Age Differences in Religiousness and Psychological Well-Being

AGE DIFFERENCES IN RELIGIOUSNESS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

Katie Sakel

A Thesis

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

MASTER OF ARTS

August 2019

Committee:

Joshua B. Grubbs, Advisor

Dara Musher-Eizenman

Jari Willing ii ABSTRACT

Joshua B. Grubbs, Advisor

In general, religion and spirituality have significant positive correlations with mental health in several domains. Moreover, those who have a stronger faith often report better coping methods, which is, in turn, associated with greater health. However, the effects of religiousness on mental health throughout the lifespan are still poorly understood from developmental perspectives. Compared to earlier research on this topic, the present study has three major contributions. First, the present study uses a developmental perspective to study age differences in religiousness and well-being. Second, previous studies have rarely included the transition from adolescent to adulthood by targeting either adolescents or adults in their population samples. The present study closes this gap by including both adolescents and adults. Third, the present study examines the possibility of a significant indirect effect of age on well-being through religiousness. For the present work, participants from the Roman Catholic faith tradition (N =

187, 33.2% males, 65.8% females, 1.1% other, Mage=39.2, SD=21.8) were recruited from the

Midwest. After completing an informed consent, participants were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire, the Centrality of Religiousness scale, and Ryff’s Psychology Well-

Being Scale. To summarize, (1) religiousness positively related to age, (2) psychological well- being correlated positively with religiousness, (3) high psychological well-being was not directly positively correlated with age, and (4) age had an indirect effect on psychological well-being through religiousness. However, further testing needs to be completed in other faiths and in those who chose not to have a faith.

Keywords: religiousness, psychological well-being, age, developmental psychology iii

“To him who in the love of Nature holds Communion with her visible forms, she speaks a

various language.” –William C. Bryant iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for those who are patient with me during the journey of this thesis. I would like to thank my advisor, Joshua B. Grubbs, for catching anything I throw at him; the

SPARTA laboratory for accepting me as I am; my husband for his patience, my daughter for her silliness, and my friends and family for being there for me at all times of the day and night. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Religiousness and Spirituality...... 1

Development Theories in Religiousness ...... 3

Piaget’s Moral Development Theory ...... 3

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development ...... 4

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory ...... 5

Fowler’s Stages of Faith ...... 6

Religiousness and Psychological Well-Being over the Lifespan ...... 8

The Current Study ...... 11

METHOD ...... 13

Participants and Procedure ...... 13

Measures ...... 14

Socio-Demographic Characteristics...... 14

The Centrality of Religiousness Scale ...... 14

Ryff’s Scale of Psychological Well-Being ...... 14

RESULTS ...... 16

DISCUSSION ...... 18

Summary of Results ...... 18

Integration ...... 19

Limitations ...... 19

Conclusion ...... 23 vi

REFERENCES ...... 24

APPENDIX A. BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 33

APPENDIX B. CENTRALITY OF RELIGIOUSNESS SCALE ...... 40

APPENDIX C. RYFF’S PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING SCALE (PWB)...... 41

APPENDIX D. STUDY TABLES ...... 43

APPENDIX E. STUDY FIGURES ...... 47

APPENDIX F. IRB APPROVAL DOCUMENT ...... 49

INTRODUCTION

Religion is known to be associated with various positive life outcomes such as better coping (Pargament, Ano, & Wachholtz 2005), better social adjustment (Greenberg, et al., 1990), and overall well-being (Koenig, 2009). Similarly, psychological well-being is known to be associated with age. Mental health over the life span tends to have a “U” shape that starts relatively high in young adulthood, steadily declines throughout adulthood, bottoming out at approximately age 50, and steadily increasing thereafter (Stone, Schwartz, Broderick, & Deaton,

2010; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). As such, it would seem that well-being is associated both with greater religiousness and also with greater age (past 50). The main goal of this work is to examine if religiousness at least partially accounts for the relationship between age and well- being.

Religiousness and Spirituality

Although casual use treats the terms religiousness and spirituality as indistinguishable

(Hill & Pargament, 2008), it can be important theoretically to establish strict definitions to distinguish between the two terms (Zinnbauer, et al., 1997). In the past, defining religiousness has been an endeavor for both psychologists (James, 1902/1961; Freud, 1961) and sociologists

(Berger, 1967) alike. The concept of spirituality was relatively ignored in social-science research literature from the 1940’s to the 1990’s (Scott, 1997), even though both terms had been in use for quite some time (Smith, 1998). Conventionally, the terms have been used interchangeably

(Turner et al., 1995; Spilka & McIntosh, 1996). However, they have often been contrasted with each other in three ways: organized religion versus personal spirituality; substantive religion versus functional spirituality; and mundane/harmful religion versus lofty/helpful spirituality 2 (Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999). Such contrasts imply harsh differences between the two domains, though research has not supported such distinction.

Though spiritualty and religiousness are separate concepts, the two dimensions are not completely independent (Zinnbauer, et al., 1997). While more conservative religious groups see themselves as more religious and new age groups see themselves as spiritual (Zinnbauer, et al.,

1997), in most other cases, in common vernacular, spirituality and religion do not differ

(Pargament, 1999), and the deterministic view between the definitions means no difference for most individuals (Hill et al., 2000; Zinnbauer et al., 1997).

Spirituality has a short history of use apart from the term “religion” (Sheldrake, 1992). In general, spirituality has been defined as the search for the meaning of life, for transcendence, and for the loftier side of humanity (Pargament, 1999). It is not always linked to religion. Spilka

(1993) termed three categories of spirituality: God-oriented, world-oriented, and humanistic (or people) oriented. The term has also been defined as the transcendent journey for a universal truth

(Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999). In addition, spirituality may have implications in making personal choices like marriage and job vocations; making items (tangible and intangible) sacred

(Pargament,1999).

More recent definitions of religion have been constricted to the institution level

(Zinnbauer, et al., 1999). Hill and colleagues (2000) have described this level as all of the experiences (i.e. feelings, thoughts, behaviors) that are part of the human experience during the search for the sacred. These experiences can be capitulated into the corporate institutionalization of the traditions of religion (e.g. the temple or mosque) (Pargament, 1999). Other definitions have seen religion as being characterized by institutions, formalized beliefs, and the social groups that are concerned with such institutions and beliefs. Historically, religiousness has been 3 viewed as negative due to the institution’s harmfulness and the mundaneness of the traditions while spirituality has been seen in a more positive light (Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999).

However, a body of research suggests that both religion and spirituality are often quite beneficial to well-being (Zinnbauer et al., 1999). Moreover, despite definitional debates between the two domains, firmly distinguishing between the two in psychosocial research is exceptionally hard

(Hill & Pargament, 2003). Hereafter, in the present work, I will use the term “religiousness,” but

I also note that the majority of the literature reviewed hereafter does not neatly distinguish between religiousness and spirituality.

Developmental Theories in Religiousness

Alongside the development of the psychology of religion and spirituality, there has been a rich history in developmental psychology of religion. The majority of this history has come in the form of various “stage theories,” that quantify spirituality and religiousness development as having many phases that progressively shift as the individual matures (Mattis, Ahluwalia, Cowie,

& Kirkland-Harris, 2006). Although there have been many significant developmentalists (for a review, see: Sisemore, 2016), I will focus on the most well-known: Piaget, Kohlberg, Bowlby, and Fowler.

Piaget’s Moral Developmental Theory. Piaget began to study religiousness under the broader umbrella of Moral Development Theory (1948) and split the lifespan into three stages.

From years 4-7, children see rules that adults and children follow and their outcomes as unchangeable. Piaget called this first stage heteronomous morality. The second stage is a tumultuous one which Piaget entitled the transition stage. Around ages 7-10, children begin to shift their worldview out of unchangeable rules to a fluid rulebook. From age 10 and beyond, individuals have generally entered the final stage, called autonomous morality, wherein they are 4 knowledgeable that rules are fashioned by people and that rules can be broken and changed

(Piaget, 1948).

Despite Piaget’s foundational role in the field of developmental psychology at large and in the developmental psychology of religion, Piaget’s theory of moral development has not escaped criticism, the most notable being that he did not write directly about religious development (Hyde, 1990). Additionally, Piaget’s critiques include a biased sampling method, judgements inferred from two stories rather than the unstructured interviews, and a preoccupation with formal behaviors (Pittel & Mendelsohn, 1966). In reaction, numerous developmental researchers called for an updated stage-based theory that aims for an adolescent to adult lifespan approach beyond Piaget’s Moral Development Theory.

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development. Lawrence Kohlberg worked to advance understandings of simple Piagetian ideas of moral development. While Kohlberg built his

Theory of Moral Development (1969) and methodology on Piaget, he diverged from Piaget by building the majority of his psychological thought on Bald and Dewey (Nelson, 2009). Kohlberg did believe, like Piaget, that the stages of moral development were fixed (Nelson, 2009). The first stage of Kohlberg’s theory refers to infants that do not know the difference between doing the right thing and avoiding punishment (Obedience & Punishment). As the individual grows to the preschool stage, they advance to the second stage, and their choices depend more on rewards rather than punishment (Self-Interest). During primary school years, the third stage is entered. At this point, children are most often in the Conformity Stage, where their effort is to be friendly with others. However, children will progress to the fourth stage, Authority and Social Order, in their primary school years, when their moral reasoning is more focused on fixed rules. As the individual ages to be a teen, he or she enters the fifth stage, Social Contract, where the focus is 5 on reciprocity in relationships and understanding that what is morally right versus what is legally right may not be equivalent. The sixth and final stage is adulthood, which is often characterized by the Universal Principle that morality is beyond benefiting those who are involved due to the ability to seeing the frailty and fallibility of the human being (Kohlberg, 1969).

Although useful, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is not considered a comprehensive stage theory for religious development. As the theory is utilized today, there is great difficulty placing individuals into specific stages due to the intravariability in moral reasoning for a single individual (Carpendale, 2000; Grover, 1980). In addition, moral reasoning cannot define religious development alone. Although religion and morality are related (Walker &

Reimer, 2006), religion is more than justice and reasoning, and even adolescents distinguish between the two (Nucci & Turiel, 1993). Thereby, while Kohlberg’s stages advanced Piaget’s

Theory of Moral Development, additional theoretical research is essential for the current study in religiousness.

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory. In addition to Piaget and Kohlberg’s theories, attachment theorists have also contributed to present understandings of the developmental psychology of religion. For example, one particularly popular work in psychology of religion more broadly has been the notion of Attachment to God (Kirkpatrick, 1992). This theory is based off of the attachment theory of Bowlby. When an infant is going through Erikson’s psychosocial stage of trust vs mistrust (Erikson, 1954), the way that a caregiver reacts to the infant can precipitate development of different attachment styles. For example, according to this theory, if a mother is reactive, the infant develops a secure attachment, if a mother is inconsistent with care, the infant develops a resistant attachment, and if a mother is uninterested, the infant develops an avoidant attachment style (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). The attachment style of an individual tends not to 6 change from the “cradle to the grave” (Bowlby, 1982). Attachments vary in the dimensions of anxiety and avoidance; resulting in four types of attachment that have been noted in previous literature (Porter, Davis, & Keefe, 2007), as I explore below.

Individuals with secure attachments as children have some discomfort when their caregivers leave them, but can be comforted when they come back (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970).

These individuals also have realistic views of threats and greater optimism as adults (Porter et al., 2007). Anxiously attached children are often unconcerned when their caregiver leaves and reject their caregiver returns (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). These individuals often have developmental consequences as they age, displaying hypervigilance to threats, rumination, and deficient coping skills when compared to their securely attached peers (Porter et al., 2007).

Finally, avoidantly attached children are often unconcerned when their caregiver leaves and returns (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970).

Building on these ideas, Attachment to God theory suggests that the religiousness style of an individual is a result of childhood attachment style and religious variables (Kirkpatrick &

Shaver, 1990). Attachment to God forms in times of struggle and loneliness as a secure base

(Kirkpatrick, 1992). However, due to the variable timing of attachments to God in adulthood and the previous theories, attachment to God does not lend to a lifespan stage-based theory or to the current study.

Fowler’s Stages of Faith. Moving beyond more broad developmental theories (i.e., grand theories of psychological development that were applied to religion), some theorists have actually worked to describe religious and spiritual development in its own right. The most notable of these works is the Stages of Faith theory of James Fowler (1982). This theory outlines a developmental perspective of religiousness based on Erikson’s stages of psychosocial 7 development (Fowler, 1991). Fowler described seven stages of faith to illustrate and measure faith. Importantly, the purpose of these stages was to describe, and not to assign extrinsic value to level of faith and devotion (i.e., specific stages are not better or worse than other stages). That is, he contended that an individual’s personal experience through the stages was only normative in a specific context, thereby rendering it incomparable to other people’s experience of the stages. However, at least in premise, the stages could be applied to the faith of any individual from any culture, suggesting an overall developmental trend (Fowler, 1991).

While Fowler did not specify the ages of each stage, a developmental trend of the stages persist. An individual can be first described with primal faith while in utero and as an infant. The stages continue sequentially with intuitive-projective faith, mythic-literal faith, synthetic- conventional faith, individuative-reflective faith, conjunctive faith, and universalizing faith. In utero and during infancy, according to the stages of faith, an individual in the first stage, known as the primal stage, does not necessarily have faith, but is laying a foundation of either trust or mistrust. Continuing into early childhood, an individual in the second stage of faith, intuitive- projective, begins to associate language, perception, and emotion with morals and standards. The third stage emerges when the child enters the concrete-operational phase. This mythic-literal stage of faith of an individual would arise as conflict between an individual’s beliefs and the reality of the environment or faith. After this conflict resolves, usually around early adolescence, an individual begins thinking abstractly and enters the fourth stage of faith: synthetic- conventional. In this stage, an individual’s awareness that others have an opinion of the individual creates a desire for a relationship with God and shapes the individual’s view of the world. An individual usually enters in the individuative-reflective faith of the fifth stage in late adolescence or young adulthood. Fowler hypothesized two developmental processes for the 8 individuals in this stage. First, an individual may question, examine and reconstitute beliefs that he had previous to the stage. Second, an individual may claim higher levels of mental processes.

The sixth stage of faith, conjunctive faith, is usually found at midlife. An individual in this stage may embrace the opposites of conceived representations in their faith. Finally, the seventh stage of faith is usually found in late adulthood when an individual may become grounded in oneness with the universe. Fowler proposed that his stages are interchangeable between faiths (Fowler,

1991).

Religiousness and Psychological Well-Being over the Lifespan

Age-related changes in psychological well-being have been suggested by several theories, including the Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (Carstensen, 2006). The socioemotional selectivity theory suggests that, as an individual ages, motivation is shifted from expanding one’s horizon to deriving meaning from life, such as religion. In this theory, an aging individual will transition from youthful goals of gaining knowledge to goals that are emotion- based such as deepened quality of relationships (Carstensen, Fung, & Charles, 2003). For example, to cope with the loss due to physical aging and death, an individual may devote more time to social engagements with others who reciprocate support and share common values. These choices may have a reliable and high return of satisfaction for the aging individual, specifically in the area of positive relations with others, increasing their total psychological well-being

(Battersby & Phillips, 2016).

According to Folkman, et. al. (1987) different coping styles are used for different situations depending on age (situation example- younger: finances; older: home and health, etc.).

For example, adolescents who practice their faith daily and use religious coping methods have a higher positive affect and life satisfaction than their peers who do not include daily religious 9 practices (Van Dyke, Glenwick, Cecero, & Kim, 2009). Also, adolescents who use religious coping have less depression and an increase in positive affect (Terriri and Glenwick, 2013).

Whether this trend continues across an individual’s lifespan is still uncertain. However, Ayele, et. al. (1999) reported a correlation of higher life satisfaction and daily religious practice of elderly patients, which suggests that religious coping and religious involvement might characterize older age.

Terror Management Theory (Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Lyon,

1989) provides another explanation of age-based changes in psychological well-being. Within terror management theory, as a person ages, the fear of death becomes more salient and death anxiety is believed to be the main motivation for their behavior (Becker, 1973). But, if an individual is able to attain a sense of self-worth within a cultural context, they are able to find protection from death anxiety (Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Lyon, 1989).

For example, in a study completed by Cicirelli (2002), fear of death was related to weaker religiosity and less social support. To buffer oneself from death anxiety requires two components: belief in the cultural viewpoints of standards and values and belief that one is upholding those standards and values successfully (Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon,

Pyszczynski, & Lyon, 1989). Other studies have instigated death anxiety by using this theory with out-group members (Jew-Christian memberships: Greenberg, et al., 1990) and with unconscious thought (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1999) resulting with religious cultural context use buffering the death anxiety and providing stable mental health.

Building on all of the above theories, there is a body of research that now indicates that, in general, religion and faith have significant positive correlations with mental health (Hill &

Pargament, 2008). Religious coping has been tied to better self-rated health when living in poor 10 living conditions (Krause, 1998). Additionally, those who have a stronger faith have better coping methods (e.g. spiritual support and meditation) and thus better mental and physical health

(Pargament, 1997). Similarly, previous studies have found an age-related religiousness trend in faith practices. A 34-year longitudinal study reported that attendance at religious celebrations declined in adolescence, plateaued in middle age, and rapidly increased in older adulthood

(Hayward & Krause, 2013). Similarly, Hayward & Krause (2015) found a greater involvement in both personal practice and attendance in religious organizations as an individual ages.

Past literature includes studies on religion in specific age groups. For example, religious adults are more likely to find great meaning and peace than nonreligious adults. (Peres, Kamei,

Tobo, & Lucchetti, 2017). In Arab college students, young adults who self-report a higher level of religiousness also report higher levels of happiness adults (Abdel-Khalek & Lester, 2016).

Studies have also found that intrinsic religiosity (practices with internal motivations) specifically correlates with self-acceptance in adolescents (Singh & Bano, 2017) and with higher levels of psychological well-being in young adults (Power & McKinney, 2014). This correlates with young adults, who have higher levels of centrality of religiousness, also have higher levels of psychological well-being (Bravo, Pearsons, & Stevens, 2015).

Several psychological traits have been detailed above to positively correlate over the lifespan. First, psychological well-being positively corelates with age (Ryff & Keyes, 1985).

Second, religiousness correlates with age (Hayward & Krause, 2015). Finally, religious individuals are more likely to have positive mental health than their non-religious compatriots

(for a review, see Koenig, 2009). 11 The Current Study

After reflecting on the prior research about psychological well-being and religiosity, the aim of the present study is to examine the lifespan effect of religiousness on the relationship of age and psychological well-being from adolescence to the tomb. Previously in the literature, it has been shown that within the lifespan population, there is a “U” shape relationship between age and psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1985). Young adults and the elderly report higher levels of psychological well-being, while middle-age adults tend to report lower levels.

Additionally, there is a positive correlation between age and religion (Pew Research Center,

2014) and religion and mental health (for a review, see: Koenig, 2009). This suggests that there will be an indirect effect of age on psychological well-being through religion.

Based on the previously reviewed findings, the present study seeks to contribute three things to the existing literature on religion, aging, and well-being. First, the present study uses a developmental perspective to study age differences in religiousness and well-being. Second, there have been a limited amount of previous studies have included the transition from adolescent to adulthood, often choosing to focus on one or the other. The present study aims to close this gap by including both adolescents and adults. Third, the present study aims to examine the indirect effect age on psychological well-being through religiousness. More specifically, I seek to test whether or not the effect of age on well-being is at least partially accounted for by the relationships between age and religiousness and between religiousness and well-being.

To summarize, it is hypothesized that, (1) consistent with prior literature, religiousness will be positively related to age, (2) consistent with prior literature, psychological well-being will correlate positively with religiousness, (3) high psychological well-being will be positively correlated with age, and (4) age will have an indirect effect on overall psychological well-being 12 through religiousness (i.e., religiousness will partially account for the link between age and well- being). 13

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

An a-priori power analysis by G*power with a medium effect size of .15 and power of

.95 calculated a minimum sample size of 74 participants (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang,

2009). To ensure for sufficient power to detect a significance, a target population of 187 participants was recruited. Based on sample availability and to ensure homogeneity across age groups, only active members of the Roman Catholic faith were recruited. Volunteers were recruited from the Midwest population of United States, specifically from the Diocese of

Toledo’s parishes and schools.

In order to have enough participants in each age range, participants were recruited from four age groups. Adolescents (14 to 18 years old) were surveyed during religion classes from

Sandusky Central Catholic School, young adults (19 to 39 years old) were surveyed after religious services at St. Thomas Moore on the campus of Bowling Green State University as well. Middle-aged adults (40 to 59 years old) and older adults (60 years and older) were surveyed after religious services at St. Aloysius Catholic Church and St. Thomas Moore Catholic

Church in Bowling Green, Ohio as through the parish’s bulletin and Facebook as provided by the parish.

A recruitment announcement (see Appendix A) was published in the weekly community newsletter beginning three weeks before the study begins and continued through the duration of the study. During the study, an announcement, including participation details (e.g. location), was made during the weekend religious services to encourage participation in the study. After completing an informed consent, participants were asked to complete a demographic 14 questionnaire, the Centrality of Religiousness scale and Ryff’s PWB scale. After participants completed the study, they were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Measures

Socio-Demographic Characteristics. Social demographics and background information

(age, gender, income, relationship status, education, race, employment, health status, religious affiliation) were collected with a questionnaire before the religiousness and psychological well- being measures are administered. Religious affiliation was included to avoid sampling non-

Catholic individuals who may have attended the Catholic schools and parishes. Due to age differences in demographics (e.g. adolescents in high school have a limited variability in education level), adolescents, young adult, and older adults had separate versions of the demographic and background questionnaire. Please see Appendix A.

The Centrality of Religiousness Scale. The Centrality of Religiousness Scale (CRS) modified by Huber and Huber (2012) included fifteen items on a Likert scale. Each question represented religiousness in one of six domains: intellect (e.g. “How often do you think about religious issues?”), ideology (e.g. “In your opinion, how probable is it that a higher power really exists?”), public practice (e.g. “How important is it to take part in religious services?”), private practice (e.g. “How often do you pray?”), and experience (e.g. “How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine is present?”). Total religiousness is calculated by averaging over all fifteen items with a higher score indicating higher religiousness. Please see Appendix B.

Ryff’s Scale of Psychological Well-Being. The Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWB) was developed by Ryff (1989). The PWB scale measured eighteen questions (equivalent number of questions per area, unlike the 44-item scale) on the Likert continuum. Each question was in 15 one of six realms: personal growth (e.g., “I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about yourself and the world.”) (items 9, 33, and 39), purpose in life

(e.g., “Some people wander around aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them.”) (items 5,

35, and 41), environmental mastery (e.g., “When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out so far.”) (items 2, 8, and 20), autonomy (e.g., ‘I judge myself by what I think is important, not be the values of what others think is important.”) (items 19, 25, and

37), positive relations with others (e.g., “Maintaining close relationships has been difficult and frustrating for me.”) (items 10, 28, and 34,), and self-acceptance (e.g., “I like most parts of my personality.”) (items 6, 24, and 30). Eight negatively coded items were reversed scored (5, 8, 10,

19, 30, 34, 39, and 41). Each individual area was averaged with a higher score indicating a score indicating a higher well-being in that area. Overall psychological well-being was calculated by averaging the six areas. Due to low internal reliability the six areas of psychological well-being were not able to be used individually. (See Table 1 in Appendix D.) The current study use of

Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale was as a variable overall. Please see Appendix C. 16

RESULTS

The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the Centrality of Religiousness Scale (CRS)

(Cronbach’s α = .94) and Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being scale (PWB) (Cronbach’s α = .79) were first calculated (Table 1 in Appendix D). Means, standard deviations, and skewedness were calculated for the overall scores of the CRS and PWB scale. (See Table 2 in Appendix D.)

Means and standards deviations were graphed for the overall score across the four age groups to visually assess for overall trends of psychological well-being and religiousness (Figure 1 and 2 in

Appendix E). A Pearson’s correlation was performed to assess any significant relationships between demographic variables, religiousness, and psychological well-being (Table 2 in

Appendix D; for demographic variable descriptive statistics, see Table 3).

Two separate exploratory ANOVAs were conducted among the age groups to examine differences in religiousness and psychological well-being. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess for differences in religiousness based on age category. There were significant differences between the four conditions [F(3, 192) = 7.55, p < .01]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey

HSD test indicated that the mean score of religiousness for the adolescent group (M = 3.37; SD =

.75) was significantly lower than mean religiousness scores for young adults (M = 3.93; SD =

.89, p = .001), middle adults (M = 4.30; SD = .50, p = .000), and older adults (M = 4.17; SD =

.63, p = .009) (See Tables 4 and 5 in Appendix D). No other significant differences were found.

A second one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess for differences in psychological well-being based on age group. No such differences were found [F(3, 177) = 2.42, p > .05]. (See Table 6 in

Appendix D).

To test hypothesis one (that religiousness will positively correlate with age), a linear regression was performed to regress age on religiousness (R2 = .121, F(1, 181) = 25.026, p < 17 .001; β = .349 p < .001). Regression analyses were used to investigate hypotheses two, three and four. For these analyses, I used the PROCESS macro Version 3 (Hayes, 2017). To test hypothesis two (that psychological well-being will correlate positively with religiousness), a regression was ran that indicated that religiousness is a significant indicator of psychological well-being (R2 = .057, F(2, 178) = 5.38, p < .01; β = .167 p = .002). Hypotheses three (that high psychological well-being will be positively correlated with age) was not supported. Results indicated that age was not a significant associate of psychological well-being (R2 = .057, F(2,

178) = 5.38, p < .01; β = .000 p = .815).

These results also support the indirect effect hypothesis (hypothesis four). Although age was not a significant associate of well-being directly (as reviewed above) while controlling for religiousness (β = .167 p < .05), there was an indirect effect of age on well-being, through religiousness. This indirect effect of age on well-being through religiousness was tested using a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 bootstrap samples (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

These results indicated the indirect coefficient was significant, B = .0021, SE = .0009, 95% CI =

.0007, .0041. 18

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to test the correlations of religiousness, age and psychological well- being over the lifespan. Additionally, it aimed to identify the possibility of an indirect effect of age on psychological well-being through the links between religiousness and each variable.

Continuing below, I review the findings, speculate about possible integration, and discuss limitations and future directions for this research.

Summary of Results

The first hypothesis was that religiousness would be positively related to age. It was found that there was a moderately sized correlation between these two variables supporting the initial hypothesis. Similarly, the second hypothesis—that psychological well-being will correlate positively with religiousness—was also supported.

The third hypothesis that high psychological well-being will be positively correlated with age was not supported. Finally, the fourth hypothesis was that age will have an indirect effect on well-being through religiousness. This hypothesis was also supported as seen in Figure 3 in

Appendix E.

In addition, the exploratory portion of the results indicated that the age groups were not different from each other in psychological well-being (see Table 6). However, adolescents are significantly lower in religiousness than any other age groups (see Tables 4 and 5).

In summary, support for hypotheses 1-4 was mixed. Although I found clear links between age and religiousness and between religiousness and well-being, there was very limited evidence for the association between age and well-being. This is somewhat surprising, given past literature that has noted that age is typically associated with well-being. However, this absence of a clear 19 relationship may be due to a slight ceiling effect found in this study, in which participants demonstrated robustly high well-being, regardless of age.

Integration

Within developmental psychology, it is well-known that within the typical lifespan of there is a “U” shape relationship between age and psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes,

1985) and after 50 years of age mental health steadily increases thereafter (Stone, Schwartz,

Broderick, & Deaton, 2010). Contrary to previous literature, the current study observed a no significant correlation or differences between age groups in psychological well-being over the life span. This effect will be discussed further below.

Previous consensus studies have noted a positive correlation between age and religion

(Pew Research Center, 2014). The results of the present work also found a positive correlation between age and religiousness (see Figure 3). This outcome aligns with individuals moving through Fowler’s Stages of Faith (Fowler, 1982; Fowler, 1991). The current study also demonstrated a positive correlation between religiousness and psychological well-being (see

Figures 2 and 3). This echoes the previous literature regarding religion and positive mental health outcomes (for a review, see: Koenig, 2009). For example, those who use religious coping skills have higher positive affect and life satisfaction than those who do not incorporate religious practices into their daily life (Folkman, et. al.,1987; Van Dyke, Glenwick, Cecero, & Kim,

2009).

Limitations

One of the more interesting aspects of these findings is the notable high levels that was observed on the psychological well-being scale. In previous literature, Ryff’s Psychological

Well-Being Scale has had validity issues with ceiling effects (Abbott, Ploubidis, Huppet, Kuh, 20 Wadsworth, & Croudace, 2006; Abbott, Ploubidis, Huppet, Kuh, & Croudace, 2010). More to the point, prior research has found that Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale may produce artificially high results, regardless of actual well-being. This seems to be a potential confound in the present study. That is, the majority of respondents in my work reported exceptionally high well-being (up to 60% of participants). Arguably, this could be an artifact of an imperfect measure. However, beyond limitations of Ryff’s scale, the high levels of psychological well- being with no differences between age groups may have occurred due to a few reasons.

Primarily, it is possible that the specific religious population I studied already has a high level of personal well-being. Logically, if this were the case, we would expect high level of self-reported psychological well-being. Secondly, there may be a priming effect occurring, due to the survey being taken in a location where religious services are observed or religious tradition is acquired.

Prior meta-analyses have found that there is a small to medium effect to religious priming on decision making tasks, indicating that priming may be an influence in the current study (Willard,

Shariff, & Norenzayan, 2016). It is especially strong for those who are religious compared to non-religious participants. In this prior-meta-analysis, across 17 studies and 4,038 participants, it was found that a pre-existing effect for belief culture primed religious participants. For example, having the word ‘God’ in a task found a slightly smaller effect than a contextual prime.

However, it is to be noted that Catholics and Protestants may be affected differently by the same prime task due to associations with their religious traditions (Willard, Shariff, & Norenzayan,

2016). Religious words like “heaven” and “hell” has also been found to prime the relationship between positive affect and meaning in life in a convenience sample Christian population, such that positive religious words strengthened the association between religious commitment and 21 meaning in life (Hicks & King, 2008). Therefore, further research with other faith traditions is recommended.

While both possible explanations (i.e., a true ceiling effect due to enhanced well-being or validity issues due to a ceiling effect vs. a priming effect) are supported by previous literature, the first possibility that the religious population has a high well-being is supported by previously discussed developmental theories. According to both socioemotional selectivity theory and terror management theory, when people are actively involved in religious life, they are likely to have increased psychological well-being due to the buffering effects of religion against psychological malaise. In the case of socioemotional selectivity theory, religion brings meaning to life and relationships, which likely leads to better coping skills (Carstensen, Fung, & Charles, 2003;

Battersby & Phillips, 2016). In addition, the population that is being assessed are already previously attending religious services or parents are choosing Catholic schools for their children to attend and individuals are self-selecting to be in the study. In this sense then, it is possible that the well-documented relationship between greater mental health and religion (Hill & Pargament,

2008) is being echoed in this study.

Beyond the limitations due to the high levels of psychological well-being, there were structural limitations with the findings as well. Due to the nature of the paper survey, sampling limitations occurred within the study. The geographical range was within a 60-mile range in

Northwest Ohio. Furthermore, there was limited ethnic and racial diversity in the participating population. In addition, there were very few males in the adolescent population. Due to these factors, the generalizability of these findings is not clear. More specifically, it is likely that the results found are reflective only of the above described population, and not of religious individuals at large. 22 Another limitation of this study is that it does not measure the dark side of religiousness.

That is, many studies have consistently demonstrated that religion is not a universal positive force in people’s lives (Exline, Pargament, Grubbs, & Yali, 2014;.Grubbs, Wilt, Stauner, Exline,

& Pargament, 2016; Stauner, Exline, Grubbs, Pargament, Bradley, & Uzdavines, 2016; Wilt,

Exline, Grubbs, Park, & Pargament, 2016; Wilt, Grubbs, Pargament, & Exline, 2017). As such, the effects of religiousness on well-being could be much more complex than what was studied here. Future work should specifically focus on evaluating both the positive and negative effects of religion over the lifespan. This would include recording the religious and spiritual struggles in future research as well as the religiousness of the individual.

Another limitation is the nature of the data collection. As stated previously, the location of the survey might have been a source of priming for the participants. Students who completed the survey in their religious classrooms may have felt pressured by their environment. Adults may have been primed after their religious service to answer more religiously. Further studies are recommended to complete paper surveys outside of religious environments. Second, the data collected was completed by self-report. Self-report data can be unreliable (Chan, 2009; Furnham

& Henderson, 1982). To correct for self-report issues, third-party measures should also be collected in further studies.

Finally, the current study’s population is solely from the Catholic tradition within the

Christian faith. As stated above, due to differences in religious traditions, tasks on surveys can have different outcomes (Willard, Shariff, & Norenzayan, 2016). To gain a true perspective of these hypotheses, future research should expand the current population to other religions and non-religious populations as well. 23 Conclusion

Religiousness has been shown to predict psychological well-being (Hill & Pargament,

2008; Krause, 1998; Pargament, 1997; Green & Elliott, 2009). This study adds to the current literature by supporting the hypotheses that religiousness positively correlates with psychological well-being and greater age is associated with greater religiousness. However, age was not associated with psychological well-being, but there was an indirect effect of age on psychological well-being through religiousness. Future research is necessary to remove confounding variables, such as priming and self-report biases. 24

REFERENCES Abbott, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., & Croudace, T. J. (2010). An

Evaluation of the Precision of Measurement of Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scales

in a Population Sample. Social Indicators Research, 97, 357-373.

Abbott, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., Wadsworth, M. E. J., & Croudace, T. J.

(2007). Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff's psychological well-

being items in a UK birth cohort sample of women. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,

4, 76.

Abdel-Khalek, A. M. & Lester, D. (2017). The association between religiousness, generalized

self-efficacy, mental health, and happiness in Arab college students. Personality and

Individual Difference, 109, 12-16.

Ainsworth, M. D., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: illustrated by

the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child development, 41(1), 49-67.

Ayele, H., Mulligan, T., Gheorghiu, S., & Reyes‐Ortiz, C. (1999). Religious activity improves

life satisfaction for some physicians and older patients. Journal of the American

Geriatrics Society, 47(4), 453-455.

Battersby, A., & Phillips, L. (2016). In the end it all makes sense: Meaning in life at either end of

the adult lifespan. The Journal of Aging and Human Development, 83(2), 184-204.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. Free Press, New York.

Berger, P. (1967) The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York:

Doubleday. 25 Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. American journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678.

Bravo, A. J., Pearson, M. R., & Stevens, L. E. (2015). Making religiousness person-centered: A

latent profile analysis of religiousness and psychological health outcomes. Personality

and Individual Difference, 88, 160-169.

Carpendale, J. I. (2000). Kohlberg and Piaget on stages and moral reasoning. Developmental

Review, 20(2), 181-205.

Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science,

312(5782), 1913-1915.

Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and

the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103-

123.

Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad. Statistical and

methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the

organizational and social sciences, 309-336.

Cicirelli, V. G. (2002). Fear of death in older adults: Predictions from terror management

theory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social

Sciences, 57(4), 358-366.

Erikson, E. H. (1954). The dream specimen of psychoanalysis. Journal of the American

Psychoanalytic Association, 2(1), 5-56. 26 Exline, J. J., Pargament, K. I., Grubbs, J. B., & Yali, A. M. (2014). The Religious and Spiritual

Struggles Scale: Development and initial validation. Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality, 6, 208-222.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using

G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analysis. Behavioral Research

Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J. (1987). Age differences in stress and

coping processes. Psychology and Aging, 2(2), 171-184.

Fowler, J. (1982). Faith development in the adult life cycle. In J. Fowler’s Stages of faith and

adults’ life cycles, (pp 179-207). New York, New York: W.H. Sadlier.

Fowler, J. (1991). Stages of faith consciousness. In J. Fowler’s Religious development in

childhood and adolescence (pp 27-45).

Freud, S. (1961). The future of an illusion. in J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition

of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 11, pp. 5-56). London:

Hogarth Press. (Original work published in 1927).

Furnham, A., & Henderson, M. (1982). The good, the bad and the mad: Response bias in self-

report measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 3(3), 311-320.

Green, M., & Elliott, M. (2009). Religion, health, and psychological well-being. Journal of

Religious Health, 49, 149-163.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., & Lyon,

D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on 27 reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 58(2), 308-318.

Grover, S. (1980). An examination of Kohlberg's cognitive-developmental model of

morality. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 136(1), 137-143.

Grubbs, J. B., Wilt, J. A., Stauner, N., Exline, J. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2016). Self, struggle, and

soul: Linking personality, self-concept, and religious/spiritual struggle. Personality and

Individual Differences, 101, 144–152.

Hayward, R. D., & Krause, N. (2013). Patterns of change in religious service attendance across

the life course: Evidence from a 34-year longitudinal study. Social Science Research, 42,

1480-1489.

Hayward, R. D., & Krause, N. (2015). Aging, social developmental, and cultural factors in

changing patterns of religious involvement over a 32-year period: An age-period-cohort

analysis of 80 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(8), 979-995.

Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2008). Religious commitment and positive mood as information

about meaning in life. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 43-57.

Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2008). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of

religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. Psychology

of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 3-17.

Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., Jr., McCullough, M. 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, 51-77. 28 Huber, S., & Huber, O. W. (2012). The Centrality of Religiousness Scale (CRS). Religions, 3,

710-724.

Hyde, K. E. (1990). Religion in childhood and adolescence: A comprehensive review of the

research. Religious Education Press, Birmingham, AL.

James, W. (1961) The varieties of religious experience. New York: Collier Books. (Original

work published in 1902).

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1992). An attachment-theory approach to the psychology of religion. The

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(1), 3-28.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: Childhood

attachments, religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 29(3), 315-334.

Koenig, H. G. (2009). Research on religion, spirituality, and mental health: A review. The

Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(5), 283-291.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to

socialization. Rand McNally and Co., Chicago, IL.

Krause, N. (1998). Neighborhood deterioration, religious coping, and changes in health during

late life. Gerontologist, 38, 653–664.

Mattis, J. S., Ahluwalia, M. K., Cowie, S. E., & Kirkland-Harris, A. M. (2006). Ethnicity,

culture, and spiritual development. The handbook of spiritual development in childhood

and adolescence, 283-296.

Nelson, J. M. (2009). Psychology, religion, and spirituality. Springer Science & Business Media. 29 Nucci, L., & Turiel, E. (1993). God's word, religious rules, and their relation to Christian and

Jewish children's concepts of morality. Child Development, 64(5), 1475-1491.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New

York: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I. (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. The

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(1), 3-16.

Pargament, K. I., Ano, G. G., & Wachholtz, A. (2005). The religious dimension of

coping. Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality, 479-495.

Peres, M. F. P., Kamei, H. H., Tobo, P. R., & Lucchetti, G. (2017). Mechanisms behind

religiousness and spirituality’s effect on mental health, quality of life and well-being.

Journal of Religious Health, 1-12.

Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

Pittel, S. M., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1966). Measurement of moral values: A review and

critique. Psychological Bulletin, 66(1), 22-35.

Porter, L. S., Davis, D., & Keefe, F. J. (2007). Attachment and pain: Recent findings and future

directions. Pain, 128(3), 195-198.

Power, L. & McKinney, C. (2014). The effects of religiousness on psychopathology in emerging

adults: intrinsic versus extrinsic religiousness. Journal of Religious Health, 53, 1529-

1538. 30 Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1999). A dual-process model of defense against

conscious and unconscious death-related thoughts: an extension of terror management

theory. Psychological review, 106(4), 835-845.

“Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics, and Statistics.” Pew Research

Center, Washington, D.C. (2014) http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/.

Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Lyon, D. (1989). Evidence for

terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who

violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(4),

681-690.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-

1081.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being

revisited. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(4), 719-727.

Scott, A. B. (1997). Categorizing definitions of religion and spirituality in the psychological

literature: A content analytic approach. Unpublished manuscript. Bowling Green State

University, Bowling Green, OH.

Sheldrake, R. (1992). An experimental test of the hypothesis of formative causation. Biology

Forum 86(3/4), 431-444.

Singh, P. & Bano, S. (2017). Effect of intrinsic-extrinsic religiousness on the psychological well-

being of adolescents. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 12(1), 137-145. 31 Sisemore, T. A. (2016). The psychology of religion and spirituality: From the inside out.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Spilka, B. (1993). August Spirituality: Problems and directions in operationalizing a fuzzy

concept. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association annual conference,

Toronto, Canada.

Spilka, B., & McIntosh, D. N. (1996). Religion and spirituality: The known and the unknown.

Paper presented at the American Psychological Association annual conference, Toronto,

Canada.

Smith, J. Z. (1998). Religion, religions, religious. In M. C. Taylor (Ed.) Critical Terms for

Religious Studies, (pp. 269–84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stauner, N., Exline, J. J., Grubbs, J. B., Pargament, K. I., Bradley, D. F., & Uzdavines, A.

(2016). Bifactor models of religious and spiritual struggles: Distinct from religiousness

and distress. Religions, 7, 68-98.

Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Deaton, A. (2010). A snapshot of the age

distribution of psychological well-being in the United States. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 107(22), 9985-9990.

Terreri, C. J., & Glenwick, D. S. (2013). The relationship of religious and general coping to

psychological adjustment and distress in urban adolescents. Journal of Religion and

Health, 52(4), 1188-1202.

Turner, R. P., Lukoff, D. R., Barnhouse, T. & Lu, F. G. (1995). Religious or spiritual problem: A

culturally sensitive diagnostic category in the DSM-IV. Journal of Nervous and Mental

Disease, 183, 435-44. 32 Van Dyke, C. J., 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 and Culture, 12(4), 369-383.

Walker, L. J., & Reimer, K. S. (2006). The relationship between moral and spiritual

development. The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence, 224-

238.

Willard, A. K., Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2016). Religious priming as a research tool for

studying religion: Evidentiary value, current issues, and future directions. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 12, 71-75.

Wilt, J. A., Exline, J. J., Grubbs, J. B., Park, C. L., & Pargament, K. I. (2016). God’s role in

suffering: Theodicies, divine struggle, and mental health. Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality, 8, 352-362.

Wilt, J. A., Grubbs, J. B., Pargament, K. I., & Exline, J. J. (2017). Religious and spiritual

struggles, past and present: Relations to the big five and well-being. The International

Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 27, 51–64.

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B. C., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., Velavish, T. G., et al.,

(1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study

of Religion, 36, 549-564.

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott., A. B. (1999). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying

the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 549-564. 33

APPENDIX A. BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

Recruitment Script Hello! My name is Katie Sakel, a graduate student at Bowling Green State University in psychology under Dr. Yiwei Chen. I am completing research on how practicing religion affects a person’s well-being as they age. I am here, today, because I would like your help to get into the high schooler’s (or adult’s) mind. In order to help me, (you will need to have your parent or guardian fill out this form and return it to [person] by [date].) You cannot help me unless I have this form returned. Whether you help or not, your relationship with me, your school, or Bowling Green State University will not change. Thank you! 34 Background Questionnaire: High School Student 1. What is your age? ______

2. What is your sex? (Check one) __M/___F/____other (please indicate) ______

3. What is your current grade in high school? _____9th (Freshman) _____11th (Junior) _____10th (Sophomore) _____12th (Senior)

4. What best describes your race/ethnicity? (Check one) ____ Euro-American/Caucasian/White ____Hispanic/Latino ____Native American/Alaskan Native ____ Pacific Islander ____African-American/Black ____Asian/Asian-American ____Middle Eastern ____Multi-racial/Multi-ethnic (please specify) ______Other (please specify) ______

5. Are you currently employed? (Check one) ____Part time (less than 35 hours/week) ____Not employed

6. What best describes your current health status? (Check one) ___Poor ____Fair ___Good ___Very Good

➔ Please turn to the back. 35 7. What best described your current religious affiliation? (Check one) ___Roman Catholic (Christian) ___Jewish ___Muslim ___Hindu ___Buddhist ___Christian (Protestant, Orthodox, Non-denominational, or Other) ___Atheist ___Agnostic ___Other Religion (please specify) ______

8. Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services? (Check one) ___More than once a week ___Once a week ___Once or twice a month ___A few times a year ___Seldom ___Never

9. Outside of attending religious services, how often you do you pray? (Check one) ___More than once a week ___Once a week ___Once or twice a month ___A few times a year ___Seldom ___Never

10. To what extent do you consider yourself a religious person? (Check one) ___Very religious ___Moderately religious ___Slightly religious ___Not at all religious 36 Background Questionnaire: Young Adult 1. What is your age? ______2. What is your sex? (Check one) __M/___F/____other (please indicate) ______3. What is your current relationship status? (Check one) ___Single ___Married ___Separated ___Divorced ___Widowed

___Other (please specify) ______

4. What is your average annual household income? (Check one) ____Below $20,000 ____$50,001-$60,000 ____$90,0001-$100,000 ____$20,001-$30,000 ____$60,001-$70,000 ____More than 100,001 ____$30,001-$40,000 ____$70,001-$80,000 ____$40,001-$50,000 ____$80,001-$90,000

5. What is your highest level of formal education? (Check one):

____Some high school ____High school diploma ____Some college ____College degree ____Master degree and above 6. What best describes your race/ethnicity? (Check one) ____ Euro-American/Caucasian/White ____Hispanic/Latino ____Native American/Alaskan Native ____ Pacific Islander ____African-American/Black ____Asian/Asian-American ____Middle Eastern ____Multi-racial/Multi-ethnic (please specify) ______Other (please specify) ______

➔ Please turn to the back. 37 7. Are you currently employed? (Check one) ____Full time (35 hours/week or more) ____Part time (less than 35 hours/week) ____Leave of absence ____Not employed ____Retired

8. What best describes your current health status? (Check one) ___Poor ____Fair ___Good ___Very Good

9. What best described your current religious affiliation? (Check one) ___Roman Catholic (Christian) ___Jewish ___Muslim ___Hindu ___Buddhist ___Christian (Protestant, Orthodox, Non-denominational, or Other) ___Atheist ___Agnostic ___Other Religion (please specify) ______

10. Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services? (Check one) ___More than once a week ___Once a week ___Once or twice a month ___A few times a year ___Seldom ___Never

11. Outside of attending religious services, how often you do you pray? (Check one) ___More than once a week ___Once a week ___Once or twice a month ___A few times a year ___Seldom ___Never

12. To what extent do you consider yourself a religious person? (Check one) ___Very religious ___Moderately religious ___Slightly religious ___Not at all religious

13. Do you live in a religious-affiliated housing (e.g. Newman housing)? ___Yes ____No 38 Background Questionnaire: Adult 1. What is your age? ______2. What is your sex? (Check one) __M/___F/____other (please indicate) ______3. What is your current relationship status? (Check one) ___Single ___Married ___Separated ___Divorced ___Widowed

___Other (please specify) ______

5. What is your highest level of education? (Check one):

➔ Please turn to the back. 39 7. Are you currently employed? (Check one) ____Full time (35 hours/week or more) ____Part time (less than 35 hours/week) ____Leave of absence ____Not employed ____Retired

8. What best describes your current health status? (Check one) ___Poor ____Fair ___Good ___Very Good

10. Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services? (Check one) ___More than once a week ___Once a week ___Once or twice a month ___A few times a year ___Seldom ___Never

11. Outside of attending religious services, how often you do you pray? (Check one) ___More than once a week ___Once a week ___Once or twice a month ___A few times a year ___Seldom ___Never

12. To what extent do you consider yourself a religious person? (Check one) ___Very religious ___Moderately religious ___Slightly religious ___Not at all religious 40 APPENDIX B. CENTRALITY OF RELIGIOUSNESS SCALE

Please indicate your degree of agreement to the following sentences by circling the appropriate number according to the scale below:

(1) Not at all/Never; (2) Not very much/Rarely; (3) Moderately/Occasionally; (4) Quite a bit/Often; (5) Very much so/Very often.

1. How often do you think about religious issues? 1 2 3 4 5 2. To what extent do you believe that God or something divine exists? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often do you take part in religious services? 1 2 3 4 5 4. How often do you pray? 1 2 3 4 5 5. How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine intervenes in your life? 1 2 3 4 5 6. How interested are you in learning more about religious topics? 1 2 3 4 5 7. To what extent do you believe in an afterlife (e.g. immorality of the soul, resurrection of the dead or reincarnation)? 1 2 3 4 5 8. How important is it to take part in religious services? 1 2 3 4 5 9. How important is personal prayer for you? 1 2 3 4 5 10. How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine wants to communicate or reveal something to you? 1 2 3 4 5 11. How often do you keep yourself informed about religious questions through radio, television, internet, newspapers, or books? 1 2 3 4 5 12. In your opinion, how probable is it that a higher power really exists? 1 2 3 4 5 13. How important is it for you to be connected to a religious community? 1 2 3 4 5 14. How often do you pray spontaneously when inspired by daily situations? 1 2 3 4 5 15. How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine is present? 1 2 3 4 5 41 APPENDIX C. RYFF’S PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING SCALE (PWB) Please indicate your degree of agreement (using a score ranging from 1-6, a 1 indicates Strongly disagree and a 6 indicates Strongly agree) to the following sentences.

1. I am not afraid to voice my opinions, even when they are in opposition to the opinions of most people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. I am not interested in activities that will expand my horizons. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Most people see me as loving and affectionate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. I live life one day at a time and don't really think about the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. My decisions are not usually influenced by what everyone else is doing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. The demands of everyday life often get me down. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about yourself and the world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Maintaining close relationships has been difficult and frustrating for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. I have a sense of direction and purpose in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. In general, I feel confident and positive about myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. I tend to worry about what other people think of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. I do not fit very well with the people and the community around me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. When I think about it, I haven't really improved much as a person over the years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. My daily activities often seem trivial and unimportant to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. I feel like many of the people I know have gotten more out of life than I have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. I tend to be influenced by people with strong opinions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. I am quite good at managing the many responsibilities of my daily life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. I enjoy personal and mutual conversations with family members or friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. I don't have a good sense of what it is I'm trying to accomplish in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. I like most aspects of my personality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. I often feel overwhelmed by my responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. I do not enjoy being in new situations that require me to change my old familiar ways of doing things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. People would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ➔ Please turn to the back. Please indicate your degree of agreement (using a score ranging from 1-6, a 1 indicates Strongly disagree and a 6 indicates Strongly agree) to the following sentences. 42 29. I enjoy making plans for the future and working to make them a reality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. In many ways, I feel disappointed about my achievements in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. It's difficult for me to voice my own opinions on controversial matters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32. I have difficulty arranging my life in a way that is satisfying to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 33. For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth. 1 2 3 4 5 6 34. I have not experienced many warm and trusting relationships with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 35. Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 36. My attitude about myself is probably not as positive as most people feel about themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 37. I judge myself by what I think is important, not by the values of what others think is important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 38. I have been able to build a home and a lifestyle for myself that is much to my liking. 1 2 3 4 5 6 39. I gave up trying to make big improvements or changes in my life a long time ago. 1 2 3 4 5 6 40. I know that I can trust my friends, and they know they can trust me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 41. I sometimes feel as if I've done all there is to do in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 42. When I compare myself to friends and acquaintances, it makes me feel good about who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 6 43 APPENDIX D. STUDY TABLES

Table 1. Internal reliabilities of scales used in the current study. Scale Cronbach's Alpha Number of Items Centrality of Religiousness Scale 0.94 15 18-Item Psychological Well-Being 0.79 18 Autonomy 0.46 3 Environmental Mastery 0.51 3 Positive Relations 0.56 3 Personal Growth 0.44 3 Self-Acceptance 0.55 3 Purpose in Life 0.32 3 Note: N=187. Due to low values of Cronbach’s alpha, the 18-Item Psychological Well-Being, could not be split into the smaller, 3-Item sub-sections.

Table 2. Pearson’s Correlations between demographic and hypothetical variables and means, standard deviations, and skewedness of variables.

Mean SD Skewedness 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Age (In years) 39.16 21.78 .348 ------.495 -.183* - 2. Gender1 Average Household - 6.14 3.30 -.271 .140 - 3. Income .080 - 3.95 .80 -1.039 .349** .028 - 4. Religiousness .129 Psychological Well- 4.61 .54 -.584 .067 .055 .250** .238** - 5. Being Note: N=187. 1 Coded 0=male, 1=female. *p<.05, **p<.01 44

Table 3. Demographic variable percentages calculated across age groups. Demographic 14-18 19-39 40-59 60+ Variable Choice Gender Male 0.05 8.60 9.14 10.22 Female 15.59 22.04 12.37 15.59 Other 1.08 - - - Total 22.04 30.65 21.51 25.81 Academic Status High School Diploma 3.80 2.53 1.27 1.90 Some College 5.06 22.15 2.53 5.70 College Degree - 6.33 9.49 12.03 Master Degree and Above - 5.06 11.39 10.76 Total 8.86 36.08 24.68 30.38 Employment Status Full Time - 9.14 16.13 4.84 Part Time 12.90 13.44 2.69 2.15 Retired - - 1.61 17.74 Leave of Absence - 1.61 0.54 - Not Employed 9.14 6.45 0.54 1.08 Total 22.04 30.65 21.51 25.81 Health Status Poor - - - 1.08 Fair 1.61 1.61 2.15 2.69 Good 10.75 10.75 10.22 13.44 Very Good 9.68 18.28 9.14 8.60 Total 22.04 30.65 21.51 25.81 Relationship Status Single 8.81 22.64 1.26 3.14 Married - 9.43 19.50 20.13 Separated - - 1.26 1.26 Divorced - - 2.52 3.14 Widowed - - 0.63 2.52 Other - 3.77 - - Total 8.81 35.85 25.16 30.19 45 Racial/Ethnic African American/Black 0.54 - - - Background Asian/Asian-American - - 1.08 - Middle Eastern - 1.08 - - Latino/Hispanic 0.54 - 0.54 0.54 White/Caucasian/Euro- 19.89 29.57 19.89 25.27 American Multi-racial/Multi-ethnic 0.54 - - - Other 0.54 - - - Total 22.04 30.65 21.51 25.81 Note: High school population were not included in academic status.

Table 4. ANOVA for religiousness. Summary of ANOVA Sum of Mean df F Squares Square

Between Subjects 25.7 3 8.57 7.55**

Within Groups 203.2 189 1.14 Total 228.9 192

Note: p = .000

Table 5. Tukey HSD for ANOVA for religiousness between age groups. Summary of Tukey HSD Tukey’s HSD 19- 40- Group n Mean SD 14-18 60+ 39 59 14-18 41 3.37 .75 - 19-39 55 3.93 .89 .001 - 40-59 39 4.30 .50 .000 .799 - 60+ 48 4.17 .63 .009 .940 .495 - The 14-18-year-old group varied significantly from every other group. There were no other significances. 46 Table 6. ANOVA for psychological well-being showed no significant difference between age groups. Summary of ANOVA Sum of Mean df F Squares Square

Between Subjects 2.09 3 .698 2.42

Within Groups 51.09 177 .289 Total 53.9 180

Note: Not Significant, p = .068 47 APPENDIX E. STUDY FIGURES

4.5

3.5 Being - 3

2.5

1.5 Psychological Well

0.5

0 14-18 19-39 40-59 60+ Age (in Years)

Figure 1. The trend in psychological well-being over the lifespan in the cross-sectional data shows no significant difference between age groups.

4.5 ** 4

3.5

2.5

2 Religiousnesss 1.5

0.5

0 14-18 19-39 40-59 60+ Age (in Years)

Figure 2. The trend in religiousness over the lifespan in the cross-sectional data shows a significant difference between the 14-18-year-old group and all other age groups. 48

Figure 3. Standard estimate (β) model of the relationship between age and psychological well- being with the indirect effect through religiousness. 49 APPENDIX F. IRB APPROVAL DOCUMENT