Soc Indic Res (2013) 111:2544

DOI 10.1007/s11205-011-9982-7

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

Samuel Stroope Scott Draper Andrew L. Whitehead

Accepted: 12 December 2011 / Published online: 21 January 2012

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Although prior studies have documented a positive association between religiosity and sense of meaning in life, the role of specific religious beliefs is currently
unclear. Past research on images of God suggests that loving images of God will positively
correlate with a sense of meaning and purpose. Mechanisms for this hypothesized relationship are drawn from prior work on attachment theory, religious coping, and symbolic
interaction. We suggest that these mechanisms are complementary and that secure
attachment styles, reliable coping strategies, and positive self-images work in tandem to
facilitate a sense of meaning and purpose. Using a random, national sample from the
second wave of the Baylor Religion Survey, we perform multivariate regression analysis
that controls for key religious and demographic effects. In our full model, results indicate
that the dependent variable is positively associated with student status, religious nonaffiliation, congregational friendship networks, and frequency of prayer. Most important
from the perspective of the present study, the connection between loving images of God
and a sense of meaning and purpose is consistent and robust.
Keywords Religion
Beliefs
Images of God
Sense of meaning
Sense of purpose

Well-being
Mental health

1 Introduction
In this study, we test the hypothesis that belief in a loving God will increase the likelihood
of having a strong sense of meaning and purpose in life. This relationship interests us for a
number of reasons. In a broad sense, it suggests a specific link between social ontologies or

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2009 Baylor Symposium on Faith and Culture, Waco,
TX.
S. Stroope (&)
S. Draper
A. L. Whitehead
Department of Sociology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97326, Waco, TX 76798-7326, USA
e-mail: sam_stroope@baylor.edu

123

26

S. Stroope et al.

worldviews and a wide range of purposeful human behaviors. But it also pertains to a
growing literature on the relationship between religiosity and health. The well-being and
health literature stands out as offering a clear path forward in understanding the current
hypothesized relationship.
Conclusions regarding religions effect on health have tended to depend on a number of
factors, including the dimension of religion in view, the health outcome being researched, and the respective approaches of the different fields and subfields conducting the
research (Bradshaw et al. 2008; Branden 1995; Ellis 1962; Ellison et al. 2009). Psychologists and epidemiologists pioneered much of the religion-health research (Levin 1994),
although sociologists have also contributed throughout (Ellison 1991; Ellison et al. 2001;
Hadaway 1978; Jang and Johnson 2005; e.g., Sternthal et al. 2010). Social theorists make a
case for the social construction of knowledge (Berger and Luckmann 1967), especially
with respect to definitions of mental health (Foucault 1965; Goffman 1961). Noting this,
we follow well-being researchers who have linked subjective measures of meaning and
purpose with specific health-related outcomes (Idler et al. 2003; Krause 2007a; Levin
2009, 2010; Park 2005a). We employ the logic of these studies by discussing sense of
meaning as having generally positive or health-promoting effects, especially with regard to
social interaction, emotions, and self-image.
Sociologists of religion argue that religion is a multidimensional phenomenon (Kellstedt
et al. 1996; Stark and Glock 1968). Religions multidimensionality (e.g. beliefs, behaviors,
collective identity) is also considered in health research. Distinguishing between different
dimensions of religion has helped explain variation in life outcomes (Smith and Snell
2009), health risk behaviors (Nonnemaker et al. 2003, 2006), mental health (Levin 2010),
and general health (Idler et al. 2003). In many instances, religions positive association
with health exists because religion provides individuals with a subjective sense of meaning
that in turn positively affects health outcomes. Considering the mediating role of a sense of
meaning, researchers observe that there is a need to better understand how it is influenced
by religion (Krause 2009a, p. 526; Park 2005b).
In this study, we focus on one dimension of religion highlighted by the well-being and
health literature: images of God (Gorsuch 1968; Levin 2002; Schieman et al. 2006; Spilka
et al. 1964). At present, it is unclear if and how images of God relate to sense of meaning.
Additionally, many studies of religions role in health, well-being, and meaning focus on
older adults, and this literature frequently calls for broadening inquiry to other social
groups, populations, and national data (Krause 2008, p. 421). We contribute to the literature on religion and well-being by using new national data to document the effects of
images of God on sense of meaning and purpose in life.

2 Background
2.1 The Importance of Meaning and Purpose
Based on past research, we define subjective sense of meaning as an individuals feelings
that she has purpose or direction in life (Klinger 1977; Park 2005b, p. 298). In past studies,
sense of meaning has been associated with a variety of outcomes including mental health
(Reker 1997), optimism, self-esteem, life satisfaction (Krause 2003; Mascaro and Rosen
2006; Steger and Frazier 2005), physical health (Krause 2004; Park et al. 2007), surgery
recovery (Smith and Zautra 2004), and mortality (Krause 2009a). The relationship between
health and well-being likely exists because those who do not maintain a sense of meaning

123

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

27

have fewer psychological resources with which to mitigate depression (Krause 2007a;
Reker 2000). Those who sense less meaning in life are more apt to engage in selfdestructive behavior (Park 2007). Sense of meaning is also associated with human
physiology, specifically better immune system functioning (Salovey et al. 2000). Because
sense of meaning is a resource that can buttress both mental and physical health, scholars
have argued that its social antecedents should be examined (see Mascaro and Rosen
2006).
2.2 Sources of Meaning and Purpose
A sense of meaning can stem from a variety of sources including family, personal
relationships, career, and social activism (Debats 1999; Wong 1998). Religion is a
common source, as well. Clark (1958, p. 419) argues that religion more than any other
human function satisfies the need for meaning in life. Much of the research linking religion
and sense of meaning focuses on worship service attendance. The association between service
attendance and a sense of meaning is well-documented, especially in studies of older adults
(Krause 2003). The specific mechanism linking worship attendance and meaning is
unclear, however, and may include a variety of factors (Krause 2008). Berger (1967, p. 16)
contends that conversation with significant others creates tightly-knit worlds of social
relationswhat he calls plausibility structuresproviding religious believers with a
sense of coherence and purpose. Krause (2007b) has adapted Bergers theory for empirical
research, showing that church-based social support is associated with a greater probability
of sensing more meaning in life. In particular, church-based social support promotes a
sense of meaning among older adults and especially among African Americans (Krause
2008).
2.3 Imagining a Loving God
Prior research has uncovered links between religious beliefs and a sense of meaning in life
(Ebersole and DeVogler-Ebersole 1986). Yet Ellison et al. (2001) maintain that religious
beliefs have been too often neglected in religion-health studies, and call for their wider
examination (see also Greeley and Hout 2006). There is mounting evidence that images of
God are a central category of religious belief (Froese and Bader 2010; Greeley 1996).
Along these lines, recent studies have shown the importance of images of God not only for
a variety of religious and social outcomes (Bader et al. 2010; Ellison and Bradshaw 2009;
Froese and Bader 2007; Whitehead 2010), but also for well-being outcomes such as mental
health (Bradshaw et al. 2008; Bradshaw et al. 2010; Flannelly et al. 2009; Schieman et al.
2006, 2010). Images of God are depicted by Greeley (1996) as theological narratives that
influence the thoughts and behaviors of individuals from a wide range of religious (or even
non-religious) backgrounds. He argues that these narratives have broad implications, as
Ones picture of God is, in fact, a metaphorical narrative of Gods relationship with the
world and the self as part of that world (124). This line of thought points to the potential
relevance of God concepts to research on psychological well-being, a possibility that has
not been missed by health researchers. Levin (2004, p. 85), for instance, points out that
[e]xperiencing a loving relationship with Godloving God and feeling Gods lovemay
be especially salutary.
Based on prior research, there are at least three mechanisms that help explain why
images of a loving God might positively influence subjective meaning and purpose.
Although these explanations are largely discrete in the existing literature, we propose that

123

28

S. Stroope et al.

they are complementary, not competing, and can be usefully co-considered as a cohesive
explanatory framework. We bring together work on attachment theory, religious coping,
and Meads generalized other, and suggest that images of a loving God facilitate subjective purpose as the individual draws on a secure attachment style, religious coping
strategies, and positive self-image.
First, recent research has employed attachment theory as a framework for understanding
a sense of closeness to God (Bradshaw et al. 2008; Granqvist and Hagekull 2001).
Attachment theory was initially used in the study of children, and has since been applied in
analysis of adult relations (Hazan and Shaver 1994). The theory outlines three styles of
attachment: anxious, insecure, and secure (Kirkpatrick 2004). The secure attachment style
represents relations of love, support, warmth, approval, and intimacy with others. In this
way, a loving view of God operates to boost a sense of meaning through perceptions of
personal intimacy with God and confidence in Gods concern and care. Confidence in
Gods love and concern may alleviate the individual of the pressure of bearing the full
burden of lifes outcomes, including the burden to make outcomes meaningful. If her
desired outcomes do not happen, she can still find consolation and meaning in the belief
that the failure actually better advances Gods broader purposes. Actions remain meaningful, even if indirectly.
Second, research on spiritual coping indicates that individuals who feel a strong sense of
attachment to God tend to use positive and collaborative coping strategies that provide
psychological buffers against traumatic life events (Belavich and Pargament 2002). When
life presents hardships, an individuals theology may be a resource for making sense of
suffering. For example, an individual can believe that behind the immediate difficulties lies
the larger hand of a lovingly involved God (Park 2005a). Belief in such a God also
positively influences emotions (Silberman 2005). In this way, conceptions of divine-human
relations may factor into health outcomes because one of religions main functions is the
provision of beliefs that foster emotional consolation, hopefulness, and cognitive schemas
for how life difficulties can be understood as ultimately meaningful (Clements and Koenig
1994). Similarly, Berger (1967) emphasizes ways in which religion provides a variety
of cognitive strategies for reconstructing the nomos in the wake of painful events and
perceptions of evil.
Third, previous research has suggested that images of God are related to images
of the self. Pollner (1989), Froese and Bader (2010), and Whitehead (2012) reason that
God concepts contribute to self-image in a similar manner to symbolic interactions
generalized other (Mead 1934). The generalized other objectifies ones view of ones self,
serving as an internal conversation partner that evaluates ones actions (see Athens 1994).
A religious person experiences something very similar to this when she engages in prayer,
meditation, and spiritual reflection (Ladd and Spilka 2002, 2006). If she imagines God to
be loving or nurturing, it follows that she will tend to take a positive view of her own
actions. Accordingly, previous studies have found positive self-image and self-esteem to
covary with belief in a loving God (Francis 2005; Roberts 1989; Spilka et al. 1975). Loving
images of God provide a potential resource for developing self-esteem and an accompanying sense of meaning and purpose.
These studies of attachment theory, coping strategies, and symbolic interaction support
our expectation that belief in a loving God will positively associate with a sense of
meaning in life. There is no justification for these explanations to remain discrete since
they are not presented as competing explanations in prior research, are logically compatible, likely work in tandem, and all suggest the same hypothesis. We seek to confirm the

123

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

29

hypothesized connection by assessing whether it is evident in well-controlled analyses of a

random sample of the U.S. population.

3 Data and Methods

3.1 Data
We use data from the 2007 administration of the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS).
Administered by the Gallup Organization, the BRS consists of a random, national sample
of 1,648 American adults. The survey utilized a mixed-mode sampling design consisting of
two phases. This resulted in a total of 3,500 individuals screened (1,000 in phase 1 ? 2,500
in phase 2) with 2,460 possible respondents (624 from phase 1 ? 1,836 from phase 2).
A total of 1,648 questionnaires were returned resulting in a response rate of 47% (1,648/
3,500) among all individuals screened and 67% (1,648/2,460) for those who agreed to
receive a mailed survey.1 The BRS compares favorably to the General Social Survey on
many important measures including religious affiliation, church attendance, and belief in
God (see Bader et al. 2007). The BRS contains demographic, attitudinal, and image of God
measures that allow us to build upon previous studies.
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Dependent Variable
A subjective sense of meaning is defined as an individuals feelings of direction or purpose
in life (Klinger 1977; Park 2005b). Though many studies that focus on sense of meaning in
life combine several factors, it is also important to consider particular facets of meaning,
especially a sense of purpose, because of its relation to well-being outcomes (Damon et al.
2003; Kiang and Fuligni 2009; Krause 2009b). The dependent variable in the present study
measures whether or not the respondent strongly agrees with the statement My life has a
real purpose. Twenty-nine percent of respondents strongly agreed (strongly agree = 1,
else = 0). Original variable coding is: strongly agree (28.7%), agree (54.9%), undecided
(6.1%), disagree (9.1%), and strongly disagree (1.1%). Results of cumulative logistic
regression using this five-point response variable coding scheme support the findings
discussed below; the standardized coefficient for belief in a loving God ranks as the largest
in the model. We present results (Table 2) using a dichotomous response variable in order
to focus on persons most certain about their sense of purpose in life.
3.2.2 Key Independent Variable
Our key independent variable is a composite measure of images of a loving God. The BRS
asked respondents, How well do you feel that each of the following words describe God
in your opinion? The four views of God used to create the loving God measure were
Forgiving, Friendly, Kind, and Loving. Possible responses included, Very
well, Somewhat well, Undecided, Not very well, and Not at all. Factor loadings
1

Recent analyses indicate that the precision of parameter estimates using sample data are minimally related
to response rates (American Association for Public Opinion Research 2008; Singer 2006). Nonetheless, the
BRS response rate is within the normal parameters for recent RDD samples.

123

30

S. Stroope et al.

for all items are above 0.92 and the resulting scale has a Cronbachs alpha of 0.95.
The distribution is bimodal, with close to 58% of respondents reporting that all four
adjectives describe God Very well. Therefore, we create a dummy variable where
1 = all four adjectives describe God very well, and 0 = all other responses. This coding
scheme is consistent with past research employing a composite measure of loving God
imagery (see Mencken et al. 2009).
3.2.3 Religion Controls
We control for several religious factors to help identify the independent effects of our key
variable. First, congregation-based social immersion is an important dimension of religion
(Stroope 2011a, b, c), is an indicator of religious belonging (Stroope 2012) and is associated with a variety of well-being and health outcomes, both among older adults (Krause
2008) and the general population (Lim and Putnam 2010). Therefore we include a measure
that asks how many of a respondents friends attend the respondents congregation. This is
a five point item ranging from none (1) to all (5) (Stroope 2011d). We control for
frequency of attendance at worship services due to its positive influence on sense of
meaning in past research (Krause 2003) (range is 0 never to 8 several times a week).
We also control for frequency of prayer, a personal religious behavior that has also been
considered a possible mechanism linking religiosity and health outcomes. This measure
ranges from never (0) to several times a day (5). Religious tradition is measured using
the RELTRAD typology (Steensland et al. 2000). Individuals are divided into seven different religious traditions: Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Black Protestant,
Catholic, Jewish, Other, and no religious tradition.2
3.2.4 Demographic Controls
Marital and employment statuses are controlled due to their relationship to meaning in life
(Debats 1999). We control for the influence of employment status using a series of
dichotomous variables with employed persons serving as the contrast category. Other
categories are homemaker, student, unemployed, and retired. Marital status is a
dichotomous measure where married = 1 and all others = 0. Additional controls
include gender (female = 1), race (nonwhite = 1), income ($10,000 or less, $10,001
$20,000, $20,001$35,000, $35,001$50,000, $50,001$100,000, $100,001$150,000,
and greater than $150,000), education (8th or less, 912th no diploma, high school
graduate, some college, trade/technical/vocational training, college graduate, postgraduate
work/degree), and age (in years). Missing values on income (6.7%) were assigned mean
income. Otherwise we handle missing values with listwise deletion. Table 1 presents
descriptive statistics.
3.3 Analytic Strategy
We first display bivariate correlations between the sense of purpose measure, the loving
God composite measure, and the demographic and religion control variables. We then
employ binary logistic regression in all multivariate analyses. The analyses are divided into
three separate models. Model 1 includes each of the demographic measures as well as
2

In order to more precisely locate respondents within religious traditions, the affiliation of the respondents
congregation was also taken into account (see Dougherty et al. 2007).

123

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

31

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Mean/percentage

SD

Min

Max

1
1

Dependent variable
Sense of meaning in life

28.72%

Independent variables
Female

52.98%

Nonwhite

2.86%

Income

4.31

1.54

47.35

16.82

18

96

4.29

1.53

62.40%

1
1

Age
Educational attainment
Married
Employment status
Employed

71.07%

Homemaker

8.92%

Student

3.00%

Unemployed
Retired

9.04%

17.04%

Religious tradition
Evangelical Protestant
Black Protestant

33.09%

4.79%

Mainline Protestant

20.69%

Catholic

22.14%

Jewish

1.90%

Other

6.06%

None

11.34%

Prayer

3.06

1.78

Church attendance

3.74

2.93

1.99

1.05

Congregational friends
Loving God

58.44%

Data are weighted

religious affiliation. Model 2 includes the religious measures (prayer, attendance, and
congregational friends) found in previous research to be important predictors of wellbeing. The final model introduces the composite measure of loving God imagery. We are
interested in substantive significance in addition to statistical significance and for this
reason we include the standardized effects for each independent variable.3 This will allow
for comparisons of strength of effects from one independent variable to another (Pampel
2000, pp. 33, 7273). We then compute and graphically display the predicted probabilities,
net of controls, of respondents strongly agreeing that they possess a sense of purpose,
comparing those who strongly view God as all-loving with those who do not strongly view
God as all-loving.
3

SAS computes standardized coefficients for logistic regression using the logit distributions standard
deviation (p2/3). Although interpreting coefficients for standardized dummy variables is difficult, dummy
variable standardized coefficients are useful in comparing their effects to those of continuous predictors (see
Pampel 2000, pp. 7273).

123

32

S. Stroope et al.

4 Results
The bivariate correlations for each measure included in the final analysis are available in
Table 3. We find that the loving God measure is positively and significantly correlated with
a sense of purpose in life. Similarly, many of the other religion control variables are
positively and significantly associated as well. More congregational friends, more frequent
worship service attendance, and consistent prayer are all associated with a sense of purpose
in life. To ensure that the bivariate association between a sense of purpose and believing in
a loving God is robust, we move on to multivariate models to account for the effects of the
demographic and religion control variables.
Table 2 presents the results of a series of logistic regressions. In model 1 we find that
women are more likely than men to report having a sense of purpose in life. In fact, women
have 63% greater odds of reporting a sense of purpose than men. Somewhat surprisingly,
race, income, age, educational attainment, and marital status are not significantly associated with sense of purpose in life. Students, as compared with employed individuals, are
much more likely to report having a sense of purpose. The odds of a student reporting a
sense of purpose are 4.33 times greater than the odds of an employed person doing the
same. Turning to religious tradition, we find that Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and the
religiously unaffiliated are all less likely than Evangelical Protestants to report having a
sense of purpose in life. Mainline Protestants and Catholics each have 49% lower odds of
reporting a sense of purpose, while the odds for the religiously unaffiliated are 2.17 times
lower than Evangelical Protestants.4
Model 2 includes religion measures that previous research has found to be important
predictors of well-being. We again find that women are more likely than men (by 41%) to
report having a sense of purpose in life. Race, income, educational attainment, and marital
status are again not significantly associated. As in Model 1, students are more likely (3.97
times greater odds) than employed persons to report having a sense of purpose. With the
inclusion of prayer, attendance at worship services, and congregational friends, the differences between religious traditions become nonsignificant. Increasing levels of all three
measures are associated with a greater likelihood of reporting a sense of purpose in life.
Model 35 introduces the loving God index.6 Fit statistics suggest that model 3 is preferred over models 1 or 2. AIC and SC, which take into account the number of parameter
estimates, can be used to compare different models. Models with smaller values suggest
better model fit. Additionally, using a Chi-square test, we find a significant change in -2
log likelihood values from model 2 to model 3 (difference = 109.26, df = 1, p \ 0.0001).
In terms of associations between variables in model 3, we find that the odds of reporting a
sense of purpose for those who strongly hold a loving image of God are over two times
greater than for all others. Inclusion of the loving God measure renders the association
between attendance and purpose nonsignificant. Based on the standardized coefficients, we
also find that the loving God measure exhibits the strongest effect of any predictor in the
model. The associations of prayer and congregational friends with sense of purpose are still
4

To calculate the percent change in odds for those measures with negative odds ratios, due to their being
bounded between 0 and 1, we divide 1 by each ratio. Therefore, Mainline Protestants/Catholics =
1/0.67 = 1.49; unaffiliated = 1/0.46 = 2.17.

The r-square in model 3 is on par with other studies in the images of God research literature (see e.g.,
Driskell et al. 2008; Froese and Bader 2008; Mencken et al. 2009; Unnever et al. 2010).

6
As an indication of model 3s performance, we provide the hit ratio ((correctevent ? correctnon-event)/
N 9 100 = 70.9%).

123

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

33

Table 2 Logistic regressions of sense of meaning in life on loving God imagery

Model 1
B

SE

Intercept
Female

Model 2

0.134

OR

0.34

0.41*

0.13

1.63***

Model 3
SE

0.096

OR

0.40

0.14***

0.14

1.41*

SE

0.070

OR

0.43

0.09***

0.15

1.29

Nonwhite race

0.036

0.45

1.47

0.047

0.46

1.63

0.058

0.47

1.81

Income

0.034

0.05

1.04

0.039

0.05

1.05

0.032

0.06

1.04

-0.072

0.00

0.99

-0.111

0.01

0.99*

-0.103

0.01

0.99*

0.000

0.05

1.00

-0.032

0.05

0.96

0.015

0.05

1.02

-0.006

0.15

0.98

-0.031

0.16

0.89

-0.036

0.17

0.87

-0.014

0.24

0.91

-0.015

0.25

0.91

0.135

0.38

3.97***

0.153

0.41

4.94***

Age
Educational attainment
Married
Employment status
Employed

Reference

Reference

Reference

Homemaker

0.000

0.23

1.00

Student

0.138

0.36

4.33***

Unemployed

0.014

0.25

1.10

-0.007

0.27

0.95

-0.005

0.28

0.97

Retired

0.041

0.22

1.23

0.007

0.24

1.03

-0.002

0.25

0.99

0.020

0.63

1.36

0.012

0.64

1.19

-0.001

0.65

0.98

-0.091

0.18

0.67*

-0.026

0.20

0.89

0.002

0.20

1.01

Religious tradition
Evangelical Protestant
Black Protestant
Mainline Protestant

Reference

Reference

Reference

Catholic

-0.093

0.17

0.67*

-0.060

0.18

0.77

-0.043

0.19

0.83

Jewish

-0.037

0.46

0.63

0.034

0.52

1.56

0.062

0.55

2.40

-0.015

0.29

0.89

-0.006

0.29

0.96

0.061

0.29

1.40

0.108

0.32

1.98*

Prayer

0.162

0.05

1.18**

0.120

0.06

1.13*

Church attendance

0.117

0.03

1.07*

0.093

0.04

1.06

Congregational friends

0.165

0.08

1.33***

0.146

0.08

1.29**

0.202

0.17

2.10***

Other

-0.012

0.27

0.91

None

-0.140

0.23

0.46***

Loving God
-2 Log-likelihood

1525.124

1360.668

1251.405

AIC

1559.124

1400.668

1293.405

SC

1647.77

1503.334

1399.439

R-square
N

0.066
1,359

0.140
1,253

0.154
1,152

Data are weighted

Standarized coefficients, standard errors, and odds ratios reported
AIC Akaike information criterion, SC Schwarz criterion
* p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001 (two-tailed tests)

statistically significant, although somewhat diminished. The final model also shows that the
odds for the religiously unaffiliated reporting a sense of purpose are almost two times
greater than the odds for Evangelical Protestants. We find that students are still more likely
than employed persons (4.94 times greater odds) to report a sense of purpose in life. The
difference between men and women found in model 2 becomes non-significant in model 3.

123

34

S. Stroope et al.

Fig. 1 Predicted probabilities of sense of meaning in life by loving God imagery

Again, there appear to be no significant relationships between reporting a sense of purpose

and race, income, education level, or marital status.7
Figure 1 displays the predicted probabilities for respondents strongly agreeing that their
lives have real purpose by the loving image of God measure.8 The probability of individuals who view God as all-loving strongly agreeing that their lives have a sense of
purpose is twice that of those individuals who do not view God as all-loving.9

The association between loving God and sense of purpose is also robust to the inclusion of other
potentially relevant factors. Lim and Putnam (2010) find subjective religiosity predictive of life satisfaction
and Froese and Bader (2007) find authoritative God images (a = 0.85) and engaged God images (a = 0.88)
predictive of a variety of outcomes. We control for these measures in ancillary models. We also control for
an index of volunteering (a = 0.65), index of church activities (a = 0.70), index of community friendships
(a = 0.54), and friendships at work. None of these predictors reach statistical significance in the final model,
nor do they meaningfully change the findings presented here.
8

Predicted probabilities were calculated by setting age, prayer, and congregational friends to their means
and then solving for the loving image of God composite measure.

We are grateful to a reviewer for pointing out that with a relatively large number of categorical parameters
and some of the religion variables having moderate correlations with the loving God index, it is possible that
a problematic influence of multicollinearity may be present. While the bivariate correlations between
variables do not exceed the classic cut-off point of 0.70, another way of assessing multicollinearity in binary
logistic models is to inspect variance inflation factor scores from an ordinary least squares model (Allison
(2001). Using Allisons strategy, we find that the largest VIF score in the model is 2.32646 for the church
attendance variable. All remaining VIF scores are less than 1.88667. When attendance is removed from the
model, the highest VIF becomes 1.78683, and the effect for loving images of God retains the largest
standardized beta. Since such VIF scores are generally considered non-problematic, we summarize that no
strong evidence for problems associated with multicollinearity was found. Although several of our religion
control variables are correlated, we elect to retain them in our models for the sake of continuity with prior
research on the effects of images of God (Bader and Froese 2005; Bader et al. 2010; Draper 2008; Froese
and Bader 2007, 2008; Froese et al. 2008; Mencken et al. 2009; Unnever et al. 2010; Whitehead 2012,
2010). In each of these studies, measures of religious affiliation, behavior, and belief are included as controls
to ensure that the association between the dependent variable and the image of God is robust.

123

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

35

5 Discussion and Conclusion

This study examines the relationship between loving images of God and subjective sense
of meaning using a new national sample of American adults. Findings point to a strong
positive relationship between the variables of interest. In terms of standardized effects,
loving images of God compare extremely well with the other measures. Certainly, other
factors such as family dynamics, career opportunities, and friendships are also important
(Battista and Almond 1973; Debats 1999). In this analysis, being a student is strongly
linked to sense of purpose compared with being employed. Our findings also reveal a weak
but significant relationship between purpose and age, and a notable but inconsistent
relationship between purpose and gender.
5.1 Theoretical Implications
Despite other contributing factors, these data point to the independent influence of religion. Consistent prayer, worship attendance, and congregational friends all appear to
contribute to a greater sense of purpose. It is also important to note that unaffiliated
respondents have a positive association with subjective meaning after controlling for
religious behaviors, again suggesting the importance of multidimensional models of
religiosity. Here, the dimension of religious belief stands out in that images of God are
independently associated with the outcome. The association remains robust despite our
application of a variety of model specifications, including several control variables that
have been influential in prior religion and well-being research. We are unaware of any
other national datasets that permit such an assessment by offering a comparable variety of
religion control variables along with a measure of respondents sense of meaning or
purpose. Our findings support the claims of sociologists of religion that the effects of
religion are multifarious, and that beliefs about Gods character are uniquely salient to
mental health outcomes.
The results of this study contribute to the religion and well-being literature by clarifying
the relationship between religion and subjective meaning. As pointed out above, much
research on the relationship between religion and sense of purpose focuses on worship
attendance. Worship attendance persistently has been found to correlate with subjective
meaning, especially in studies of older adults (Krause 2003), though the specific mechanism in this connection is unclear (Krause 2008). Our analysis suggests that it may be
useful in future work to take closer account of the symbolic content that worship rituals
cultivate in the minds of participants. These rituals can serve as regular reminders to
participants that God loves them, providing mental and emotional resources for navigating
daily life.
5.2 Practical Implications
The findings from this analysis suggest practical implications. Hall and Lamont (2009)
write that certain aspects of culture, including religious beliefs, work to buffer some
individuals from negative experiences by providing an overarching schema through which
life events can be interpreted and made sense of. For example, Lamont (2000) conducted
in-depth interviews with thirty randomly sampled low-status workers in the New York
area, analyzing their destigmatization strategies, including their views of self-worth in

123

36

S. Stroope et al.

comparison to others. She found an emphasis on moral values to be a common strategy for
individuals to understand themselves as equally worthy in comparison to others, and
religion was freely used as an example of moral strength in this context. For example,
workers facing stigma due to their race or low socio-economic standing pushed back,
referring to the fact that everyone is essentially equal in worth because all people are
children of God (Hall and Lamont 2009, p. 159). Essentially, because of the low status
workers belief in God and the upright lifestyle emanating from this belief, they were
committed to the idea of being worthy people regardless of what middle- and upper-class
people might think. In this way, images of God may operate as important resources with
repercussions on reducing stress and buffering the effects of low self-esteem on well-being.
Some support groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, utilize a similar framework, with
an emphasis on finding support through belief in a higher power (Humphreys and
Kaskutas 1995). Research in this area demonstrates that religious belief increases the
chances of sobriety (Zemore and Kaskutas 2004) and is also correlated with purpose in life
(Crumbaugh 1977). Practitioners may find that it is not only belief in a higher power, but
certain conceptions of the higher power (e.g., a loving higher power), that increase individuals sense of purpose, likelihood of achieving and maintaining sobriety, and possibly
other salutary outcomes. Our findings suggest this possibility, but further research in
applied settings is necessary.
5.3 Implications for Future Research
Moving forward from this analysis, research may benefit from assessing the role of God
concepts in other aspects of well-being. We have focused on one particular God concept.
Others include images of God as angry/judgmental and active/engaged. If a loving image
of God helps individuals feel attached, cope with difficulties, and have a better self-image,
what are the likely effects if individuals conceive God as angry at them, or distant and
unconcerned about their lives? Other concepts of God, such as Gods perceived gender,
may also prove influential (Greeley 1988; Pevey et al. 1996; Whitehead 2012). For
instance, imagining a maternal or paternal divinity could activate cultural stereotypes
related to that divinitys level of available intimacy with the individual, and this could
potentially have additional consequences on subjective sense of meaning. Such findings
could be assessed with reference to respondents gender, as well.
At least three other strategies could be taken to subject these findings to further scrutiny
with additional data. First, this line of research might benefit from examining how images
of God change over time. The present analysis is limited by the cross-sectional nature of
the data, and conclusions could be enhanced by assessing how images of God fluctuate
and, related to this, whether sense of meaning covaries accordingly.
Second, although the BRS offers a rare combination of extensive religion variables and
an important measure of well-being, additional measures of well-being would serve as
useful supplements and provide opportunities for detailed comparison. While there is some
debate among psychologists regarding the strength of certain multi-item scales of meaning
such as the Life Regard Index (Battista and Almond 1973; Debats 1998; Steger 2007), use
of such a scale could improve the ability of these findings to capture multiple facets of
subjective meaning while contributing further to interdisciplinary discourse. Future iterations of the BRS, in particular, would potentially benefit from the inclusion of multi-factor
well-being scales alongside its cornucopia of religion items.

123

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

37

Finally, this research brings together three mechanisms linking images of God to
subjective purpose. Prior work on secure attachment styles, religious coping strategies, and
perceptions of the self all explicitly support this studys guiding hypothesis. These
explanations are complementary, and we therefore do not think it benefits research in this
area to leave them discrete. Although they are not mutually exclusive, however, the largen survey-based approach used here does not allow for clear assessment of their relative
influence. In other words, it is possible that any one of the mechanisms tends to account for
greater or lesser variation than the others. The best way to determine the mechanisms
relative influence would be through close observational analysis of several individual
cases, and we recommend this approach for future research.
5.4 Conclusion
Recent research in the area of health and well-being has highlighted the importance of the
relationship between religiosity and sense of meaning for the emotional and mental
resources available to individuals in coping with personal trials. Social scientists of religion
have shown that religion is a complex phenomenon with multiple dimensions. Improving
the precision with which we conceptualize and measure these dimensions permits greater
confidence in our theoretical assertions. Recognizing that mental health is a complex field
of knowledge, we present these findings as evidence that a specific way of thinking about
God is related to a prevailing understanding of personal well-being.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Joseph Baker, Kevin Dougherty, Paul Froese, and Carson
Mencken for their comments on this work. The Baylor Religion Survey is supported by the John T.
Templeton Foundation.

Appendix
See Table 3.

123

123

10

11

12

13

14

Educational
attainment

Married

Employed

Homemaker

Student

Unemployed

Retired

Evangelical
Protestant

Black
Protestant

Mainline
Protestant

17

18

19

20

21

Other

None

Prayer

Church
attendance

Congregational
friends

15

Age

16

Income

Catholic

Nonwhite

Jewish

Female

0.025

0.073*

0.119***

0.208***

-0.068*

-0.007

-0.028

0.028

-0.027

0.019

0.046

-0.016

-0.069*

-0.002

0.280***

-0.135***

-0.008

-0.033

0.004

-0.086**

Table 3 Bivariate correlations

-0.044

0.014

0.037

0.000

-0.021

-0.024

-0.039

-0.097**

0.648***

-0.036

-0.054

0.072*

-0.007

0.035

-0.038

-0.118***

-0.015

-0.102***

-0.161***

-0.046

-0.026

-0.088**

-0.036

0.033

0.117***

0.067*

0.061*

0.186***

0.045

0.080**

-0.088**

-0.062*

-0.026

0.079**

0.152***

-0.059*

-0.093**

-0.107***

-0.119***

0.562***

-0.024

-0.279***

-0.006

-0.345***

0.100***

-0.046

-0.119***

-0.228***

-0.033

-0.030

0.267***

0.389***

0.376***

-0.015

0.197***

0.097**

0.003

0.054

-0.022

0.057

0.064*

0.129***

-0.036

0.054

-0.003

-0.115***

-0.069*

-0.111***

-0.034

-0.111***

0.112***
0.077**

0.086**

0.103***

0.045

-0.118***

0.041

-0.014

-0.019

0.055

-0.092**

0.046

-0.017

-0.163***

-0.222***

-0.112***

-0.047

-0.085**

-0.018

0.060*

0.013

-0.040

0.008

0.014

0.001

-0.590***

-0.232***

-0.169***

-0.396***

0.083**

0.072*

0.093**

-0.040

-0.045

-0.024

0.066*

-0.073*

-0.040

0.068*

-0.133***

-0.092**

-0.056

-0.054

0.024

-0.005

0.028

0.030

0.087**

-0.011

-0.045

-0.023

-0.001

-0.076**

-0.053

-0.030

-0.082**

0.010

0.102***

0.066*

-0.002

-0.042

-0.066*

0.037

-0.011

-0.125***

10

0.153***

0.078**

0.053

-0.050

-0.065*

-0.056

0.066*

0.100***

-0.021

-0.060*

11

38
S. Stroope et al.

20

Church attendance

17

Other

19

16

Jewish

Prayer

15

Catholic

18

14

Mainline Protestant

None

12

13

Black Protestant

11

Retired

Evangelical Protestant

10

Unemployed

Student

Homemaker

Educational attainment

Age

Income

Employed

Nonwhite

Married

Female

0.066*

0.064*

0.264***

0.286***

-0.235***

-0.198***

-0.098***

-0.415***

-0.394***

-0.096**

12

0.121***

0.088**

22

23

Loving God

Sense of
meaning in
life

Table 3 continued

0.045

0.073*

-0.040

-0.034

-0.017

-0.071*

-0.068*

13

-0.031

0.021

-0.046

-0.108***

-0.166***

-0.139***

-0.069*

0.000

0.008

0.004

-0.175***

-0.147***

0.046
-0.042

-0.073*

-0.122***

-0.041

-0.035

16

-0.165***

-0.073*

15

-0.094**

-0.292***

14

-0.116***

0.013

0.050

-0.083**

17

8
0.125***

-0.385***

20

0.150***

-0.071*

0.615***

19

0.028***

-0.350***

18

-0.059*

-0.097***

21

-0.011

-0.021

10

22

-0.029

0.056

11

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

39

123

21

22

23

Congregational friends

Loving God

Sense of meaning in life

Table 3 continued

123

0.079**

0.251***

0.079**

12

0.055

0.086**

-0.006

13

-0.055

-0.105***

-0.005

14

-0.039

0.018

0.086**

15

0.019

-0.127***

-0.048

16

0.013

-0.003

0.045

17

-0.039

-0.275***

-0.266***

18

0.192***

0.421***

0.375***

19

0.206***

0.375***

0.585***

20

0.172***

0.244***

21

0.192***

22

40
S. Stroope et al.

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

41

References
Allison, P. (2001). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. New York: John
Wiley.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2008). Do response rates matter? Retrieved November
23, 2010, from http://www.aapor.org.
Athens, L. (1994). The self as a soliloquy. The Sociological Quarterly, 35(3), 521532.
Bader, C. D., Desmond, S. A., Mencken, F. C., & Johnson, B. R. (2010). Divine justice: The relationship
between images of god and attitudes toward criminal punishment. Criminal Justice Review, 35(1),
90106. doi:10.1177/0734016809360329.
Bader, C. D., & Froese, P. (2005). Images of God: The effect of personal theologies on moral attitudes,
political affiliation, and religious behavior. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 1, 124.
Bader, C. D., Mencken, F. C., & Froese, P. (2007). American piety 2005: Content and methods of the Baylor
religion survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(4), 447463.
Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of
Interpersonal Processes, 36(4), 409427.
Belavich, T. G., & Pargament, K. I. (2002). The role of attachment in predicting spiritual coping with a
loved one in surgery. Journal of Adult Development, 9(1), 1329.
Berger, P. L. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion (Vol. 1). Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of
knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor.
Bradshaw, M., Ellison, C. G., & Flannelly, K. J. (2008). Prayer, God imagery, and symptoms of psychopathology. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(4), 644659.
Bradshaw, M., Ellison, C., & Marcum, J. (2010). Attachment to God, images of God, and psychological
distress in a nationwide sample of presbyterians. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,
20(2), 130147. doi:10.1080/10508611003608049.
Branden, N. (1995). The six pillars of self-esteem: The definitive work on self-esteem by the leading pioneer
in the field. New York, NY: Bantam.
Clark, W. H. (1958). The psychology of religion: An introduction to religious experience and behavior.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Clements, W. M., & Koenig, H. G. (1994). Aging and God: Spiritual pathways to mental health in midlife
and later years (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology: Toward an explanatory science. New York: Academic Press.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Crumbaugh, J. C. (1977). The seeking of noetic goals test (SONG): A complementary scale to the purpose in
life test (PIL). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 900907. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197707)
33:3\900:AID-JCLP2270330362[3.0.CO;2-8.
Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied
Developmental Science, 7(3), 119128. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2.
Debats, D. L. (1998). Measurement of personal meaning: The psychometric properties of the life regard
index. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological
research and clinical applications (pp. 237259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Debats, D. L. (1999). Sources of meaning: An investigation of significant commitments in life. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 39(4), 3057. doi:10.1177/0022167899394003.
Dougherty, K. D., Johnson, B. R., & Polson, E. C. (2007). Recovering the lost: Remeasuring US religious
affiliation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(4), 483499.
Draper, S. (2008). Dogmatic Beliefs Regarding Secular and Religious Authority. Presented at the Annual
Meeting for the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Louisville, KY.
Driskell, R., Embry, E., & Lyon, L. (2008). Faith and politics: The influence of religious beliefs on political
participation. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 294314. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00533.x.
Ebersole, P., & DeVogler-Ebersole, K. (1986). Meaning in life of the eminent and the average. Journal of
Social Behavior & Personality, 1(1), 8394.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.
Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 32(1), 8099. doi:10.2307/2136801.
Ellison, C. G., Boardman, J. D., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). Religious involvement, stress, and
mental health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit area study. Social Forces, 80(1), 215249.
Ellison, C. G., & Bradshaw, M. (2009). Religious beliefs, sociopolitical ideology, and attitudes toward
corporal punishment. Journal of Family Issues, 30(3), 320340. doi:10.1177/0192513X08326331.

123

42

S. Stroope et al.

Ellison, C. G., Burdette, A. M., & Hill, T. D. (2009). Blessed assurance: Religion, anxiety, and tranquility
among US adults. Social Science Research, 38(3), 656667.
Flannelly, K. J., Galek, K., Ellison, C. G., & Koenig, H. G. (2009). Beliefs about God, psychiatric symptoms, and evolutionary psychiatry. Journal of Religion and Health, 49(2), 246261. doi:10.1007/
s10943-009-9244-z.
Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York:
Random House.
Francis, L. J. (2005). God Images and self-esteem: A study among 1118 year-olds. Research in the Social
Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 105121.
Froese, P., & Bader, C. D. (2007). God in America: Why theology is not simply the concern of philosophers.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(4), 465481.
Froese, P., & Bader, C. D. (2008). Unraveling religious worldviews: The relationship between images of god
and political ideology in a cross-cultural analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 49(4), 689718.
Froese, P., & Bader, C. D. (2010). Americas four Gods: What we say about God and what that says about
us. New York: Oxford University Press.
Froese, P., Bader, C., & Smith, B. (2008). Political tolerance and Gods wrath in the United States.
Sociology of Religion, 69(1), 2944. doi:10.1093/socrel/69.1.29.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1968). The conceptualization of God as seen in adjective ratings. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 7(1), 5664. doi:10.2307/1385110.
Granqvist, P., & Hagekull, B. (2001). Seeking security in the new age: On attachment and emotional
compensation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(3), 527545.
Greeley, A. M. (1988). Evidence that a maternal image of God correlates with liberal politics. Sociology and
Social Research, 72(3), 150154.
Greeley, A. (1996). Religion as poetry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Greeley, A., & Hout, M. (2006). Happiness and lifestyle among conservative Christians. The truth about
conservative Christians (pp. 150161). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hadaway, C. K. (1978). Life satisfaction and religion: A reanalysis. Social Forces, 57(2), 636643. doi:
10.2307/2577686.
Hall, P. A., & Lamont, M. (2009). Successful societies: How institutions and culture affect health. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close
relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 122.
Humphreys, K., & Kaskutas, L. A. (1995). World views of alcoholics anonymous, women for sobriety, and
adult children of alcoholics/al-anon mutual help groups. Addiction Research & Theory, 3(3), 231243.
Idler, E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K., Krause, N., Ory, M. G., et al. (2003). Measuring
multiple dimensions of religion and spirituality for health research. Research on Aging, 25(4),
327365.
Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2005). Gender, religiosity, and reactions to strain among African Americans.
The Sociological Quarterly, 46(2), 323357. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00015.x.
Kellstedt, L., Green, J., Guth, J., & Smidt, C. (1996). Grasping the essentials: The social embodiment of religion
and political behavior. In J. Green, J. Guth, C. Smidt, & L. Kellstedt (Eds.), Religion and the culture wars:
Dispatches from the front (pp. 174192). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Meaning in life as a mediator of ethnic identity and adjustment among
adolescents from Latin, Asian, and European American backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(11), 12531264. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9475-z.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion (1st ed.). New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentives in peoples lives. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Krause, N. (2003). Religious meaning and subjective well-being in late life. The Journals of Gerontology:
Series B, 58(3), S160.
Krause, N. (2004). Stressors arising in highly valued roles, meaning in life, and the physical health status of
older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(5),
S287S297.
Krause, N. (2007a). Evaluating the stress-buffering function of meaning in life among older people. Journal
of Aging and Health, 19(5), 792812. doi:10.1177/0898264307304390.
Krause, N. (2007b). Longitudinal study of social support and meaning in life. Psychology and Aging, 22(3),
456469. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.456.

123

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

43

Krause, N. (2008). The social foundation of religious meaning in life. Research on Aging, 30(4), 395427.
doi:10.1177/0164027508316619.
Krause, N. (2009a). Meaning in life and mortality. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(4), 517527.
Krause, N. (2009b). Church-based social relationships and change in self-esteem over time. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 48(4), 756773.
Ladd, K. L., & Spilka, B. (2002). Inward, outward, and upward: Cognitive aspects of prayer. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 41(3), 475484.
Ladd, K. L., & Spilka, B. (2006). Inward, outward, upward prayer: Scale reliability and validation. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(2), 233251.
Lamont, M. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class and immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Levin, J. S. (1994). Religion and health: Is there an association, is it valid, and is it causal? Social Science
and Medicine, 38(11), 14751482. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90109-0.
Levin, J. S. (2002). Is depressed affect a function of ones relationship with God?: Findings from a study of
primary care patients. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 32(4), 379393.
Levin, J. S. (2004). Prayer, love, and transcendence: An epidemiologic perspective. In K. W. Schaie, N.
M. Krause, & A. Booth (Eds.), Religious influences on health and well-being in the elderly (1st ed.,
pp. 6995). New York: Springer.
Levin, J. S. (2009). How faith heals: A theoretical model. Explore, 5(2), 7796.
Levin, J. S. (2010). Religion and mental health: Theory and research. International Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies, 7(2), 102115. doi:10.1002/aps.240.
Lim, C., & Putnam, R. D. (2010). Religion, social networks, and life satisfaction. American Sociological
Review, 75(6), 914933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.
Mascaro, N., & Rosen, D. H. (2006). The role of existential meaning as a buffer against stress. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 46(2), 168190. doi:10.1177/0022167805283779.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Mencken, F. C., Bader, C. D., & Embry, E. (2009). In god we trust: Images of god and trust in the United
States among the highly religious. Sociological Perspectives, 52(1), 2338.
Nonnemaker, J. M., McNeely, C. A., & Blum, R. W. (2003). Public and private domains of religiosity and
adolescent health risk behaviors: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health.
Social Science and Medicine, 57(11), 20492054. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00096-0.
Nonnemaker, J., McNeely, C. A., & Blum, R. W. (2006). Public and private domains of religiosity and
adolescent smoking transitions. Social Science and Medicine, 62(12), 30843095. doi:10.1016/
j.socscimed.2005.11.052.
Pampel, F. C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Park, C. L. (2005a). Religion as a meaning-making framework in coping with life stress. Journal of Social
Issues, 61(4), 707729. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x.
Park, C. L. (2005b). Religion and meaning. Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp.
295317). New York: Guilford.
Park, C. L. (2007). Religiousness/spirituality and health: A meaning systems perspective. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 30(4), 319328. doi:10.1007/s10865-007-9111-x.
Park, C. L., Malone, M. R., Suresh, D. P., Bliss, D., & Rosen, R. I. (2007). Coping, meaning in life, and
quality of life in congestive heart failure patients. Quality of Life Research, 17(1), 2126. doi:
10.1007/s11136-007-9279-0.
Pevey, C., Williams, C. L., & Ellison, C. G. (1996). Male god imagery and female submission: Lessons from
a southern baptist ladies bible class. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 173193. doi:10.1007/BF02393417.
Pollner, M. (1989). Divine relations, social relations, and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
30(1), 92104.
Reker, G. T. (1997). Personal meaning, optimism, and choice: Existential predictors of depression in
community and institutional elderly. The Gerontologist, 37(6), 709716. doi:10.1093/geront/37.6.709.
Reker, G. T. (2000). Theoretical perspective, dimensions, and measurement of existential meaning. In
Exploring existential meaning: Optimizing human development across the life span (pp. 3955).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Roberts, C. W. (1989). Imagining God: Who is created in whose image? Review of Religious Research,
30(4), 375386. doi:10.2307/3511298.
Salovey, P., Rothman, A. J., Detweiler, J. B., & Steward, W. T. (2000). Emotional states and physical health.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 110121.
Schieman, S., Bierman, A., & Ellison, C. G. (2010). Religious involvement, beliefs about God, and the sense
of mattering among older adults. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(3), 517535.

123

44

S. Stroope et al.

Schieman, S., Pudrovska, T., Pearlin, L., & Ellison, C. G. (2006). The sense of divine control and psychological distress: Variations across race and socioeconomic status. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 45(4), 529549.
Silberman, I. (2005). Religion as a meaning system: Implications for the New Millennium. Journal of Social
Issues, 61(4), 641663. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00425.x.
Singer, E. (2006). Special issue on nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5),
639810.
Smith, C., & Snell, P. (2009). Souls in transition: The religious and spiritual lives of emerging adults.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, B. W., & Zautra, A. J. (2004). The role of purpose in life in recovery from knee surgery. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11(4), 197202. doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm1104_2.
Spilka, B., Addison, J., & Rosensohn, M. (1975). Parents, self, and God: A test of competing theories of
individual-religion relationships. Review of Religious Research, 16(3), 154165. doi:10.2307/3510353.
Spilka, B., Armatas, P., & Nussbaum, J. (1964). The concept of God: A factor-analytic approach. Review
of Religious Research, 6(1), 2836. doi:10.2307/3510880.
Stark, R., & Glock, C. (1968). American piety: The nature of religious commitment. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., & Woodberry, R. D. (2000). The measure
of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291318.
Steger, M. F. (2007). Structural validity of the life regard index. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 40(2), 97109.
Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: One link in the chain from religiousness to well-being.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 574582. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.574.
Sternthal, M. J., Williams, D. R., Musick, M. A., & Buck, A. C. (2010). Depression, anxiety, and religious
life: A search for mediators. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(3), 343359. doi:
10.1177/0022146510378237.
Stroope, S. (2011a). Education and religion: Individual, congregational, and cross-level interaction effects
on biblical literalism. Social Science Research, 40(6), 14781493. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.
05.001.
Stroope, S. (2011b). How culture shapes community: Bible belief, theological unity, and a sense of
belonging in religious congregations. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(4), 568592. doi:10.1111/j.
1533-8525.2011.01220.x.
Stroope, S. (2011c). Hinduism in India and congregational forms: Influences of modernization and social
networks. Religions, 2(4), 676692. doi:10.3390/rel20x000x.
Stroope, S. (2011d). Social networks and religion: The role of congregational social embeddedness in
religious belief and practice. Sociology of Religion. doi:10.1093/socrel/SRR052.
Stroope, S. (2012). Caste, class, and urbanization: The shaping of religious community in contemporary
India. Social Indicators Research, 105(3), 499518. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9784-y.
Unnever, J. D., Bartkowski, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). God imagery and opposition to abortion and
capital punishment: A partial test of religious support for the consistent life ethic. Sociology of
Religion, 71(3), 307322. doi:10.1093/socrel/srq046.
Whitehead, A. L. (2010). Sacred rites and civil rights: Religions effect on attitudes toward same-sex unions
and the perceived cause of homosexuality. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 6379.
Whitehead, A. L. (2012). Gender ideology and religion: Does a masculine image of God matter? Review of
Religious Research.
Wong, P. T. (1998). Implicit theories of meaning life and the development of the personal meaning profile.
In The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications
(pp. 111140). Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Zemore, S. E., & Kaskutas, L. A. (2004). Helping, spirituality and alcoholics anonymous in recovery.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(3), 383391.

123

Copyright of Social Indicators Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.