 83.53 11.12 87.65 12.60 81.21 12.07 Recovery 77.50 9.30 79.65 12.95 74.63 10.56

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 102

Table 21

Newman Keuls Post Hoc ANOVA Analyses for Diastolic Blood Pressure Reactivity Condition 1 Condition 2 Mean Difference MSE Outcome Baseline Speech 13.78 24.80 21.61* Math 11.80 24.80 18.51* Anticipation 6.82 24.80 10.70* Recovery 5.05 24.80 7.92 *

Recovery Speech 8.73 24.80 13.69* Math 6.75 24.80 10.59* Anticipation 1.77 24.80 2.78

Anticipation Speech 6.96 24.80 10.92* Math 4.98 24.80 7.81*

Math Speech 1.98 24.80 3.11 * Outcomes that exceed the critical value

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 103

Table 22

Residual Recovery, Reactivity, and Self-Report Measure One Tail Correlational Analysis Residual PSS NRNSS COPE RCI RCOPEp RCOPEn FFMQ AFQ MADE Recovery HRV .109 -.145 .004 .150 .170 .130 -.239* .033 .125 HR .058 .053 .018 .019 -.084 .014 .091 -.140 -.138 SBP .128 -.219* .188 .121 .169 .215 -.056 .092 -.175 DBP .172 -.051 .078 .009 .094 -.050 .022 -.014 -.060 Reactivity HRV -.082 -.055 -.095 .076 -.115 -.138 .051 -.107 .072 HR .089 .063 -.099 -.005 -.017 .103 -.087 .059 -.122 SBP -.081 -.190 .103 .186 .150 .027 .148 -.072 -.076 DBP .140 -.070 .068 .072 .139 .054 -.040 .017 -.074 Note. * Significant at .05, HRV refers to heart rate variability, HR refers to heart rate, SBP refers to systolic blood pressure, DBP refers to diastolic blood pressure.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 104

APPENDIX B. RECRUITMENT PROMPTS FOR NEW PARTICIPANTS

Subject: Do you identify as Religious? Research Participants Needed! Researchers at the BGSU psychology department are conducting a psychology experiment focused on religious identity and stress. BGSU students and staff are invited to participate. Participation would involve completing surveys related to your religious identity and engaging in a brief job-related interview and problem-solving tasks while your heart rate is recorded. Participation will take approximately one hour. Participants will receive $10 or 2.0 Sona credits (your choice) for your time. If you are interested, please respond to this email. Thank you! Rolf Ritchie M.A. Psychology Graduate Student

Subject: Do you identify as an Atheist? Research Participants Needed! Researchers at the BGSU psychology department are conducting a psychology experiment focused on religious identity and stress. BGSU students and staff are invited to participate. Participation would involve completing surveys related to your religious identity and engaging in a brief job-related interview and problem-solving tasks while your heart rate is recorded. Participation will take approximately one hour. Participants will receive $10 or 2.0 Sona credits (your choice) for your time. If you are interested, please respond to this email. Thank you! Rolf Ritchie M.A. Psychology Graduate Student

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 105

APPENDIX C. DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE

How old are you? ______What is your height in feet and inches? ______What is your gender? (1) Male (0) Female (3) Other _____

What is your race? African American (1) Caucasian (2) American Indian or Alaska Native (3) Asian (4) Hispanic or Latino (5) Bi-Racial (6) Other (7)

What is your marital status? Single (1) Married (2) Divorced (3) Cohabiting with a partner (4) Separated (5) Widowed (6)

What is the highest grade or year you finished and received credit for in school or college? One or two years of college (1) Three to four years of college (2) College graduate (3) Highschool (4) Post-Graduate Education (5)

What is your current yearly income? Less than $10,000 (11) $10,000 - $19,999 (12) $20,000 - $29,999 (13) $30,000 - $39,999 (14) $40,000 - $49,999 (15) $50,000 - $59,999 (16) $60,000 - $69,999 (17) $70,000 - $79,999 (18) $80,000 - $89,999 (19) $90,000 - $99,999 (20) $100,000 - $149,999 (21) More than $150,000 (22)

What are your parents estimated yearly income? 10,000 - 20,000 (1) 20,000 - 40,000 (2) 40,000 - 60,000 (3) 60,000 - 80,000 (4) 80,000 - 100,000 (5) 100,000 + (6)

What religion would you consider your parents primary religious identity? Christian (1) Judaism (2) Islam (3) Buddhism (4) Hinduism (5) Atheist (6) Agnostic (7) Non- religious (8) Other (9)

What religious identity do you most identify with? Christian (1) Judaism (2) Islam (3) Buddhism (4) Hinduism (5) Atheist (6) Agnostic (7) Other (8)

What sect of Christianity do you most identify with? Catholicism (1) Protestant (2) Baptist (3) Non-denominational (4) Methodist (5) Lutheran (6) Presbyterian (7)

How much conflict do you have with your parents due to your religious identity? (0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100)

Do you smoke cigarettes? Yes (1) No (2)

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 106

How many cigarettes do you smoke per day (there are usually 20 cigarettes in a pack) (______)

Have you had any caffeinated beverages today? Yes (1) No (2)

Do you have any of the following: heart condition, diabetes, severe mental health diagnosis, high blood pressure? Yes (1) No (2)

Did you attend church in the last 7 days or not? Yes (1) No (2)

Did you attend church in the last month? Yes (1) No (2)

Did you attend church in the last year? Yes (1) No (2)

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 107

APPENDIX D. THE PERCEIVED STRESS SCALE

The questions in this scale ask you about your feelings and thoughts DURING THE LAST MONTH. In each case, you will be asked to indicate by marking how often you felt or thought a certain way.

In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and "stressed"? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you felt that things were going your way? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you been able to control irritations in your life? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that were outside of your control? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Very Often (5)

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 108

APPENDIX E. FIVE FACTOR MINDFULNESS QUESTIONNAIRE

Please rate each of the following statements using the scale provided. Write the number in the blank that best describes your own opinion of what is generally true for you.

1 2 3 4 5 never or very rarely sometimes often very often or Rarely true true true true always true

_____ 1. When I’m walking, I deliberately notice the sensations of my body moving. _____ 2. I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings. _____ 3. I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions. _____ 4. I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them. _____ 5. When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted. _____ 6. When I take a shower or bath, I stay alert to the sensations of water on my body. _____ 7. I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations into words. _____ 8. I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because I’m daydreaming, worrying, or otherwise distracted. _____ 9. I watch my feelings without getting lost in them. _____ 10. I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling. _____ 11. I notice how foods and drinks affect my thoughts, bodily sensations, and emotions. _____ 12. It’s hard for me to find the words to describe what I’m thinking. _____ 13. I am easily distracted. _____ 14. I believe some of my thoughts are abnormal or bad and I shouldn’t think that way. _____ 15. I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face. _____ 16. I have trouble thinking of the right words to express how I feel about things _____ 17. I make judgments about whether my thoughts are good or bad. _____ 18. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present. _____ 19. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I “step back” and am aware of the thought or image without getting taken over by it.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 109

_____ 20. I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds chirping, or cars passing. _____ 21. In difficult situations, I can pause without immediately reacting. _____ 22. When I have a sensation in my body, it’s difficult for me to describe it because I can’t find the right words. _____ 23. It seems I am “running on automatic” without much awareness of what I’m doing. _____24. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I feel calm soon after. _____ 25. I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I’m thinking. _____ 26. I notice the smells and aromas of things. _____ 27. Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into words. _____ 28. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them. _____ 29. When I have distressing thoughts or images I am able just to notice them without reacting. _____ 30. I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them. _____ 31. I notice visual elements in art or nature, such as colors, shapes, textures, or patterns of light and shadow. _____ 32. My natural tendency is to put my experiences into words. _____ 33. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I just notice them and let them go. _____ 34. I do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I’m doing. _____ 35. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I judge myself as good or bad, depending what the thought/image is about. _____ 36. I pay attention to how my emotions affect my thoughts and behavior. _____ 37. I can usually describe how I feel at the moment in considerable detail. _____ 38. I find myself doing things without paying attention. _____ 39. I disapprove of myself when I have irrational ideas.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 110

APPENDIX F. AVOIDANCE AND FUSION QUESTIONNAIRE

We want to know more about what you think, how you feel, and what you do. Read each sentence. Then, mark an item that tells how true each sentence is for you. Please rate each question from Not at All True about You, A little True, Pretty True, True, to Very True. 1. My life wont be good until I feel happy. 2. My thoughts and feelings mess up my life. 3. If I feel sad or afraid, then something must be wrong with me. 4. The bad things I think about myself must be true. 5. I dont try out new things if Im afraid of messing up. 6. I must get rid of my worries and fears so I can have a good life. 7. I do all I can to make sure I dont look dumb in front of other people. 8. I try hard to erase hurtful memories from my mind. 9. I cant stand to feel pain or hurt in my body. 10. If my heart beats fast, there must be something wrong with me. 11. I push away thoughts and feelings that I dont like. 12. I stop doing things that are important to me whenever I feel bad. 13. I do worse in school or work when I have thoughts that make me feel sad. 14. I say things to make me sound cool. 15. I wish I could wave a magic wand to make all my sadness go away. 16. I am afraid of my feelings. 17. I cant be a good friend when I feel upset.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 111

APPENDIX G. BRIEF MEASURE OF COPING

These items deal with ways youve been coping with the stress in your life. There are many ways to try to deal with problems. These items ask what youve been doing to cope with your current stress. Obviously, different people deal with things in different ways, but Im interested in how youve tried to deal with a recent serious stressor. Each item says something about a particular way of coping. I want to know to what extent youve been doing what the item says. How much or how frequently. Dont answer on the basis of whether it seems to be working or not—just whether or not youre doing it. Use these response choices. Try to rate each item separately in your mind from the others. Make your answers as true FOR YOU as you can. Please indicate whether you haven’t been doing this at all, been doing this a little bit, been doing this a medium amount, or been doing this a lot. 1. Ive been turning to work or other activities to take my mind off things. 2. Ive been concentrating my ef forts on doing something about the situation Im in. 3. Ive been saying to myself "this isnt real." 4. Ive been using alcohol or other drugs to make myself feel better. 5. Ive been getting emotional support from others. 6. Ive been giving up trying to deal wit h it. 7. Ive been taking action to try to make the situation better. 8. Ive been refusing to believe that it has happened. 9. Ive been saying things to let my unpleasant feelings escape. 10. I’ve been getting help and advice from other people. 11. Ive been using al cohol or other drugs to help me get through it. 12. Ive been trying to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive. 13. I’ve been criticizing myself. 14. Ive been trying to come up with a strategy about what to do. 15. Ive been getting comfort and und erstanding from someone. 16. Ive been giving up the attempt to cope. 17. Ive been looking for something good in what is happening. 18. Ive been making jokes about it. 19. Ive been doing something to think about it less, such as going to movies, watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping. 20. Ive been accepting the reality of the fact that it has happened. 21. Ive been expressing my negative feelings. 22. Ive been trying to find comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs. 23. I’ve been trying to get advice or help from other people about what to do. 24. Ive been learning to live with it. 25. Ive been thinking hard about what steps to take. 26. I’ve been blaming myself for things that happened. 27. Ive been praying or meditating. 28. Ive been making fu n of the situation.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 112

APPENDIX H. NON-RELIGIOUS NON-SPIRITUAL SCALE

Religious Subscale Many people have heard the word “religion” before and probably have some understanding of what that means. For this survey, we want you to think about religion in a specific way. When you think about religion for the following questions, we want you to think of institutionalized religion, or groups of people that share beliefs regarding the supernatural (i.e., gods, angels, demons, spirits) that are members of an organization. In this sense, the Roman Catholic Church would be a religion as it is a group of people with shared beliefs toward the supernatural and who are members of an organization. Members of a soccer club would not be considered a religion because they do not have shared beliefs toward the supernatural, while Hindus or Mormon would as they belong to an organization that emphasizes the memberships shared beliefs toward the supernatural. Please indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Agree, are Neutral, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree on the following questions.

1. Im guided by religion when making important decisions in my life. 2. Religion is the most powerful guide of what is right and wrong. 3. When faced with challenges in my life, I look to religion for support. 4. I never engage in religious practices. 5. Religion helps me answer many of the questions I have about the meaning of life. 6. I would describe myself as a religious person. 7. Religion is NOT necessary for my personal happiness. 8. I would be bothered if my child wanted to marry someone who is NOT religious.

Spiritual Subscale Some people use the terms “spirituality” and “spiritual” in a broad, NON-supernatural sense. They see those terms as just having to do with: a special or intense experience, an appreciation for existence, meaning in life, peacefulness, harmony, the quest for well-being, or emotional connection with people, humanity, nature, or the universe. In this way, an atheist could technically describe her or himself as being “spiritual” or as having had a “spiritual experience.” In contrast to that broad approach, when you answer the items in THIS questionnaire wed like you to think about “spirituality” and “spiritual” in the specific, SUPERNATURAL sense. And by “SUPERNATURAL” we mean: having to do with things which are beyond or transcend the material universe and nature. God, gods, ghosts, angels, demons, sacred realms, miracles, and

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 113 telepathy are all supernatural by this specific definition. Please indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Agree, are Neutral, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree on the following questions. 1. Spirituality is important to me. 2. The rightness or wrongness of my actions will affect what happens to me when my body is physically dead. 3. I have a spirit/essence beyond my physical body. 4. All other things being equal, a spiritual person is better off. 5. The supernatural exists. 6. I engage in spiritual activities. 7. I feel a sense of connection to something beyond what we can observe, measure, or test scientifically. 8. I cannot find worthwhile meaning in life without spirituality.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 114

APPENDIX I. MEASURE OF ATHEIST DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCES

Please rate how often the experience reflected in each of the following items has happened to you personally in the PAST YEAR. We are interested in your personal experiences as an atheist individual and realize that each experience may or may not have happened to you. To tell us about your experiences, please rate each item using the scale below

Select 1st bubble = If this has NEVER happened to you Select 2nd bubble = If this has happened to you ONCE IN A WHILE (less than 10% of the time) Select 3rd bubble = If this has happened to you SOMETIMES (10%-25% of the time) Select 4th bubble = If this has happened to you A LOT (26%-49% of the time) Select 5th bubble = If this has happened to you MOST OF THE TIME (50%-70% of the time) Select 6th bubble = If this has happened to you ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (more than 70% of the time)

1. Because I am atheist, I have been asked how I can still have a purpose in life. 2. I have been told that, as an atheist, I cannot be a moral person. 3. Others have treated me like I dont understand the difference between right and wrong. 4. People have told me that I am not a "good person" because of my atheism. 5. I have been warned that I must give up my atheism in order to avoid suffering in the afterlife. 6. I have been told that I will "grow out of" my atheism and that it is just a phase. 7. I have been told that I am selfish because I am atheist. 8. I have been told that I am immature because of my atheist beliefs. 9. People have told me that my atheism is a source of humiliation for them. 10. Because I am atheist, people have told me that I am disrespecting my loved ones. 11. People have treated me as if atheism is just a rebellious phase in my life, not a sincere set of beliefs. 12. People who know that I am an atheist have asked me to attend religious services, despite my objections. 13. Despite my atheism, I have been asked to pretend that I am religious. 14. People have asked me to join them in thanking God for a fortunate event. 15. I have been asked to go along with religious traditions to avoid "stirring up trouble." 16. I have been asked to pretend that I am not atheist. 17. Others have expressed that they expect me to hold/plan a religious life ceremony for myself. 18. My property has been vandalized because I am an atheist. 19. Others have physically harmed or assaulted me because of my atheism. 20. I have been denied opportunities at work and/or school because I am a known atheist. 21. People have denied me services because of my atheism.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 115

APPENDIX J. RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT INVENTORY

Read each of the following statements. Using the scale to the right, mark the response that best describes how true each statement is for you. If you are not religious, you should view "religious" in the following questions as referring to your own religious identity e.g. atheist. Indicate whether the following items are Not at All True of You, Somewhat True of You, Moderately True of You, Mostly True of Me, or Totally True of Me. 1. I often read books and magazines about my faith. 2. I make financial contributions to my religious organization. 3. I spend time trying to grow in understanding of my faith. 4. Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life. 5. My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life. 6. I enjoy spending time with others of my religious affiliation. 7. Religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life. 8. It is important to me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and reflection. 9. I enjoy working in the activities of my religious organization. 10. I keep well informed about my local religious group and have some influence in its decisions.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 116

APPENDIX K. BRIEF MEASURE OF RELIGIOUS COPING

The following items deal with ways you coped with the negative events in your life. There are many ways to try to deal with problems. These items ask what you did to cope with this negative event. Obviously different people deal with things in different ways, but we are interested in how you tried to deal with it. Each item says something about a particular way of coping. We want to know to what extent you did what the item says. How much or how frequently. Don’t answer on the basis of what worked or not – just whether or not you did it. Use these response choices. Try to rate each item separately in your mind from the others. Make your answers as true FOR YOU as you can. Indicate whether you did this Not at All, Somewhat, Quite a Bit, or A Great Deal. 1. Looked for a stronger connection with God. 2. Sought Gods love and care. 3. Sought help from God in letting go of my anger. 4. Tried to put my plans into action together with God. 5. Tried to see how God might be trying to strengthen me in this situation. 6. Asked forgiveness for my sins. 7. Focused on religion to stop worrying about my problems. 8. Wondered whether God had abandoned me. 9. Felt punished by God for my lack of devotion. 10. Wondered what I did for God to punish me. 11. Questioned Gods love for me. 12. Wondered whether my church had abandoned me. 13. Decided the devil made this happen. 14. Questioned the power of God.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 117

APPENDIX L. INFORMED CONSENT FORM

“Religious Identity and Cardiovascular Recovery” Informed Consent Form

I (Rolf Ritchie) am the researcher responsible for this project and I am a BGSU graduate student. I will be supervised by William H. O’Brien, Ph.D., who is a clinical psychologist and faculty member in the Psychology Department at Bowling Green State University. Other graduate and undergraduate students at BGSU will assist with the study as well. All assistants will be supervised by myself and Dr. O’Brien. This experimental research study is designed to increase knowledge of how different religious identities and personality factors affect the functioning of the heart and cardiovascular system. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study.

The primary benefit of this study is that it will advance understanding of how different religious identities affect heart rate and cardiovascular activity. You will be provided either 2.0 Sona credits or $10 as payment, your choice.

As a participant in this study, you will be asked to complete several questionnaires that measure religious identity, mindfulness, and demographic characteristics. Your height and weight will also be recorded. Next, two noninvasive surface electrodes will be attached to your skin just below your collar bones and one electrode will be placed on your left side to measure heart rate. You will then be asked to participate in a job seeking scenario where you will engage in a mock interview and then complete some simple subtraction problems. You may find some of these tasks challenging or stressful, but the tasks are designed to be no more stressful than what you might experience in a typical day as a student. Creating a task that is similar to a stressor you may experience in your day to day life is important when examining how religious identity may affect recovery from stress. The entire procedure will take about one hour. The experiment will take place in the Mindful Behavior Therapy and Psychophysiology lab at Bowling Green State University.

Your participation is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time. You may skip questions or not do a particular task or discontinue participation at any time without penalty. Participating or not participating will not affect your grades or class standing or your relationship with Bowling Green State University.

All information collected in this study is confidential. In order to protect your confidentiality, you will be assigned a unique identification number. Your responses to any of the study material will be associated with this identification number only. Any information linking your name to this identification number will only be accessible by the primary investigators of this study. All personal information will be destroyed after the completion of this study. During the study, all records will be strictly safeguarded and kept in a locked office accessible only to the investigators of this study. The laptop and the files with subject information will be protected by different secure passwords.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 118

Risk of participation in this study is no greater than that experienced in daily life. Should the results of the study be published in scientific journals, the confidentiality of your identity will be assured. If you have any questions or concerns about the study or your rights as a participant in this study, you may contact Rolf Ritchie M.A. at 567-277-2139 ([email protected]) or William H. O’Brien, Ph.D. at 419-372-2974 ([email protected]), you may also contact the Chair of the Institutional Review Board, Bowling Green State University, (419) 372-7716 ([email protected]), if you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a participant in this study.

Thank you for taking the time to read this document. You will be provided with a copy of this document for your own records.

Please indicate if you would like 2.0 SONA credits or $10

SONA ____ Cash ___ _

______Participant Signature Date

______Signature of Witness Date

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 119

APPENDIX M. PROTOCOLS FOR BIOPAC AND RECORDING EQUIPMENT

1. Supply power to the necessary components. a. Turn on MP150 BIOPAC system by depressing button on the back of the unit. b. Turn the Bmed Laptop on c. Turn on Hannah Laptop d. Turn on Desktop e. Turn on Blood Pressure Machine 2. Log into Bmed laptop by entering in username “REDACTED” and password “REDACTED “ 3. Log into Hannah Laptop by entering in username “REDACETED” and password “REDACTED” 4. Log into Desktop by entering in username “OBrienLab” and password “Bmed” 5. Setup the Acqknowledge program a. Select the Acqknowledge icon from the desktop b. Select recent files and click “Hannah Thesis Template” 6. ECG Prep Setup a. Take the alcohol gel and swab the areas where the ECG lead pads will be attached i. Swab under the left and right collar bones ii. Under the heart to the left of the belly button iii. Wait for it to dry (if unclear on location see chart on the following page) b. Insert the ECG leads into the ECG slot on the BIOnomadix wireless receiver c. Turn on the receiver using the switch on the receiver’s face there should be a blinking green light d. Place electrode pads on the cleaned spaces 7. ECG Attachment a. Attach the wire leads to the ECG pads ensuring the metal clip is face down and securely attached to the metal nipple on the pad i. Place the red wire on the cleaned under heart location ii. Place the black wire on the over heart location under the left collar bone iii. Place the white lead under the right collar bone 8. Blood Pressure Cuff Attachment a. Attach the cuff to participants arm b. Do a test reading to ensure correct attachment 9. Conduct the experimental protocol a. Baseline Start (10m): At start of 10-minute baseline press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F1 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker. Record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer.

b. Baseline End: At the end of 10 minutes press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F2 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker. Record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer.

c. Anticipation Start (5m): On desktop in the file named “Rolf Voice Files BP” click the icon labeled “Speech BP prompt” at the end of the voice file press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F3 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer.

d. Anticipation End: Press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F4 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker. Record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 120

e. Speech Start (5m): Wait until the participant speaks and press the F5 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker.

f. Speech End: Listen for the Confederates to say “Your Time is up, your blood pressure will now be taken” Press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F6 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker. Record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer.

g. Math Start (5m): On desktop in the file named “Rolf Voice Files BP” click the icon labeled “Math BP prompt” and play the file, at the end of the voice file press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F7 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker. Record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer

h. Math End: Listen for the Confederates to say, “Your time is up, your blood pressure will now be taken, I will review your data and a score profile will be generated reflecting your total achievement for the task, this will take approximately 10 minutes please remain seated.” Press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F8 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker. Record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer.

i. Recovery1 Start (5m): After the confederates leave the room press the F9 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker.

j. Recovery2 (5m): Press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F10 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker. Record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer.

k. Recovery2 End: Press the “Start Button” on the blood pressure machine and press the F11 button on the Bmed laptop to place a marker. Record the Blood Pressure reading in the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer.

l. Retrieve the maximum value the participant reached on the mental math stressor portion and enter the value into the “Rolf Blood Pressure File” stored on the Hannah Computer

10. Press the stop button on the Acqknowledge program 11. Unhook the leads from the subject a. Throw out ECG pads b. Remove blood pressure cuff 12. Output Data a. Click on file on the top tool bar of the Acqknowldege program and select “save as” Save the raw output in the desktop folder labeled “Rolf Dissertation” the name of the file is the participant number b. Close the Acqknowledge program 13. Shut down procedures the a. Turn off the MP150 BIOPAC machine by depressing the button on the back b. Switch off the wireless BIOnomadix receiver after removing the ECG leads c. Take the BIOnomadix receiver charger and plug it into the wireless unit d. Shut down laptops/Desktops

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 121

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 122

APPENDIX N. CONFEDERATE SCRIPTS

Speech Condition Prompt “This trained interviewer is here to assess how capable you are in situations in which you must project yourself as an expert. In this hypothetical situation, you are applying for your ideal job. This is the job, that if your life went perfectly, you would find yourself working at, it is your dream job. This is a well-paying job and the application process is competitive and you are competing with many other highly qualified candidates. So please take a moment to think of your perfect job. The final selection will be made based on your ability to convince this interviewer of how your experiences, abilities, and education make you a better candidate than the others. You will have 5 minutes to prepare a detailed speech. After the preparation time has elapsed, the interviewer will return, and you will deliver your speech. Your speech should explain why you are the best candidate to get the job. Remember, you must try to perform better than all of the other participants. This interviewer is specially trained to monitor and rate your speech for its believability and convincingness. Your performance will be compared to others who perform this speech. Also, you will be videotaped during the speech so that the interviewer can review your speech and rate the quality of your speech as well as your nonverbal behavior. The interviewer will now leave the room and you will have 5-minutes to prepare for the speech. Your blood pressure will be taken now, during, and at the end of the 5-minute preparation period. Please remain seated and move as little as possible.” Math Condition Prompt You will now be asked to engage in a mental math exercise. You will be asked to do serial subtraction. For example, to serially subtract 3 from 50 you would start at 50 then subtract 3 giving you 47, then subtract 3 again giving you 44, then 41 continuing for as long as you can. You must now serially subtract 13 from the number 1022. If you get a number wrong you will be asked to start over at 1022, you must do this task for 5 minutes. Your blood pressure will be taken now, during, and at the end of the 5 minutes. Please begin, now.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 123

APPENDIX O. DEBRIEFING FORM

The purpose of this study was to see how religious identity is related to stress recovery from a laboratory stressor. Cardiovascular data (heart rate and heart rate variability) were collected during three phases of the study by the electrodes placed on your body. First, a baseline was established by asking you to sit quietly and focus on your breathing for 10-minutes. After the baseline, you were informed of the performance tasks (the job interview and mental math) and your cardiovascular activity was recorded during this anticipation phase. The 10-minute resting period after the completion of the stressor task was used to see how long it took for you to recover from the stressor.

The cardiovascular data will be correlated with your religious identity and stress before and after the stressor.

This research is important because it will help us better understand how perseveration and mindfulness may be related to the health effects following exposure to stress.

The procedures you engaged in were designed to be difficult and to produce a stress response similar to what you may experience in your daily life. If you experienced any discomfort during the course of this experiment that is normal!

Thank you for participating and trying your best.

If any questions or concerns arise during the course of this study, you may contact Rolf Ritchie M.A. at 567-277-2169 ([email protected]) or William H. O’Brien, Ph.D. at 419-372-2974 ([email protected]), you may also contact the Chair, Institutional Review Board, Bowling Green State University, (419) 372-7716 ([email protected]), if any problems or concerns arise during the course of the study.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 124

APPENDIX P. SCALE AND SELF-REPORT ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Scale and Self-Report Religious Grouping Analyses

Identical procedures were followed for scale and self-report religious groupings analyses compared to the relative religious grouping analyses. Results from the scale and self-report groupings are reported below. All tables from the scale and self-report analyses are listed in

Appendix Q. Sociodemographic characteristics for the scale religious grouping and self-report religious grouping are presented in Table 1A and Table 1B. One-way between subjects ANOVA

and chi square analyses examining the impact of sociodemographic factors on the scale and self-

report religious grouping results indicated that sociodemographic factors were not associated

with religious grouping see Table 1C and Table 1D).

Between Group Comparisons on Stress and Coping

One-way between subjects ANOVAs were conducted to examine potential group

differences between the PSS, NRNSS, RCOPEp, RCOPEn, RCI, FFMQ, AFQ, COPE and

MADE. The descriptive statistics for analyses with the PSS, NRNSS, RCOPEp, RCOPEn, RCI,

FFMQ, AFQ, COPE and MADE are presented in Table 1E. The descriptive statistics for the

COPE are presented in Table 1F.

Scale Religious Grouping. Results indicated that there were significant between-group

differences on the PSS, RCOPE Positive Scale, RCI, COPE and MADE (Table 1G). Tukey post

hoc comparisons were used to examine the mean differences on religion and coping measures

within the scale religious grouping (Table 1H). Results indicated that atheists reported

experiencing more perceived stress than religious participants. Tukey post hoc comparisons were

used to examine the mean differences on the RCOPE and results indicated that atheists had lower

positive religious coping than non-religious and religious participants. It is important to note that

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 125 atheist and non-religious participants were instructed to complete this questionnaire thinking about their atheism or non-religious beliefs. Atheists reported lower religious coping than non- religious or religious participants. Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to examine the mean differences on the RCI and results indicated that atheist participants reported significantly lower religious commitment than religious participants and non-religious participants demonstrated lower religious commitment than religious participants. Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to examine the mean differences on the COPE and results indicated that non-religious participants use alcohol or other drugs for coping more often than religious participants. Non- religious participants also demonstrated significantly higher emotional support than religious participants. Religious participants reported significantly less disengagement than atheists and non-religious participants. Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to examine the mean differences on the MADE and results indicated that atheists reported experiencing more atheist- based discrimination than non-religious and religious participants.

Self-Report Religious Grouping. Results indicated that there were significant between- group differences between the groups on the RCOPE, COPE, RCI, and MADE (Table 1I).

Patterns of responses on the RCOPE, RCI, and MADE were nearly equivalent to the other groupings. Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to examine the mean differences on the COPE

(Table 1J). Results indicated that religious participants used religious coping more than non- religious and atheist participants. Religious participants reported having and using institutional supports more than atheists.

High-Frequency Heart Rate Variability Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses

High frequency heart rate variability (HF-HRV) was averaged across each condition of the experiment yielding five values: HF-HRV baseline, HF-HRV anticipation, HF-HRV speech,

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 126

HF-HRV math, and HF-HRV recovery. HF-HRV baseline consisted of 10 minutes of seated

resting before the experimental procedures. HF-HRV anticipation consisted of 5 minutes of the

anticipatory condition where participants were instructed to prepare a speech. HF-HRV speech

consisted of the 5 minutes the participants were engaging in the Trier speech task. HF-HRV math consisted of the 5 minutes participants completed mental math during the Trier. HF-HRV recovery consisted of the 10 minutes participants were instructed to rest quietly following the completion of the Trier. HF-HRV values from the five conditions were then examined for skewness and kurtosis. As shown in Table 13, there was substantial skew and kurtosis during the anticipation, speech, and math conditions. Due to skew and kurtosis concerns, log transformations of HF-HRV values were used in all following analyses (Feng, Wang, Lu, & Tu,

2013).

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for HF-HRV: Scale Religious Group. The mean levels of HF-HRV are presented in Table 1K. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of scale religious grouping on HF-HRV. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 48.57, p < .001. Therefore,

the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

used to determine significance (ε = .688). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on HF-H RV, F (5.51, 159.72) = 22.90, p ≤ .001, η2 = .283.

Results indicated that the main effect for scale religious grouping on HF-HRV was not significant F (2, 58) = 1.38, p = .261, η2 = .045. The interaction between scale religious grouping

and HF-HRV was also not significant F (5.51, 159.72) = 1.35, p = .241, η2 = .045.

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for HF-HRV: Self-Report Religious. The mean levels of HF-HRV are presented in Table 1K. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 127

conducted to evaluate the relation of relative religious grouping on HF-HRV. Mauchly’s test

indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 51.12, p < .001. Therefore,

the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values

used to determine significance (ε = .677). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant

and large main effect for condition on HF-H RV, F (2.71, 157.09) = 13.85, p ≤ .001, η2 = .193.

Results indicated that the main effect for self-report religious grouping on HF-HRV was not

significant F (2, 58) = .228, p = .797, η2 = .008. The interaction between scale religious grouping

and HF-HRV was also not significant F (5.42, 157.09) = .744, p = .602, η2 = .025.

Heart Rate Data Reduction and Preliminary Analyses

Heart rate (HR) was averaged across each condition of the experiment, this averaging procedure

for HR generated five values: HR baseline, HR anticipation, HR speech, HR math, and HR

recovery (Table 1L). HR values from the five conditions did not indicate the presence of

substantial skew or kurtosis (Table 13).

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for HR: Scale Religious Group. The mean

levels of HR for each group across conditions are presented in Table 1L. A 3 x 5 repeated

measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of scale religious grouping on HR.

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 101.97, p

< .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom

and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .578). After adjusting for sphericity,

there was a significant and large main effect for condition on HR, F (2.31, 134.11) = 73.88, p

≤ .001, η2 = .560. Results indicated that the main effect for scale religious grouping on HR was

significant F (2, 58) = 3.77, p = .029, η 2 = .115. The interaction between scale religious grouping

and HR was not significant F (4.63, 134.11) = .795, p = .546, η2 = .027.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 128

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for HR: Self-Report Religious Group. The mean levels of SBP for each group across conditions are presented in Table 1L A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of self-report grouping on HR.

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 103.15, p

< .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .578). After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on HR, F (2.31, 134.03) = 62.55, p

≤ .001, η2 = .519. Results indicated that the main effect for self-report religious grouping on HR was not significant F (2, 58) = 2.29, p = .110, η2 = .073. The interaction between self-report religious grouping and HR was also not significant F (4.62, 134.03) = .742, p = .583, η2 = .025.

Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to examine the mean differences between self- report religious groupings across condition. Results indicated that non-religious participants had higher heart rate than religious participants, no other groupings were significant (Table 1M).

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for Systolic Blood Pressure: Scale

Religious Group. The mean levels of SBP for each group across conditions are presented in

Table 1N. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of scale religious grouping on SBP. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 57.86, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .680).

After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on SBP,

F (2.72, 157.75) = 57.19, p ≤ .001, η2 = .496. Results indicated that the main effect for scale religious grouping on SBP was not significant F (2, 58) = 1.99, p = .146, η2 = .064. The

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 129 interaction between scale religious grouping and SBP was also not significant F (5.44, 157.75)

= .697, p = .638, η2 = .023.

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for Systolic Blood Pressure: Self-Report

Religious Group. The mean levels of SBP for each group across conditions are presented in

Table 1N. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of self- report religious grouping on SBP. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 53.93, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .696).

After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on SBP,

F (2.79, 161.59) = 46.94, p ≤ .001, η2 = .447. Results indicated that the main effect for self- report religious grouping on SBP was significant F (2, 58) = 3.51, p = .036, η2 = .108. The interaction between self-report religious grouping and SBP was not significant F (5.57, 161.59)

= .742, p = .607, η2 = .025.

Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to examine the mean differences between self- report religious groupings across condition. Results indicated that atheist participants had lower

SBP than religious participants, no other groupings were significant (Table 1O).

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for Diastolic Blood Pressure: Scale

Religious Group. The mean levels of DBP for each group across conditions are presented in

Table 1P. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of scale religious grouping on DBP. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2 (9) = 39.99, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .759).

After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on DBP,

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 130

F (3.04, 176.17) = 72.23, p ≤ .001, η2 = .555. Results indicated that the main effect for scale

religious grouping on DBP was not significant F (2, 58) = 2.32, p = .107, η2 = .074. The interaction between scale religious grouping and DBP was also not significant F (6.08, 176.17)

= .512, p = .801, η2 = .017.

Evaluation of Between Group Differences for Diastolic Blood Pressure: Self-Report

Religious Group. The mean levels of DBP for each group across conditions are presented in

Table 1P. A 3 x 5 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relation of self-

report religious grouping on DBP. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had

been violated, X2 (9) = 40.14, p < .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used

to modify degrees of freedom and the critical values used to determine significance (ε = .759).

After adjusting for sphericity, there was a significant and large main effect for condition on DBP,

F (3.04, 176.17) = 59.06, p ≤ .001, η2 = .505. Results indicated that the main effect for self-

report religious grouping on DBP was not significant F (2, 58) = .515, p = .600, η2 = .017. The interaction between self-report religious grouping and DBP also was not significant F (6.08,

176.17) = .435, p = .857, η2 = .015.

Residual Analyses

One-way between subjects ANOVAs were conducted to examine potential group

differences between the residual recovery and reactivity and scale and self-report religious

grouping (Table 1Q and 1R). Results indicated that residual recovery scores for SBP and the

scale religious grouping were approaching significance.

Exploratory Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to examine the mean differences for

SBP residual recovery and scale religious grouping. Results indicated that atheists demonstrated

lower SBP when compared to non-religious participants (Table 1S).

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 131

APPENDIX Q. TABLES FROM SCALE AND SELF-REPORT ANALYSES AND

RESULTS Table 1A Demographic Characteristics of the Scale Religious Group Scale Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Demographic n (38) percent n (10) percent n (13) percent Gender Male 12 19.7 3 4.9 8 13.1

Female 26 42.6 7 11.5 5 8.2 Race White 29 47.5 8 13.1 8 13.1 Black 2 3.3 1 1.6 2 3.3 Bi-racial 4 6.6 -- -- 1 1.6 Asian 1 1.6 -- -- 1 1.6 Hispanic ------1 1.6 Middle 1 1.6 ------Eastern Indian 1 1.6 ------Other -- -- 1 10 -- -- Years of College First year 6 9.8 4 6.6 5 8.2 One or two 17 27.9 5 8.2 2 3.3 Three or four 3 4.9 -- -- 3 4.9 College 3 1 1.6 1 graduate 4.9 1.6 Post-Graduate 9 14.8 -- -- 2 3.3 Household Income Low 14 23.0 3 5.0 5 8.2 Medium 17 27.9 7 11.5 6 9.8 High 4 6.6 -- -- 2 3.3 Highest 3 5.0 -- -- 3 5.0 Measure Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD NRNSS 65.1 10.6 43.8 4.2 30.6 7.5 Age 24 10.1 19.5 1.8 24.4 10.9 BMI 24.8 5.4 27.6 8.3 26.8 8.19 Note. NRNSS refers to the Non-Religious Non-Spiritual Scale higher NRNSS scores indicate lower religiosity. Low income = $0 – $40,000, Medium = $40,001 – $70,000, High = $70,001 – $100,000, Highest > $100,000. BMI = Body Mass Index.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 132

Table 1B Demographic Characteristics of Self-report Religious Group Self-report Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Demographic n (21) percent n (7) percent n (33) percent Gender Male 6 9.8 1 1.6 16 48.5

Female 15 24.6 6 26.2 17 51.5 Race White 16 26.2 7 11.5 22 36.1 Black ------5 8.2 Bi-racial 4 6.6 -- -- 1 1.6 Asian ------2 3.3 Hispanic ------1 1.6 Middle Eastern 1 1.6 ------Indian ------1 1.6 Other ------1 1.6 Years of College First year 3 4.9 1 1.6 11 18.0 One or two 8 13.1 6 9.8 10 16.4 Three or four 3 4.9 -- -- 3 4.9 College 2 -- -- 3 graduate 3.3 4.9 Post-Graduate 5 8.2 -- -- 6 9.8 Household Income Low 6 9.8 3 4.9 13 21.3 Medium 10 16.4 4 6.6 16 26.2 High 3 4.9 -- -- 3 4.9 Highest 2 3.3 -- 1 1.6 Measure Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD NRNSS 69.6 8.5 60.7 9.6 43.2 14.3 Age 23.5 7.9 18.9 .69 24.2 11.1 BMI 25.2 5.6 25.0 6.5 26.17 7.3 Note. NRNSS refers to the Non-Religious Non-Spiritual Scale higher NRNSS scores indicate lower religiosity. Low income = $0 – $40,000, Medium = $40,001 – $70,000, High = $70,001 – $100,000, Highest > $100,000. BMI = Body Mass Index.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 133

Table 1C

Demographic Variables and Religious Grouping ANOVA Analyses Source SS df F p Scale Religious Grouping BMI 78.79 2 .911 .408 Age 178.19 2 .993 .377 Self-Report Religious Grouping BMI 16.45 2 .186 .831 Age 164.77 2 .916 .406 Note. BMI = Body Mass Index

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 134

Table 1D Demographic Variables and Religious Grouping Chi Square Analyses Source Value df p

Scale Religious Grouping Gender 4.0 2 .135 Race 8.70 10 .561 Household Income 4.41 6 .621 Self-Report Religious Grouping Gender 4.01 2 .134 Race 12.78 10 .236 Household Income 3.24 6 .778 Note. Low income = $0 – $40,000, Medium = $40,001 – $70,000, High = $70,001 – $100,000, Highest > $100,000.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 135

Table 1E Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Report Measures by Religious Grouping Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Scale Group PSS 28.29 5.73 32.90 5.61 23.85 5.71 NRNSS 36.61 3.73 23.70 1.49 15.00 4.40 RCOPEp 8.54 3.27 16.00 6.06 19.85 5.55 RCOPEn 8.46 2.46 10.78 4.35 10.23 3.81 RCI 16.63 7.99 23.40 10.45 32.00 6.99 COPE 2.28 0.37 2.52 0.25 2.37 0.33 FFMQ 124.89 16.23 124.10 17.51 128.77 14.91 AFQ 40.29 10.50 40.60 10.89 36.31 11.47 MADE 43.09 13.74 ------Self-Report Group PSS 27.90 5.80 27.43 6.00 28.36 6.75 NRNSS 38.10 1.97 36.57 4.35 23.24 8.61 RCOPEp 7.57 1.99 9.17 4.83 15.75 6.55 RCOPEn 7.90 1.37 9.83 4.92 25.88 10.21 RCI 16.52 7.43 11.57 1.90 2.40 0.37 COPE 2.26 0.31 2.28 0.36 125.76 14.05 FFMQ 125.29 20.15 125.71 12.32 38.36 10.10 AFQ 40.43 11.29 42.00 12.78 33.00 38.36 MADE 45.32 13.38 30.50 6.36 26.00 ---

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 136

Table 1F

Means and Standard Deviations for COPE by Religious Grouping Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Scale Group COPE Total 2.28 0.37 2.52 0.25 2.37 0.33 COPE Distraction 5.29 1.51 6.00 1.83 5.77 1.69 COPE Active 5.47 1.59 5.00 2.11 6.08 1.04 COPE Denial 2.74 1.39 3.00 1.41 2.77 1.30 COPE AOD 2.92 1.42 3.80 2.57 2.15 0.55 COPE Emotional 5.03 1.82 6.60 1.43 5.15 1.52 COPE Institutional 5.00 1.69 6.10 1.60 5.46 1.66 COPE 3.37 1.40 4.20 2.15 2.23 0.60 Disengagement COPE Venting 4.42 1.46 3.50 0.97 4.00 1.41 COPE Reframing 5.16 1.60 5.10 1.20 5.62 1.26 COPE Planning 5.74 1.90 5.30 1.57 6.00 1.22 Cope Humor 4.84 1.85 5.00 2.36 4.85 1.72 COPE Acceptance 6.11 1.20 5.80 1.62 6.23 1.30 COPE Religion 2.76 1.51 5.10 1.37 5.69 1.65 COPE Blame 4.95 2.00 5.70 2.16 4.23 1.42 Self-Report Group COPE Total 2.18 0.31 2.28 0.36 2.40 0.37 COPE Distraction 5.00 1.47 5.14 1.46 5.70 1.69 COPE Active 5.16 1.62 5.57 2.15 5.58 1.60 COPE Denial 2.68 1.22 2.43 0.79 2.85 1.50 COPE AOD 2.88 1.51 3.00 1.00 2.73 1.72 COPE Emotional 4.96 1.93 5.00 1.91 5.39 1.84 COPE Institutional 4.80 1.73 5.43 1.81 5.70 1.63 COPE 3.32 1.38 3.43 1.40 3.15 1.68 Disengagement COPE Venting 4.36 1.41 4.00 1.29 3.94 1.37 COPE Reframing 4.92 1.66 5.71 1.11 5.24 1.46 COPE Planning 5.28 1.93 6.14 2.04 5.64 1.48 Cope Humor 4.68 1.55 4.86 2.12 4.94 1.92 COPE Acceptance 6.12 1.20 6.00 0.82 6.30 1.31 COPE Religion 2.36 0.91 2.00 0.00 5.00 1.80 COPE Blame 4.52 1.92 5.14 1.86 5.00 1.94 COPE AOD refers to Brief COPE Alcohol and Other Drug Scale

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 137

Table 1G

One-way ANOVAs Assessing Measures of Stress and Coping Between Scale Religious Grouping Source SS df MS F p Between Subject Effects PSS 467.00 2.00 233.50 7.17 .002 RCP Positive 1385.42 2.00 692.71 36.98 .000 RCP Negative 56.51 2.00 28.25 2.91 .063 COPE Distraction 5.12 2.00 2.56 1.00 .373 COPE Active 6.82 2.00 3.41 1.35 .267 COPE Denial 0.55 2.00 0.28 0.15 .864 COPE AOD 15.35 2.00 7.68 3.23 .047 COPE Emotional Support 20.02 2.00 10.01 3.43 .039 COPE Institutional Support 10.13 2.00 5.07 1.81 .172 COPE Disengagement 23.05 2.00 11.53 5.63 .006 COPE Venting 7.25 2.00 3.63 1.88 .161 COPE Reframing 2.28 2.00 1.14 0.52 .597 COPE Planning 2.79 2.00 1.40 0.47 .629 COPE Humor 0.21 2.00 0.10 0.03 .972 COPE Acceptance 1.10 2.00 0.55 0.33 .721 COPE Religion 104.25 2.00 52.12 22.47 .000 COPE Blame 12.29 2.00 6.14 1.66 .199 RCI 2355.74 2.00 1177.87 17.38 .000 FFMQ 171.97 2.00 85.98 .329 .721 AFQ 168.26 2.00 84.13 .726 .488 MADE 3.97 2 1.98 12.15 .000 Note: PSS refers to the Perceived Stress Scale, RCP refers to Short Measure of Religious Coping, RCI refers to the Religious Commitment Inventory

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 138 Table 1H Tukey Post Hoc for Measures of Stress and Coping Between Scale Religious Grouping Group 1 Group 2 Mean Difference MSE p PSS Atheist Non-religious -4.61 2.03 .068 Atheist Religious 4.44* 1.83 .048 Non-religious Religious 9.05* 2.40 .001 RCOPEp Atheist Non-religious -7.46* 1.61 .000 Atheist Religious -11.31* 1.40 .000 Non-religious Religious -3.85 1.88 .110 COPE AOD Atheist Non-religious -0.88 0.55 .253 Atheist Religious 0.77 0.50 .277 Non-religious Religious 1.65* 0.65 .037 COPE Emo Support Atheist Non-religious -1.57* 0.61 .032 Atheist Religious -0.13 0.55 .971 Non-religious Religious 1.45 0.72 .118 COPE Disengagement Atheist Non-religious -0.83 0.51 .239 Atheist Religious 1.14* 0.46 .042 Non-religious Religious 1.97* 0.60 .005 COPE Religion Atheist Non-religious -2.34* 0.54 .000 Atheist Religious -2.93* 0.49 .000 Non-religious Religious -0.59 0.64 .627 RCI Atheist Non-religious -6.77 2.93 .062 Atheist Religious -15.37* 2.65 .000 Non-religious Religious -8.60* 3.46 .042 FFMQ Atheist Non-religious .795 5.75 .990 Atheist Religious -3.87 5.20 .738 Non-religious Religious -4.67 6.80 .772 AFQ Atheist Non-religious -.311 3.83 .996 Atheist Religious 3.98 3.46 .487 Non-religious Religious 4.29 4.53 .613 MADE Atheist Non-religious .526* .144 .002 Atheist Religious .526* .130 .000 Non-religious Religious .000 .170 1.00 * Significant at .05 Note: PSS refers to the Perceived Stress Scale, RCOPEp refers to Short Measure of Religious Coping Positive Subscale, RCI refers to the Religious Commitment Inventory, FFMQ refers to the Fife Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire, the AFQ refers the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire, and the MADE refers to the measure of atheist discrimination experiences.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 139

Table 1I

One-way ANOVAs Assessing Measures of Stress and Coping Between Self-Report Religious Grouping Source SS df MS F p Between Subject Effects PSS 6.25 2.00 3.12 0.08 .926 RCP Positive 908.33 2.00 454.16 16.67 .000 RCP Negative 55.04 2.00 27.52 2.83 .067 COPE Distraction 2.75 2.00 1.38 0.53 .591 COPE Active 0.30 2.00 0.15 0.06 .946 COPE Denial 1.03 2.00 0.52 0.27 .761 COPE AOD 2.29 2.00 1.15 0.44 .646 COPE Emotional Support 0.92 2.00 0.46 0.14 .868 COPE Institutional Support 16.44 2.00 8.22 3.06 .055 COPE Disengagement 0.89 2.00 0.45 0.18 .832 COPE Venting 6.19 2.00 3.09 1.59 .213 COPE Reframing 2.01 2.00 1.01 0.46 .634 COPE Planning 1.48 2.00 0.74 0.25 .783 COPE Humor 0.41 2.00 0.20 0.06 .946 COPE Acceptance 3.81 2.00 1.91 1.17 .319 COPE Religion 109.64 2.00 54.82 24.62 .000 COPE Blame 1.45 2.00 0.72 0.19 .830 RCI 1828.52 2.00 914.26 11.89 .000 FFMQ 2.98 2.00 1.49 .006 .994 AFQ 104.47 2.00 52.23 .446 .642 MADE 10.78 2.00 5.39 117.189 .000 Note: PSS refers to the Perceived Stress Scale, RCP refers to Short Measure of Religious Coping, RCI refers to the Religious Commitment Inventory

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 140 Table 1J Tukey Post Hoc for Measures of Stress and Coping Between Self-Report Religious Grouping Group 1 Group 2 Mean Difference MSE p RCOPEp Atheist Non-religious -1.60 2.42 .787 Atheist Religious -8.17 1.47 .000 Non-religious Religious -6.58* 2.32 .017 COPE Institutional Support Atheist Non-religious -0.86 0.72 .459 Atheist Religious -1.12* 0.46 .044 Non-religious Religious -0.27 0.68 .918 COPE Religion Atheist Non-religious 0.43 0.65 .789 Atheist Religious -2.57* 0.42 .000 Non-religious Religious -3.00* 0.62 .000 RCI Atheist Non-religious 4.95 3.83 .404 Atheist Religious -9.35* 2.45 .001 Non-religious Religious -14.30* 3.65 .001 FFMQ Atheist Non-religious .795 5.75 .990 Atheist Religious -3.87 5.20 .738 Non-religious Religious -4.67 6.80 .772 AFQ Atheist Non-religious -.311 3.83 .996 Atheist Religious 3.98 3.46 .487 Non-religious Religious 4.29 4.53 .613 MADE Atheist Non-religious .526* .144 .002 Atheist Religious .526* .130 .000 Non-religious Religious .000 .170 1.00 * Significant at .05 Note: PSS refers to the Perceived Stress Scale, RCP refers to Short Measure of Religious Coping, RCI refers to the Religious Commitment Inventory

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 141

Table 1K Biomarker Means and Standard Deviations from Repeated Measures ANOVA with High-Frequency Heart Rate Variability Reactivity Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Scale Group Baseline 2.87 .455 2.90 .464 3.07 .547 Anticipation 2.75 .384 2.68 .570 3.02 .565 Speech 2.59 .460 2.40 .927 2.71 .542 Math 2.61 .421 2.52 .647 2.88 .487 Recovery 2.79 .422 2.88 .356 3.00 .513 Self-Report Group Baseline 2.88 .410 2.80 .684 2.96 .475 Anticipation 2.75 .393 2.76 .442 2.83 .522 Speech 2.55 .497 2.63 .483 2.59 .644 Math 2.67 .412 2.49 .536 2.67 .525 Recovery 2.79 .372 2.76 .573 2.91 .446 Note. High-frequency heart rate variability has been log transformed and is measured in power spectral density (watts per hertz).

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 142

Table 1L

Biomarker Means and Standard Deviations from Repeated Measures ANOVA Heart Rate Reactivity Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Scale Group Baseline 75.42 11.76 77.44 15.58 66.57 9.10 Anticipation 84.26 12.27 89.86 23.13 73.66 9.00 Speech 92.44 13.79 97.21 24.65 82.45 11.53 Math 86.01 12.26 90.41 20.85 75.90 12.53 Recovery 76.71 11.19 78.51 14.09 69.24 7.24 Self-Report Group Baseline 73.58 12.01 85.11 9.42 71.66 12.17 Anticipation 84.30 14.20 90.60 9.01 80.40 15.65 Speech 92.91 15.80 98.69 10.92 88.32 16.85 Math 84.46 12.75 94.56 11.44 82.54 15.70 Recovery 75.04 11.85 84.24 11.31 73.78 10.45

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 143

Table 1M

Tukey Post Hoc Between Group Differences for Heart Rate and Scale Religious Grouping Group 1 Group 2 Mean Difference MSE p

Atheist Non-religious -3.72 4.43 .679 Atheist Religious 9.40 4.00 .057 Non-religious Religious 13.13 5.24 .039*

* Significant at .05

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 144

Table 1N

Biomarker Means and Standard Deviations from Repeated Measures ANOVA Systolic Blood Pressure Reactivity Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Scale Group Baseline 118.69 11.59 124.28 8.62 121.37 13.64 Anticipation 125.64 12.36 132.77 11.54 132.67 17.54 Speech 134.04 15.33 140.60 12.81 140.72 19.49 Math 129.71 13.67 138.23 10.95 135.03 13.89 Recovery 120.55 10.99 130.22 10.04 125.49 14.18 Self-Report Group Baseline 116.81 10.85 118.91 11.37 122.59 11.95 Anticipation 123.11 11.10 126.81 10.76 131.93 14.88 Speech 130.19 12.02 134.48 9.62 141.02 18.01 Math 126.98 9.20 128.43 11.30 136.39 15.10 Recovery 118.56 9.73 120.31 10.26 126.74 12.71

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 145

Table 1O

Tukey Post Hoc Between Group Differences for Systolic Blood Pressure and Self-report Religious Grouping Group 1 Group 2 Mean Difference MSE p Atheist Non-religious -2.66 5.19 .866 Atheist Religious -8.60 3.32 .032* Non-religious Religious -5.95 4.94 .456 * Significant at .05

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 146

Table 1P

Biomarker Means and Standard Deviations from Repeated Measures ANOVA Diastolic Blood Pressure Reactivity Religious Grouping Atheist Non-religious Religious Source Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Scale Group Baseline 72.92 9.79 75.42 10.89 67.40 7.56 Anticipation 79.46 10.04 82.70 12.80 74.69 11.47 Speech 86.57 12.55 90.13 13.31 80.85 13.89 Math 84.07 11.33 90.17 12.97 78.85 11.26 Recovery 77.33 9.75 82.54 13.57 72.74 10.30 Self-Report Group Baseline 70.64 8.89 75.94 11.42 72.32 10.02 Anticipation 76.92 9.12 81.52 13.23 79.75 11.60 Speech 84.13 11.54 88.24 13.41 86.60 14.14 Math 81.89 9.72 84.48 12.07 85.16 13.24 Recovery 75.45 8.16 78.49 10.56 78.05 12.37

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 147 Table 1Q

Residual Recovery Scores Between Subjects Effect Analyses for Religious Grouping Source SS df MS F p Scale Religious Group HRV 1.680 2 .840 .850 .433 HR .153 2 .076 .075 .928 SBP 5.554 2 2.777 3.014 .057 DBP 2.555 2 1.278 1.313 .277 Self-Report Religious Group HRV .967 2 .484 .483 .619 HR 1.486 2 .743 .749 .477 SBP 3.909 2 1.954 2.058 .137 DBP 2.510 2 1.255 1.289 .283 Note. HRV refers to heart rate variability, HR refers to heart rate, SBP refers to systolic blood pressure, DBP refers to diastolic blood pressure.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 148 Table 1R

Residual Reactivity Scores Between Subjects Effect Analyses for Religious Grouping Source SS df MS F p Scale Religious Group HRV 3.285 2 1.642 1.710 .190 HR 1.275 2 .637 .640 .531 SBP 1.890 2 .945 .960 .389 DBP 2.239 2 1.120 1.144 .326 Self-Report Religious Group HRV .851 2 .425 .424 .656 HR .142 2 .071 .070 .933 SBP 3.627 2 1.814 1.900 .159 DBP 2.550 2 1.275 1.310 .278 Note. HRV refers to heart rate variability, HR refers to heart rate, SBP refers to systolic blood pressure, DBP refers to diastolic blood pressure.

ATHIEST, NON-RELIGIOUS, AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLES’ REACTIVITY 149

Table 1S

Tukey Post Hoc Between Group Differences for Systolic Blood Pressure and Residual Recovery Group 1 Group 2 Mean Difference MSE p Atheist Non-religious -.782 .341 .065 Atheist Religious -.427 .308 .356 Non-religious Religious .355 .655 .655