Religious Struggle: Predictors and Consequences [1 ed.] 9783737016414, 9783847116417

Citation preview

Beata Zarzycka

Religious Struggle Predictors and Consequences

With 60 figures

V&R unipress

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available online: https://dnb.de. Funded by the “Excellent Science” program of the Ministry of Education and Science, project number DNM/SP/512931/2021. Reviewers: Prof Dr Mikołaj Majkowicz; Dr hab Dariusz Krok, prof UO © 2023 by Brill | V&R unipress, Robert-Bosch-Breite 10, 37079 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-7370-1641-4

Contents

List of statistical symbols used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

1. Understanding Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The Concept of Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Religious struggle as coping responses to stress . . . . 1.1.2 Religious struggle as a state of religious tension . . . . 1.1.3 Religious struggle and religious and spiritual problems 1.2 Categories of Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Divine struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Moral struggle and religious doubts . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Interpersonal struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 Perceived as being under diabolical influence . . . . . 1.3 Frequency of Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

15 15 17 18 19 21 22 25 27 29 31

. . . . . .

33 33

. . . . . . . . . . .

2. Tools for Studying Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 First Measurements of Religious Strain . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Scales for Measuring Struggle as an Aspect of a Person’s Relationship with God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Scales for Measuring Struggle as a Style of Religious Coping with Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Scales for Measuring Struggle as a Psychological Strain . . 2.5 Scales to Measure Struggle in a Clinical Setting . . . . . . .

. . .

34

. . . . . . . . .

36 37 38

3. Predictors of Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Situational Predictors of Religious Struggle . . 3.2 Social Predictors of Religious Struggle . . . . . 3.3 Psychological Predictors of Religious Struggle 3.4 Religious Predictors of Religious Struggle . . .

. . . . .

39 39 40 41 42

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

6

Contents

4. Consequences of Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Religious Struggle and Mental Health . . . . . . 4.2 Religious Struggle, Somatic Health and Mortality 4.3 Religious Struggle as a Predictor of Growth . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

45 46 51 53

5. Research Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Theoretical Assumptions . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Predictors of religious struggle . . 5.1.2 Consequences of religious struggle 5.2 Research Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Study Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

57 57 58 60 62 64

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

6. Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Parental Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Personality Traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Humility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Research Problem and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3 Method of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 Parental attitudes, personality, and humility in the study sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 Correlations between parental attitudes, personality traits, humility, and religious struggle . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3 A regression analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92 95 113

7. Centrality, Post-critical Beliefs, Attachment to God, and Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 The Theoretical Context of Religiosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Centrality of religiosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Post-critical beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 Attachment to God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Problem and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Research participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119 119 120 124 128 131 135 136 139

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

67 68 69 71 72 77 77 78 86 87 88

7

Contents

7.3.3 Methods of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Centrality and religious struggle . . . . . . 7.4.2 Post-critical beliefs and religious struggle 7.4.3 Attachment to God and religious struggle 7.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 Centrality of religiosity . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Post-critical beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Attachment to God . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

142 145 145 156 166 172 172 175 178

. . . . . .

181 181 184

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

187 187 188 191 194 222

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

225 226 226 229 232 254 256 256 257 258 259 272 273

. . . . .

275

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

276 276 277

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

8. Religious Struggle and Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Theoretical and Empirical Context of the Study . . . . . . . . 8.2 Problem and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Study 1: Religious Struggle, Stress, and Mental Health: A Moderated Mediation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Research participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Method of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Study 2: Religious Struggle, Religiosity, Satisfaction with Life, and Sense of Coherence: Models of Relationships . . . . . . 8.4.1 Research participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2 Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.3 Method of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Study 3: Religious Struggle and Hopelessness . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Research participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.3 Method of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Religious Struggle and Mental Health in Difficult Situations 9.1 Study 1: Religious Struggle as a Mediator of the Depression-Illness Appraisal Link . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 Religious struggle in people with depression . . . 9.1.2 Problem and hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

8

Contents

. . . . . . . . .

277 282 294

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

295 296 297 298 299 302 309

10. Final Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Predictors of Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.1 Parental attitudes, personality, and humility as predictors. 10.1.2 Religious predictors of religious struggle . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Consequences of Religious Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Consequences of religious struggle in the general population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2 Consequences of religious struggle in a difficult situation . 10.3 Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

313 314 314 317 320

Summary: Religious Struggles. Predictors and Consequences

. . . . . .

329

Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

333

Appendix: Tables of statistical analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

363

9.1.3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.5 Discussion of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Study 2: Religious Struggle as a Mediator of the Centrality– Anxiety and Centrality–Satisfaction with Life Links in Homosexual Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 The concept of homosexuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2 Religion and the mental health of homosexuals . . . 9.2.3 Problem and hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.4 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

321 324 325 327 327

List of statistical symbols used

α β η2 λ Λ Φ B df LLCI DE TE IE F ULCI IMM k K M Me MS n p CL r R2 rnn rtt S-W SD SE SKE

α-Cronbach’s reliability coefficient Standardized regression coefficient Effect size measure in the analysis of variance Factor load Wilks’ Lambda test Discriminating power of an item Non-standardized regression coefficient Degrees of freedom Lower limit of the confidence interval Direct effect Total effect Indirect effect F-test of the analysis of variance Upper limit of the confidence interval Index of moderated mediation Number of items Kurtosis coefficient Arithmetic mean Median Mean square Number of units (size) Probability value (level of statistical significance) Confidence level Correlation coefficient Coefficient of determination Internal consistency coefficient by the split-half method with the Spearman– Brown correction Absolute stability coefficient (test–retest) Shapiro–Wilk test Standard deviation Standard error Coefficient of skewness

10 SS t xmax xmin z

List of statistical symbols used

Sum of squares Student’s t-test Maximum value Minimum value z-Test

Preface For all religious people, religion is indeed a struggle to comprehend their place in the scheme of things and what this entails for their relations with the world and others. Spilka et al. (2003, p. 15)

Religion is an important area of life for many people. News about religion appears regularly in the media. Religious issues are the subject of public debates and part of events that play out daily in families, communities, and nations, as well as those that occasionally shake our globe, such as the terrorist attack at the headquarters of the weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015. Researchers of social phenomena describe an increase in the importance of religion in social life, both in traditionally religious societies (e. g., the Arab world) and those considered secular in the twentieth century (Western European and North American countries) (Pargament et al., 2013). The importance of religion is consistently confirmed by survey results. The average percentage of believers reporting that religion plays an important role in their lives in both the United States and Europe exceeds 70%. In countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania, these rates are even higher (The Gallup Poll, 2015). However, polls cannot express the function of religion in people’s lives. They do not provide answers to the question of how religion is rooted in people’s deepest needs, how it responds to their fears, hopes, disappointments, frustrations, and the ways in which they try to understand themselves and the course of their own lives, from birth to death. People turn to religion when they seek comfort, want to satisfy a need for connection, give meaning to life experiences (Park, 2005a, 2005b), or cope with adversity (Pargament, 1997). The beneficial functions of religiosity are manifested in the formation of health-promoting behaviors and healthy lifestyles. Religious involvement fosters mental health and positive psychological states such as joy, hope, and compassion. It provides social support and facilitates effective coping with stress triggered by difficult life events (Pargament, 1997, 2007). The beneficial effects of religiosity, particularly in the areas of personal adjustment and health, have been confirmed in numerous studies conducted over the past decades (for reviews of studies see, e. g., George et al., 2002; Hill & Pargament, 2003; Koenig et al., 2001; Larson & Larson, 2003; Rosmarin & Koenig, 2020). The results have set the stage for therapeutic interventions that incorporate

12

Preface

faith issues (e. g., Gill & Freund, 2018; Knabb et al., 2019). This is undoubtedly a significant achievement for the psychology of religion. When considering the positive functions of religiosity, it may seem that it only serves as a resource – a source of comfort, support, life goals, and personal meaning. However, thinking about God does not always bring comfort and solace. When people believe that negative events happening in their lives are unfair and beyond their control (Kushner, 1981), they blame God and feel embarrassed about their belief in God, distrust, and anger toward him (Exline et al., 2011). Some religious people experience hurt from other believers or witness hypocrisy of clergy (Krause et al., 2000). Others try to live up to their religious beliefs, but those same beliefs lead them to condemn themselves when their efforts are unsuccessful. Some believers believe that they are victims of the influence of supernatural forces (Exline & Rose, 2005). Already James (1902/2002) pointed out that a spiritual orientation focused only on the positive aspects of religion is incomplete, if only because it does not confront the problem of evil and suffering. However, the so-called “dark side of religion” was neglected in psychological research for years. It is only since the beginning of this century that the issue has received systematic attention from psychologists. The term “religious struggles” has been introduced to describe a wide range of phenomena, with tensions and conflicts concerning matters of faith as their common feature. The source of struggles can be the relationship with the Sacred or interactions with other religious people, as well as the participants themselves experiencing religious doubts or moral conflicts (Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, & Pargament, 2016). Compared to the vast amount of research on the beneficial effects of religiosity in various areas of psychosocial functioning, health, well-being, and quality of life, the body of research on issues of struggle is relatively modest. There is a growing interest in this domain, but it is only recently that psychologists appear to be conquering this area. This is indicated by the increase in the number of publications on religious struggles registered in the Ebsco database. Between 2008 and 2016, 557 items were published in the field, an almost twofold increase over the 292 papers published between 2000 and 2007. It is noteworthy that the issue of struggle has received separate attention in such prominent textbooks on the psychology of religion and spirituality as the 2013 edition of the APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality and the 2013 edition of the Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (edited by Paloutzian & Park, first published in 2005). Recognition of the importance of the potentially negative consequences of struggles related to a person’s religious life led to the creation of a new category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1994, defined as “religious and spiritual problems.” This category includes experiences such as loss or questioning of faith, religious conversion, and questioning of spiritual values (Lukoff et al., 1998). In 2021, a very important

Preface

13

book has been published by Kenneth I. Pargament and Julie Exline, bringing spiritual struggles into the therapeutic arena (Working with Spiritual Struggles in Psychotherapy. From Research to Practice). Thus, one can conclude that the phenomenon of religious struggles has gained the status of an important construct in psychology, especially in the areas of psychology of religion and clinical psychology. Attention to the negative aspects of religiosity may bring more balance to the empirical literature and increase the understanding of the functional aspects of religiosity (e. g., Exline & Rose, 2005). The theoretical position adopted in this book is in line with the framing of struggles as forms of distress or conflict concerning religious reality. It has its origins in the work of authors such as Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1997) and Batson and Schoenrede (1991) and has been extensively developed recently by Exline (2013; Exline & Rose, 2013; Stauner et al., 2016; Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, et al., 2016). This research presents three types of struggles: guilt and fear of not receiving forgiveness from God; divine struggle; and interpersonal struggle. The purpose of this present research is to analyze the predictors of struggles and their consequences on psychological well-being. Three categories of factors were tested in the area of potential predictors of struggle: environmental variables (parental attitudes); relatively stable personality dispositions; and characterological traits that are the result of a person’s own activity (humility). The conducted analyses were aimed at verifying the assumed “hierarchy of causality” in these variables – parental attitudes, personality traits and humility – conditioning a high intensity of struggles, and then at searching for the mechanisms of these relationships. The range of variables conditioning struggles was expanded to include the phenomenon of religiosity. Three aspects of religiosity were considered: motivational; cognitive; and relational. These analyses will provide answers to the question: What type of religiosity increases the likelihood of struggle? Research on the functional aspects of religious struggles has resulted in a significant number of empirical reports highlighting the importance of struggles in the areas of personal adjustment, mental and somatic health, and quality of life (for the reviews of research see Exline, 2013; Exline & Rose, 2005, 2013). Previous research has been conducted both in the general population and in groups of individuals dealing with the strain of difficult and often prolonged life circumstances. The research presented in this book builds on previous findings in that it attempts to answer the question: What are the functions of religious struggles, that is, what is the relationship between religious struggle and indicators of well-being? The analyses were conducted in a sample of adults and in two groups currently under strain – among people suffering from depression and among men struggling with rejected homosexual inclinations. The novelty of the presented re-

14

Preface

search lies in the fact that it attempted to search for mechanisms of association between struggles and indicators of well-being. The book consists of ten chapters. The first four chapters present the issues of religious struggles: definitions and types of struggles; tools used to measure struggles; subjective and contextual predictors of struggles; and a review of research on the relationship of struggles with health, well-being, and quality of life. Chapter 5 presents the design of the self-report study and a description of the research participants. Chapter 6 contains the results of the research on the predictors of struggle – parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility. Chapter 7 presents the results of the research on the relationship of struggles with selected aspects of religiosity. Chapters 8 and 9 describe the relationships between struggles and indicators of well-being. Chapter 8 includes the results of research on the relationship of struggles with the well-being of healthy adults. Chapter 9 includes findings from two groups currently under stress: depressed individuals and homosexual men. The last chapter is devoted to a summary and general discussion of the results. This is followed by a bibliography and appendices. At this point I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have contributed to this work. I give my words of thanks to Mr. Professor Mikołaj Majkowicz and Professor Dariusz Krok – the reviewers of this book. Their insightful and valuable comments have influenced the present shape of the presented thought. I would also like to thank the students who helped me during the research presented herein and all the people who agreed to take part in it. I would also like to thank my relatives and friends for showing me support, keeping me motivated and helping me in so many ways.

1.

Understanding Religious Struggle From a contemporary point of view, definitions of religion are not expected to describe the very essence of the phenomenon, but are treated as proposals for capturing the concept within a specific context. Arie L. Molendijk (1999, p. 9)

This chapter presents the concept of religious struggle. It consists of three parts: The first includes the definition of religious and spiritual struggle; the second includes the characteristics of the types of struggle, and the third part presents the results of research on the frequency of religious struggle.

1.1

The Concept of Religious Struggle

Struggles occur when certain aspects of a person’s current belief system, practices, or experiences become the center of negative thoughts and emotions, worry, or conflict (Exline, 2013; Exline et al., 2014). These tensions can take the form of single, elemental negative emotions such as sadness, anger, or guilt, but can also take the form of complex internal conflicts in which a person experiences thoughts and feelings that are difficult to reconcile (Exline, 2013). The term “religious and spiritual struggle” refers to those forms of distress or conflict that involve religious or spiritual realities (Zinnbauer et al., 1999). Some struggles are more spiritual in nature, that is, they focus on a person’s relationship with God; others are more religious in nature, that is, they concern religious teaching, religious practices, or the dynamics of religious groups.1 1 The distinction between religious and spiritual struggles alludes to contemporary, intense debates surrounding the concepts of “religiosity” and “spirituality” (see Pargamentet al., 2013). Classically, “religiosity” is a broad and multidimensional phenomenon, encompassing individual and communal as well as personal and institutionalized forms of experiencing, structure and function, external and internal motivation. The concept of spirituality emerged in the psychology of religion in the late twentieth century, probably as a result of the interaction of two processes. First, religious institutions did not provide their followers with a “safe house” or simple explanations of how to live safely and deal effectively with problems such as war, nuclear threat, poverty, or famine. Second, there was growing religious pluralism and interest in Far Eastern religions that emphasized inner, subjective experience rather than institutionalized beliefs and practices. The emergence of the concept of spirituality led to a narrowing of the classical view of religiosity and a stronger polarization of the terms “reli-

16

Understanding Religious Struggle

However, in practice it is difficult to clearly demarcate the scopes of these two categories. Therefore, psychologists use the general term “religious and spiritual struggle” or interchangeably its abbreviated forms “religious struggle” or simply “struggle” (Exline, 2013). Additional terms, such as moral or divine struggle, are also used in literature to describe the nature of the difficulties experienced. The present book follows this principle.2 The definition presented here raises the question of whether religious struggle can be differentiated from other psychological constructs, particularly religiosity and stress. Does struggle simply measure the religious manifestations of ordinary psychological stress, or is this an expression of the religiosity of particularly stressed individuals? (Stauner et al., 2016). Previous research on the correlates of struggle has revealed that it shows positive associations with depressive symptoms, anxiety, anger, and feelings of loneliness, and negative associations with satisfaction with life and sense of meaning in life. Associations between religiosity and struggle showed a less consistent pattern of relationships. Stronger associations of religiosity were found with moral struggle and the belief that one is under demonic influence than with a sense of lack of ultimate meaning in life. In contrast, conflict or uncertainty in one’s relationship with God, religious doubts, or interpersonal conflicts about faith did not correlate with religiosity (Exline et al., 2014). A study by Stauneret al. (2016) shed new light on this issue. These researchers performed a series of analyses to revalidate the Religious and Spiritual Struggle Scale (the method is described in Chapter 2, section 2.4), as well as to assess the differential validity of the subscales of the method in relation to various measures of religiosity and stress. Analyses across the five samples (N = 5,705) not only confirmed the validity of the six dimensions of religious struggle and the total score as a measure of the severity of religious-related stress, but also demonstrated the relative independence of struggle from religiosity and stress. While the different categories of struggle showed varying patterns of association with religiosity and stress, in no case were these patterns so strong as to violate giosity” and “spirituality.” Some psychologists of religion began to emphasize the contrasts that existed between these terms. They associated religiosity with beliefs and institutional worship, and spirituality with following positive values, self-actualization, meaning, and authenticity. As a result, descriptions of religiosity emphasized formalization, objectivity, and connection to external structure, while descriptions of spirituality emphasized individuality, internal characteristics, and subjectivity (Zinnbauer et al., 1999). Of course, the boundaries between religiosity and spirituality are not as clear-cut as simple distinctions suggest, as many individuals experience their spirituality in the context of a specific religious tradition (Pargament et al., 2013). Some authors also believe that these phenomena interpenetrate each other. 2 We recognize that the terms “spiritual” and “religious” have a wide range of connotations and are by no means synonymous. However, to remain consistent, the phrase “religious or spiritual” is used throughout the book.

The Concept of Religious Struggle

17

the criterion for differential validity. Thus, it can be concluded that religious and spiritual struggle is an independent psychological construct, different from religiosity and stress. Within the psychology of religion, struggles are framed within two theoretical perspectives. The first one is the concept of religious coping with stress triggered by difficult situations (see Pargament et al., 2000; Pargament et al., 1998). The second perspective, which is the focus of this book, captures struggles as states of tension related to religious thinking, experiencing, and attitudes (rather than as reactions in the nature of religious coping with specific stress) (Pargament & Exline, 2022). Struggles also show some affinity in meaning with the category of religious and spiritual problems framed in the context of more general psychological problems and disorders.

1.1.1 Religious struggle as coping responses to stress Pargament described religious struggle through his research on religious coping with life stressors (Pargament, Magyar, et al., 2005; Pargament & Exline, 2022). These stressors can be sudden (e. g., an unexpected car accident or loss of a loved one) or the result of cumulative developmental changes (e. g., leaving the family home to go to college). Life events affect people not only psychologically, socially, or physically, but also spiritually. Those that challenge or threaten a person’s personal system of religious beliefs, practices, and values can be particularly disturbing because they threaten aspects of life that a person considers sacred. In response to life events, people attempt to maintain their religious values and beliefs or (if necessary) to transform them. In this sense, struggle is a special and engaging phenomenon, a way of coping not in the mundane, ordinary sense, but in its deepest form – when a person’s value system is threatened. Struggle is an effort made to preserve or transform the spirituality under threat.3 The process of struggle itself is characterized by the expression of suffering, anger, fear, doubt, and confusion (Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). A feature that distinguishes spiritual struggle from other religious coping strategies is the expression of spiritual stress or tension in the coping processes. Spiritual struggles can take many forms. Pargament, Murray-Swank et al. (2005) distinguished three types of spiritual struggle specific to adherents of Judaism and Christianity: interpersonal; intrapersonal; and divine struggle. The Christian Bible abounds with stories of conflict between families, tribes, friends, and nations. Examples include the struggle between Cain and Abel (The Mil3 Pargament uses the term “spiritual struggle,” thus emphasizing the aspect of religiosity that is related to the search for the Sacred (Pargament et al., 2013).

18

Understanding Religious Struggle

lennium Bible, 2003 Genesis 4) and the conflict between the Egyptian Pharaoh and the Jews (The Millennium Bible, 2003 Exodus 5:14). However, these kinds of tensions are not just a matter of the past. Modern people also experience negative interactions among believers, such as gossip, coteries, hypocrisy of clergy and believers, and lack of agreement on basic issues of religious doctrine (Krause et al., 2000). Such struggle may be experienced particularly acutely because it is inconsistent with the expectations formulated for believers. Interpersonal struggle should be distinguished from intrapersonal struggle. While the former describes faith-related tensions arising between an individual and others (another individual or a community), intrapersonal struggle describes internal tensions relating to personal religious beliefs. Intrapersonal struggle includes experiences of inner anxiety, questions, doubts, and uncertainties related to matters of faith. Many significant historical religious figures representing the Christian and Jewish traditions experienced doubt related to faith (Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). They are part of the story of Abraham abandoning his native land (The Millennium Bible, 2003 Genesis) and Moses leaving Egypt (The Millennium Bible, 2003 Exodus). Today, internal tensions and conflicts over faith also exist. As research findings suggest, believers admit to religious doubts (e. g., Hunsberger et al., 2002; Kooistra & Pargament, 1999) as well as fear and guilt about God (e. g., Fitchettet al., 1999). Religious struggle may also reflect tensions arising in the relationship between the individual and the Sacred. Examples include feeling angry toward God, turning away from God, becoming disillusioned with God, or believing that evil forces are the cause of negative events. Leading figures in the Judeo-Christian tradition did not hesitate to express their emotions or sometimes even anger toward God (The Millennium Bible, 2003 Psalm 22:1–2). It is the negative emotions toward God that have received the most attention in past research. Anger toward God has been the most common experience of people experiencing stress due to difficult life events (Kooistra & Pargament, 1999; Pargament et al., 2000).

1.1.2 Religious struggle as a state of religious tension Exline (2013) described struggles in non-coping terms, as psychological states, i. e., general perceptions, feelings, or attitudes rather than the coping responses to specific stressors. These tensions, even when they arise as a result of confronting difficult existential issues or as a result of general coping or coping with specific stressful situations, are more of an experienced internal state than a coping response (Ano & Pargament, 2013; Pargament & Exline, 2022). This perspective emphasizes the experiential aspect of struggles, which should be understood in terms of internal states. Prior research (e. g., Wilt, Exline, et al., 2021) confirmed

The Concept of Religious Struggle

19

the dynamic of religious struggle defined as psychological states over various time frames, such as “over the past couple of weeks,” “over the last few months,” as well as at the daily level. Religious struggle should be distinguished from certain problematic phenomena of religious and spiritual involvement that are not a source of stress or tension for the individual. Examples include egocentric or immature forms of spirituality that are perceived as problematic by others but are not a source of difficulty for the individual experiencing them. Members of religious sects may hold beliefs that deviate significantly from social norms. A person’s image of God may be viewed negatively by those around them. A person’s behavior may reveal inconsistencies with their religious value system. Although these situations may foster religious and spiritual struggle, they are not included in this category because they do not meet the basic criterion of being a source of stress or internal conflict for the person experiencing them (Exline, 2013).

1.1.3 Religious struggle and religious and spiritual problems The category of Religious and Spiritual Problems, as described in clinical psychology and psychotherapy, has similarities to struggles. For many years, practicing psychologists did not pay attention to difficulties related to their patients’ religious and spiritual life (Johnson & Hayes, 2003). It is only in the last few decades that these issues have gained clinicians’ attention. A landmark in this regard was the introduction of the category “Religious and Spiritual Problems” into the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1994 (DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Murray-Swank & Murray-Swank, 2013). DSM-IV provides the following description of the Religious and Spiritual Problems (V62.89): This category can be used when the focus of clinical attention is a religious or spiritual problem. Examples include distressing experiences that involve loss or questioning of faith, problems associated with conversion to a new faith, or questioning of spiritual values that may not be necessarily related to an organized church or religious institution (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 685) Psychological literature provides several perspectives for capturing religious and spiritual problems. One of these perspectives is a spiritually integrated psychotherapy proposed by Pargament (2007). It describes how an individual discovers, retains, and transforms experiences of the Sacred in their life. According to Pargament (2007), people typically seek to preserve or sustain the Sacred, especially when they experience stress, tragedy, or loss. An example of a religious coping method focused on sustaining the Sacred might be seeking spiritual support or making positive religious re-evaluations of the stressor.

20

Understanding Religious Struggle

When life events significantly violate an individual’s understanding of the Sacred, religious struggles may occur, triggering religious coping strategies oriented toward a change in a person’s relationship with the Sacred. Pargament (2007) identified two categories of spiritual problems. The first one is related to the category of spiritual goals, for example when personal understanding and experience of the Sacred is violated. The second one relates to the means by which these goals are achieved; there might be problematic issues – for example, those of moral right and wrong or the lesser good. Another view was formulated by Griffith (2010), who proposed that religious and spiritual problems can be defined from the sociobiological perspective. He described six processes that are rooted in human biology and social experience and are interrelated: attachment; socializing; kinship recognition (race, religion, and culture); social hierarchy building; cooperative tendencies; and altruism. Religious and spiritual problems arise when dysfunctions that occur in the course of these processes result in behaviors and experiences that are harmful to the individual or society. These problems can take two forms: one in which religious life is accompanied by distress (e. g., anxious attachment to God or discrimination in a religious community); and one in which psychological disorders (e. g., mood, psychotic, or anxiety disorders) permeate religious life (MurraySwank & Murray-Swank, 2013). Lukoff et al. (1998) created a comprehensive typology of religious and spiritual problems from a transpersonal psychology perspective. They included the following elements in this category: loss of faith or doubt in faith; changes in religious affiliation; religious practices or beliefs; new religious movements and cults; and religious problems associated with experiencing a life-threatening or terminal illness. Examples of spiritual problems include difficulties experiencing passing away and death, difficulties in meditation and spiritual practices, experiences of the influence of evil powers, and possession. Hathaway et al. (2004) introduced a new category to the literature on religious and spiritual problems – clinically significant religious impairment, (CSRI). This denotes “a reduced ability to perform religious/spiritual activities, achieve religious/spiritual goals, or experience religious/spiritual states because of a psychological disorder” (Hathaway et al., 2004, p. 97). In later research, Hathaway and Barkley (2003) identified types of CSRI that co-occur with specific psychological disorders. For example, attention deficit and hyperactivity may be accompanied by difficulties in focusing attention on spiritual matters, internalization and constancy of faith, and feelings of religious and spiritual alienation (Murray-Swank & Murray-Swank, 2013). Each of the conceptualizations presented also includes a discussion of the application aspects, that is, suggestions for strategies to address religious and spiritual problems – psychological and spiritual interventions as well as sug-

Categories of Religious Struggle

21

gestions for possible cooperation with clergy. This book adopts the religious struggle perspective proposed by Exline (2013; Exline & Rose, 2005; Pargament & Exline, 2022). It defines struggles in non-coping terms, as general perceptions, feelings, or attitudes rather than the coping responses to specific stressors.

1.2

Categories of Religious Struggle

Much research has focused on religious struggle as a general category (e. g., Magyar-Russell et al., 2014; Pargament et al., 2001; Rosmarin et al., 2014; Wilt et al., 2016). That approach has broadened our knowledge about struggle, but it does not capture the variation or specificity of its various forms. And with reference to content, struggle is characterized by variation. It may relate directly to God and express feelings of anger toward God. It can take the form of interpersonal conflicts in the community of believers. It may also appear as internal conflicts, religious doubts, fear or guilt toward God (Ano & Pargament, 2013). Sometimes struggle refers to spiritual realities representing the forces of evil and is expressed in the belief that humans are subject to diabolical influences and attacks (Exline, 2013; Noth & Lampe, 2020). This paragraph presents four categories of religious struggle (Exline, 2013; Exline & Rose, 2013). The first, divine struggle, is related directly to a transcendent object and includes negative emotions or conflicts related to beliefs about a deity or the relationship one has with a deity (e. g., Exline, 2013; Pargament, 2007). For example, people may fear punishment if they believe they have offended God (Pargament et al., 2000) or may feel anger toward God when they blame him for unjust suffering (Exline et al., 2011). Struggle related to the concept of deity is a type that has been explored empirically relatively frequently (Exline & Rose, 2013). The second category, intrapersonal struggle, refers to one’s thoughts, experiences, or actions. It includes moral struggle, guilt, religious questions and doubts, and ultimate meaning struggle (Exline et al., 2014; Pargament, 2007). The third category, interpersonal struggle, includes negative experiences with clergy, religious institutions, and other believers regarding matters of faith and religion (Exline, 2013; Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). The final category, which targets the dark side of religion, includes demonic struggle. This category includes the belief that human beings are subject to interactions and attacks by evil forces, and that negative events happen through the actions of evil spirits (Pargament et al., 2000).

22

Understanding Religious Struggle

1.2.1 Divine struggle Religiosity is “a relation with a superhuman being, in whom one believes” (Hutsebaut, 1980, p. 34). The central object of religion in the Judeo-Christian tradition is God “who has revealed himself as a person, someone with whom a personal relation is possible” (Hutsebaut, 1980, p. 34). What is important to the psychologist is how a person experiences their relationship with God. God can be seen as almighty, omniscient, and holy, as one who cares about human beings. The vast majority of people acknowledge that God cannot be seen or heard in sensory cognition. This lack of explicit cognition raises many questions about God’s existence, characteristics, and way of communication (Exline, 2013). Many human struggles are related to seeing God in a negative light – as indifferent, punitive, or untrustworthy. Two types of divine struggle will now be presented: anger toward God; and concern about divine punishment. 1.2.1.1 Anger toward God Every human being experiences suffering. Our loved ones pass away, disasters destroy our homes, we witness acts of violence strike at the innocence of a child. Attributional processes (Wong & Weiner, 1981) and attempts to understand suffering is a natural response to suffering. It is not uncommon for people to attribute responsibility for suffering to God, thinking that God caused or allowed the suffering (Kushner, 1981; Novotni & Petersen, 2001). They blame God for premature death, illness, accidents, and natural disasters. People also attribute responsibility for suffering to God when a direct human perpetrator of the suffering can be identified. Examples include the Holocaust, but also relatively more commonly experienced wrongs such as infidelity or betrayal (Exline & Martin, 2005). Sometimes attributing responsibility for suffering to God brings relief and even comfort. This happens when people are able to see meaning in suffering, such as seeing it as part of God’s greater plan for humans. It is not uncommon, however, for people to believe that God has wronged intentionally, that he has not responded to requests, or has passively watched while they have suffered unjustly. Such situations can generate intense anger toward God (Exline & Rose, 2005, 2013; Novotni & Petersen, 2001; Zarzycka, 2016). Research shows that this anger is stronger the greater the harm and the stronger the belief that it was caused intentionally (Exline et al., 2011). Feeling anger toward God is a common experience and a frequent reaction to negative events (Exline et al., 2011; Zarzycka, 2016). A survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center in the USA in 1988 has shown that 62% of Americans sometimes feel anger toward God (Exline et al., 2011). Polish indicators of the frequency of experiencing anger with God show a surprising

Categories of Religious Struggle

23

similarity with the American data. Research conducted on a representative sample of adult Poles showed that 67% of respondents identifying themselves as believers felt, at least sometimes, anger toward God. Only 26% of Poles said they had never felt anger toward God. The frequency of experiencing anger toward God decreases as people grow older (Zarzycka, 2016). Many people, especially those who are religious and maintain a positive image of God, believe that feeling anger toward God is morally wrong. From a study of college students who were asked to recall an event in which (they believed) God played a role, 50% of respondents admitted that the event triggered Divine Struggle (Exline, 2003). A significant proportion of the participating students (approximately 33%) rated anger toward God as morally wrong and were reluctant to admit to feeling it (Exline, 2003; Novotni & Petersen, 2001). Research on the importance of individual differences in predicting anger toward God has shown that the intensity of this anger is greater in individuals who are characterized by narcissistic self-esteem (Campbell et al., 2004) and anxious (especially anxious-avoidant) attachment to parents (Exline, 2003). Religious commitment, in turn, has been shown to buffer anger toward God (Exline et al., 2011). However, the same research suggests that high religiosity is associated with a strong belief that anger toward God is morally wrong. This, in turn, suggests that low anger toward God in religious groups may be due to a reluctance to admit to feeling it (Novotni & Petersen, 2001). Research suggests that positive emotions toward God do not preclude the possibility of experiencing anger toward God – these variables are rather independent of each other (Zarzycka, 2016). People can complain about God while remaining engaged in a relationship with God (R. Beck, 2007). A positive, stable relationship with God implies accepting some form of protest – in the forms of anger, questioning, and complaining – if this religious relationship is not satisfying (Exline et al., 2012). This is supported by a study by Wilt, Takahashi, and colleagues (2021) that analyzed conversation themes and patterns during religiosity/spiritual (r/s) struggles struggles. The study suggested both a variety of positive themes in expressions to God (e. g., gratitude) and imagined positive responses from God (e. g., unconditional love). Negative themes (e. g., imagined abandonment) were less common. When focusing on divine struggle, one’s perceived relationship with God may be disrupted. Arguably, as Allport (1950, p. 73) suggests, “the mature religious commitment is ordinarily fashioned in the workshop of doubt” (Exline & Rose, 2013). One of the more difficult results to interpret is the tendency observed in several studies (e. g., Exline et al., 1999; Exline et al., 2011) for nonbelievers to have higher rates of anger toward God. An understanding of this result can be sought by referring to the history of anger toward God as a path to unbelief

24

Understanding Religious Struggle

(Exline & Rose, 2013; Novotni & Petersen, 2001). Accurate interpretation, however, requires further in-depth analysis in this area. Research suggests that anger toward God has consequences in the areas of mental and somatic health (Exline & Martin, 2005). Associations of anger toward God have been observed with poorer recovery rates in patients undergoing medical rehabilitation (Fitchett et al., 1999). Frequent and prolonged experiences of anger toward God have been associated with indicators of anxiety, depression (Mickley et al., 1998), and low self-esteem (Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998). Anger toward God, occurring in response to a negative event (e. g., death of a child), co-occurred with a decrease in the strength of beliefs about the existence of God (Cook & Wimberley, 1983). Most of the data come from correlational studies. However, longitudinal analyses conducted in recent years have also confirmed the negative consequences of struggles regarding conceptions of deity. It should be noted, however, that the longitudinal studies used the Negative Religious Coping (NRC) subscale, which is a part of the Brief RCOPE Scale. Thus, struggles were captured as a type of response to the stress of a difficult situation. How do people deal with their anger toward God? Some research suggests that anger toward God decreases as time passes by, as God’s intentions are reevaluated benevolently, the meaning of negative events is discovered, and the belief that God has atoned for suffering in other ways is acquired. Some individuals resolve their anger toward God by concluding that God does not exist and abandoning religion (Exline & Martin, 2005). 1.2.1.2 Concern about divine punishment Some people fear that God is too punitive toward them and disapproves of them. They imagine God as a harsh judge or an unaccepting parent. Regardless of the religious beliefs held, depression or low self-esteem can lead to feelings of disapproval from God (Greenway et al., 2003). According to Exline (2013), some individuals experience difficulty accepting forgiveness from God on an emotional level, even if they are intellectually convinced that God is loving and merciful. For example, people may agree with the belief that God is forgiving because their religious tradition implies this belief, but their personal experience is that of feeling unforgiven by God. Such a “separation of head and heart” phenomenon could be an interesting subject of research, but quite difficult to capture with self-report tools (Exline, 2013). Divine struggle is the category most often explored empirically. In many works, when researchers use the general term “struggle,” they actually mean struggle related to the concept of God. For example, research on negative religious coping with stress has placed a strong emphasis on struggle related to the concept of deity. Five of the seven Negative Religious Coping subscale items of

Categories of Religious Struggle

25

the Brief Religious Coping Scale (Brief RCOPE) (Pargament et al., 2011) involve God: I wondered whether God had abandoned me; I felt punished by God for my lack of devotion; I wondered what I did for God to punish me; I questioned God’s love for me; I questioned the power of God (Jarosz, 2011). These items reflect a focus on God either in the form of anger or protest or fear of not being accepted, abandoned, or punished by God (Exline & Rose, 2013; Pargament, Smith, et al., 1998). Research on God image (Hall & Fujikawa, 2013) and attachment to God shows connections to struggle regarding the notions of deity. These notions may provide a perspective for integrating knowledge regarding religious and spiritual struggle, and consequently bring us closer to a better understanding of the processes that condition them (Exline & Rose, 2013).

1.2.2 Moral struggle and religious doubts Every religious system contains a specific set of obligatory rules to follow – a list of vices to avoid and virtues to develop. Research findings suggest that religion helps people behave in a moral manner and that religious interactions facilitate the development of virtues (Ano, 2005). Many people associate the term “religion” with unreflective or compulsive adherence to rules and rituals imposed by a religious institution (Hill et al., 2000). Exline and Rose (2013) point to two possible responses to this negative image of religion. The first would involve the formation of personal forms of spirituality and ethics (cf. Marinski, 2011; Streib, 2008; Zarzycka, 2009). Privatized forms of spirituality allow people to follow an individual value system shaped by a private code of ethics or selectively drawn from existing religious traditions. An alternative response may involve identification with a particular religious tradition combined with an emphasis on a personal relationship with God rather than rules and rituals. However, even the most personal ethical system or privatized form of spirituality contains some system of moral standards (Exline & Rose, 2013). Therefore, it can be argued that most religious engagements and forms of spirituality require some self-discipline in maintaining moral principles, and awareness of one’s own moral deficits can be a source of internal tension. This section discusses two forms of moral struggle: sense of moral imperfection and religious doubts. 1.2.2.1 Sense of moral imperfection and unforgiveness from God Moral struggle includes the efforts a person makes in trying to act in accordance with moral principles and feeling guilt when their actions do not conform to those principles (Exline et al., 2014). Confronting one’s own moral inadequacies

26

Understanding Religious Struggle

or character deficits is a source of internal tension not only when one feels fear of hell (Exline & Yali, 2006), but also when not accompanied by fear of punishment from God. Religious beliefs or practices may intensify anxiety and guilt as a result of personal moral deficits and limitations. Several studies have shown that the experience of forgiveness from God is positively associated with self-forgiveness, religiosity, and satisfaction with aging and negatively associated with increased depression (Lawler-Row, 2010; see Martin, 2008; Toussaint et al., 2008). A perfectionist approach to religious principles can lead to scrupulosity. Extreme levels of scrupulosity can take the form of obsessive-compulsive disorder. In recent years, some progress has been made in gaining knowledge about the determinants of scrupulosity (Exline & Rose, 2013). Bias and lack of objectivity in cognition, as well as general obsessive tendencies, are considered predictors of scrupulosity in clinical samples (Nelson et al., 2006). In nonclinical samples, scrupulosity has been conditioned by anxiety and aversive emotional responses to stimuli of moral significance (Olatunji et al., 2005). In his study, Rose (2010, after Exline & Rose, 2013) asked students to recall unwanted thoughts about interpersonal aggression and rated the intensity of distress elicited by these thoughts. Results revealed that distress associated with unwanted thoughts was positively related to the frequency of religious behavior in the female group. This gender-related relationship between religious activity and stress was explained by two factors. First, in both women and men, religious involvement was positively related to the tendency to overestimate the importance of thought content. Second, in women only, religious commitment was a predictor of a stronger belief that unwanted aggressive thoughts are a threat to a nonaggressive self-image. Stronger stress was, in turn, predicted by a tendency to overestimate the importance of thought content and by the belief that unwanted aggressive thoughts are a challenge to a nonaggressive self-concept. 1.2.2.2 Religious doubts Religious people experience internal tensions in situations where they struggle with doubts and questions about their religious beliefs – for example, when they become aware of inconsistencies between their personal beliefs and the claims made in religious doctrine. Attempts to maintain long-held beliefs can fail when people are exposed to new ideas and conflicting information (Exline, 2013). Religious doubts also arise as a result of negative life events that raise questions about the causes of events. The search for answers to the question, Why? can lead to a conclusion in which the previous worldview is no longer seen as a source of satisfying answers. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1997) constructed a tool to investigate sources of religious doubt. It includes categories such as religious teaching and misconduct

Categories of Religious Struggle

27

by religious people (hypocrisy, intolerance). The research showed that religious doubts are, on the one hand, related to potentially positive characteristics of the individual, e. g., openness to experience, complex thinking, or development of identity. On the other hand, they may be associated with emotional distress and, for some individuals, a predictor of abandoning religion (Exline, 2013). Members of religious groups may also experience religious doubts (Krause et al., 1999). Religious doubts undermined the well-being of Presbyterian church members in the United States. The interaction between age, religious doubt, and well-being was also significant: doubt conditioned the well-being of young more strongly than that of older people. Among the oldest ones (over 80 years old), it had virtually no negative consequences on psychological well-being. Longitudinal studies have revealed different patterns of dependence. Hunsberger et al. (2002) analyzed religious doubts in college students over two years. In their first study, they reported significant associations between religious doubts and negative indicators of psychological functioning: low dispositional optimism and high depression. The severity of students’ religious doubts remained constant over the two years. However, in the second study (after two years), doubts did not correlate significantly with psychological variables. Although the level of doubt was the same, its negative impact on well-being decreased over time (Hunsberger et al., 2002). In short, we can conclude that struggles involving religious doubts are associated with poorer well-being and poorer psychological functioning – this pattern of relationship is reflected in the results of many studies. However, as the results of longitudinal studies suggest, this relationship may weaken over time. The category of moral struggle, while including experiences of guilt, feelings of unforgiveness on the part of God, and doubts of a religious and moral nature, is sometimes difficult to separate clearly from the divine struggle discussed earlier. The boundaries here are unclear because both religious guilt and religious doubt touch on the concept of divinity. However, moral struggle is more internal, intrapersonal in nature – the emphasis is on one’s own thoughts and actions rather than the perceived actions of God or others (Exline, 2013).

1.2.3 Interpersonal struggle Religious struggle does not always focus on a person’s relationship with God. In everyday life, religious problems can also express themselves in interpersonal conflicts and tensions. The category of interpersonal struggle encompasses a diverse range of phenomena, from negative social interactions within groups, through instances of corruption, to sexual abuse by clergy (Exline & Rose, 2005; Krause et al., 1998; Pargament et al., 2008). This paragraph discusses two types of

28

Understanding Religious Struggle

interpersonal struggles: disagreements about religious issues and offenses committed by members of religious groups (Exline, 2013). 1.2.3.1 Disagreements about religious issues Even when people agree on basic religious issues, such as the existence of God, they may differ in their acceptance of some of the detailed content of religious teaching or forms of worship. Such disagreements are sometimes a source of stress (Nielsen & Fultz, 1995; Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998). Given that almost any disagreement can be a source of stress, Exline (2013) formulated the question: What is the uniqueness of religion-related disagreements? One possible answer to this question might be as follows. Because religious beliefs are often central to one’s sense of meaning in life, their undermining has particularly momentous consequences. Moreover, depending on the degree to which people associate religion with the Sacred, they will view their religious beliefs and practices as sacred. In turn, those who appear to disrespect these beliefs may consequently be seen as committing sacrilegious acts (Exline, 2013; Pargament, Magyar, et al., 2005; Pargament et al., 2007). 1.2.3.2 Offenses committed by members of religious groups In religious communities, people hurt and offend one another. Dramatic examples are sometimes made public, such as well-known cases of sexual or financial abuse by clergy or members of religious communities. Blatant examples of hypocrisy, prejudice, and violence make people reluctant to identify themselves with such a religious system, and for some, even lead them to doubt the meaning of religious values. Wrongs committed by religious leaders can be particularly damaging: These individuals not only act as authority figures, but are also seen as established by God. Overshadowed by these drastic examples are ordinary imperfections, such as a tendency to gossip, pettiness, jealousy, or rivalry (Exline & Rose, 2005). The behaviors of religious individuals and groups committed against nonmembers can also be a source of struggle. These take the form of atrocities committed in the name of God or intolerance displayed by members of other groups. Sometimes people feel judged or stigmatized by religious people. Examples of struggles are also provided by stories of people entering into interfaith marriages or belonging to families in which children adopt beliefs different from the religious tradition in which they were raised (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1997; Exline & Rose, 2005). Research within social psychology indicates that intra- and intergroup differences often lead to favoritism of one’s own group, followed by discrimination

Categories of Religious Struggle

29

and violence (Tajfel, 1982). Individuals who belong to religious minorities may experience vexation, social exclusion, and even be the object of aggression and harassment. Such experiences have happened to gay and bisexual individuals (Halkitis et al., 2009; Schuck & Liddle, 2001). Research suggests that people are surprised to learn that beliefs or practices they consider sacred are not respected by others (Exline & Rose, 2005). These findings lead toward issues related to religious prejudice and religious violence.

1.2.4 Perceived as being under diabolical influence In common parlance, the term “religious experience” evokes sacral associations: images of mystical ecstasies, miracles, and sensations in which people feel one with God or the universe. Indeed, most descriptions of religious experience are positive in nature. However, they do not exhaust the whole truth about spiritual experiences. Many people believe that they are subject to attack, oppression, or even possession by powerful supernatural forces, but evil in nature, referred to as: Satan, demon, or evil spirit (Exline & Rose, 2005). This paragraph discusses two forms of such struggles: possession and diabolical attributions. 1.2.4.1 Possession Possession is a state of an individual or collective trance, proceeding with the state of limited awareness, combined with ritual activities, depending on the type of religion, beliefs, and customs. The key feature of possession is the episodic loss of a sense of one’s own personal identity and its replacement by a new identity, attributed to the influence of a demon, devil, or other evil force (Debbiec, 2000). In their comments, a person always refers to a specific demon or a spirit using the plural “we” instead of “I.” Stark (1965) used the term “diabolical causation” when referring to this type of interpretation in his taxonomy of religious experience (Exline & Rose, 2013). Since then, psychologists have paid little attention to this particularly dark side of religion. Much of the psychological literature on demonic forces takes the form of ethnographic or clinical case studies (e. g., Brockman, 2000; cf. Exline & Rose, 2013). Some authors view demonic attributions or possession-like states as the result of physiological processes or psychological phenomena, such as somatization (Houran et al., 2002). Other clinicians view oppression and diabolic attacks as a genuine source of stress and point to the need to distinguish symptoms whose causes are diabolic from more general psychological symptoms (Friesen, 1992).

30

Understanding Religious Struggle

When it comes to believing in the existence of the Devil, the results are surprising. According to a General Social Survey conducted in 1999, 65% of Americans admitted to believing in the existence of the Devil (after Spilka et al., 2003), but their specific beliefs about the Devil varied. Some viewed the Devil as an abstract evil force, others as a symbolic representation of the dark side of human nature, and others viewed the Devil in a literal way – as an active entity operating in the modern world. In a study conducted on a representative sample of Poles, 47% of respondents admitted to believing in the work of the Devil (Zarzycka, 2009). Interestingly enough, among Catholics, as much as 68% do not take seriously the question of the existence or action of the Devil, and in the most religious group of Catholics this is as much as 60%. 1.2.4.2 Diabolical attributions Whether or not people believe in demonic possession, many people share the belief that supernatural evil forces are active in the modern world. Some attribute responsibility for suffering and sin to these forces. Research shows that attributing negative events to the influence of evil forces is quite common (Krumrei et al., 2009). Krumrei et al. (2011) found that demonic re-evaluation was relatively common among individuals with a history of divorce. Among 100 respondents, 36% believed the Devil contributed to the divorce, 43% believed their spouse was influenced by demonic forces, and 31% believed they themselves were influenced by demonic forces. Such assessments correlate with indicators of struggle and adjustment difficulties (Exline & Rose, 2013; Pargament et al., 2000; Pargament, Koenig, Tarakeshwar, & Hahn, 2001). Both the Religious Coping Questionnaire (RCOPE, Pargament et al., 2000) and the Brief RCOPE (Pargament, Smith, et al., 1998) contain statements that measure demonic reappraisal, or the perception that the Devil is responsible for negative events. Some studies of religious coping with stress have paid particular attention to the function of demonic reappraisal. For example, in a longitudinal study of the association between religious coping and mortality, demonic reappraisal was a predictor of higher mortality rates (Exline & Rose, 2013; Pargament, Koenig, et al., 2001). Clinical psychologists have analyzed the role of demonic reappraisal in the onset of mental illness. Studies have found that mentally ill people believe demonic influence contributed to their illness. American Pentecostals identified demonic influence as the most commonly reported cause of schizophrenia (Harley, 2007, after Exline & Rose, 2013), and Pentecostals in Australia identified demonic influence as the cause of schizophrenia and depression (Hartog & Gow, 2005, after Exline & Rose, 2013).

Frequency of Religious Struggle

31

It seems that with an increasing number of people convinced that they have experienced the influence of demonic powers, an important question for psychology may be: How do people view, and what beliefs do they hold, about the Devil? Research undertaken to date has provided the insight that therapists view demonic struggles through three lenses: a mental illness lens, a psychological lens, and a supernatural lens. The mental illness lens uncovers serious psychological or medical conditions but runs the risk of pathologizing demonic struggles. The psychological lens can help identify background and situational factors that set the stage for demonic struggle and may encourage clients to consider the effects of a demonic struggle. The supernatural lens focuses on the possibility of actual demonic activity and involves some serious risks, especially around the practices of exorcism and deliverance (Exline et al., 2021). Beck and Taylor (2008a) analyzed the psychological functions of belief in the Devil. They showed that a strong conception of the Devil was associated with more positive experiences of God and a lower likelihood of blaming God for suffering. Similarly, Exline and Rose (2013) found that belief in Satan was associated with low levels of religious doubt. These findings demonstrate that the ability to attribute negative events to evil forces may serve as defense functions, making it easier for people to maintain faith by maintaining a positive image of God (R. Beck & Taylor, 2008b; Exline & Rose, 2013). Four categories of religious and spiritual struggle are presented: divine struggle; moral struggle and religious doubts; interpersonal struggle; and perceived as being under diabolical influence. These categories, while not exhaustive of the full range of potential difficulties a religious person may face, describe a broad and representative spectrum of problems. Three categories of struggle were included in this study: (1) negative emotions toward God exemplified by divine struggle; (2) preoccupation with own sin, feeling guilty and unforgiven by God, exemplified by moral struggle; and (3) negative social interactions surrounding religion.

1.3

Frequency of Religious Struggle

Religious and spiritual struggle is not an extraordinary, rare experience, but is a common one and a frequent response to negative events. Bryant and Astin (2008), based on a study of 3,680 high school and college graduates, found that 21% experienced tension when trying to understand evil, suffering, and death, and 18% experienced doubts about their own religious beliefs. Johnson and Hayes (2003) noted that 44% of 5,472 college students experienced religious struggle. The presence of struggle has been confirmed not only in college students (Hunsberger et al., 2002; Kooistra & Pargament, 1999), but also in samples

32

Understanding Religious Struggle

of non-student adults (Nielsen, 1998), hospitalized patients (Pargament, Koenig, et al., 2001), homeless men (Exline, 2003), and religious leaders (Pargament, Tarakeshwar, Ellison, & Wulff, 2001). Research suggests that religious doubt and anger toward God are the most common forms of struggle. A 1988 survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center in the United States found that 62% of Americans felt anger toward God (Exline, 2003). Similar results were obtained on a representative Polish sample. Research conducted in 2008 by the Bertelsmann Foundation suggests that 67% of Poles, at least sometimes, experience anger toward God (Zarzycka, 2016). Existing data indicate the presence of significant associations between anger toward God and demographic characteristics. However, the strength of these relationships is low. Women, young people, and educated people were more likely to experience anger toward God than men, older people, and uneducated people (Exline et al., 2011). American studies have reported differences in the frequency and intensity of anger toward God between believers and nonbelievers, with nonbelieving students admitting to more frequent anger toward God than their believing counterparts (Exline et al., 1999; Kampani & Exline, 2006). These results were not confirmed in studies conducted on a Polish sample – differences between believing and nonbelieving Poles were not significant (Zarzycka, 2016).

2.

Tools for Studying Religious Struggle

This chapter will present the tools applied to measure religious struggle. These have been organized into five categories. First, scales used to measure specific religious phenomena that are not explicitly referred to as struggle but contained elements of tension or stress related to religion and are the forerunner of the construct of struggle itself, are presented. Next, methods that capture struggle as a problematic aspect of a person’s relationship with God are presented. Further, methods for examining struggle understood as responses of negative religious coping to stress are described. The next step describes tools that treat struggle as generalized feelings, perceptions, and attitudes that are independent of specific stressors. Last, methods designed to measure struggle in clinical settings are presented. All tools presented are questionnaire-based, self-report methods (Exline et al., 2014).

2.1

First Measurements of Religious Strain

The concept of religious and spiritual struggle emerged in the psychology of religion in the early twenty-first century. However, various categories of religious and spiritual phenomena, of which the experience of stress or tension related to religion was an important component, had already been studied much earlier (Exline, 2013). Researchers’ interests focused on such phenomena as religious conflict (Nielsen, 1998; Nielsen & Fultz, 1995), alienation from religion and God, or spiritual “injury” (Lawson et al., 1998). Funk (1958) constructed the Religious Conflict Scale, a questionnaire containing 22 statements designed to measure religious conflict. This questionnaire was later developed into an instrument containing two subscales, one measuring positive religious conflict and the other, negative religious conflict (Trenholm et al., 1998). A well-known example of a construct that captures religiosity in terms of doubt and religious quest is the category of “religion as quest” proposed by Batson and Schoenrade (1991). The Quest Scale measures “the degree to which an

34

Tools for Studying Religious Struggle

individual’s religion involves an open-ended, responsive dialogue with existential questions raised by the contradictions and tragedies of life” (Batson et al., 1993, p. 144). The construct of an exploratory orientation is not homogeneous in nature but consists of two or more factors involving a person’s readiness to face existential questions without reducing their complexity, self-criticism, and openness to change (Batson & Schoenrade, 1991). A similar line of inquiry was taken by Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1997, after Exline, 2013) in constructing a tool to measure the degree to which various issues, such as evil and suffering, hypocrisy, and specific doctrines, trigger religious questions or doubts. In Poland, three methods for measuring religious phenomena containing aspects of tension or stress can be identified. The first is the Polish adaptation of the Quest Scale (Socha, 1999). Another method is the Religious Crisis Scale developed by Pre˛z˙yna (1971). Conceived as a short control scale belonging to the Religious Attitude Intensity Scale, this method contains six statements measuring a perceived change in a person’s religious life associated with an unpleasant state of emotional tension and doubt in the religious domain (Nowosielski & Bartczuk, 2011). Another tool is the Anxiety and Fascination Scale by Szymołon (2011), which allows the measurement of two aspects of religiosity related to experiencing anxiety. The Slave Anxiety subscale measures fears associated with perceiving God as strict, bossy, and harsh. The Filial Anxiety subscale allows the measurement of concern and anxiety related to striving to meet the demands of God’s recognized authority. The tools listed have satisfactory psychometric properties, but each is limited to measuring one specific category of religiosity related to the experience of stress.

2.2

Scales for Measuring Struggle as an Aspect of a Person’s Relationship with God

Some tools measure how people perceive their relationship with God. These scales, while not directly measuring religious struggle, capture various aspects of the religious relationship related to the experience of tension. For example, the Spiritual Assessment Inventory (SAI), which draws on an object relations theory, measures three types of people’s reactions to disappointment and conflict experienced in their relationship with God: Disappointment, Grandiosity, and Instability (Hall & Edwards, 2002).4 Another example is Hutsebaut’s (1980) Lived Relationship with God Scale. This method contains seven subscales describing 4 The method also includes subscales: Awareness of God, and Realistic Acceptance (Hall & Edwards, 2002).

Scales for Measuring Struggle as an Aspect of a Person’s Relationship with God

35

types of a person’s relationship with God and three subscales measuring formal aspects of religiosity. The following subscales describe types of relationships with God that include a tension or uncertainty component: Rebelliousness; Guilt; and Fear about Uncertainty. This questionnaire has a Polish version. It was developed by Pre˛z˙yna, and its psychometric properties were established by S´liwak and Bartczuk (2011). In the Polish version of the method, the Guilt subscale was defined as Anxiety. This adjustment was made after a prior analysis of the content of the statements and the finding of high positive correlations of the Polish version of this subscale with anxiety (S´liwak & Bartczuk, 2011). This change was discussed with the author of the original version of the method in 20045 and gained his approval. Scales to measure attachment to God types (R. Beck & McDonald, 2004; Matys & Bartczuk, 2011; Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002) also include measures of difficulty experienced in the relationship with God, reluctance to experience emotional closeness to God, and fear of rejection by God. The Attachment to God Inventory (AGI) by Beck and McDonald (2004) includes two subscales measuring types of attachment to God that contain elements of tension: Avoidance of Intimacy; and Anxiety about Abandonment. The Attachment to God Scale, authored by Rowatt and Kirkpatrick (2002), includes two tension dimensions of the relationship with God: Avoidance; and Anxiety. The Polish method, the Relationship with God Questionnaire, developed by Matys and Bartczuk (2011) contains the Anxiety subscale that measures the tension aspect of the relationship with God. These methods, although developed in different theoretical contexts, capture aspects of religiosity that are related to struggle. Methods to measure the affective dimensions of religious experience include Divine Struggle subscales. Containing nine statements, the Attitudes toward God Scale (ATGS-9) measures Positive Attitudes toward God and Disappointment and Anger with God (Wood et al., 2010). The affective content of prayer is measured by the Emotion toward God (EtG) Scale developed by Huber and Richard (2010). Both the original version of the EtG (Huber & Richard, 2010) and its Polish adaptation (Zarzycka & Bartczuk, 2011) include subscales of Negative Emotions toward God measuring the intensity of Anger, Fear, and Guilt as reactions to difficulties in experiencing God in terms of providence, holiness, and justice.

5 During an international symposium: Psychology of religion. Current research and directions, held in Dabrowica, 13. 05. 2004.

36

2.3

Tools for Studying Religious Struggle

Scales for Measuring Struggle as a Style of Religious Coping with Stress

Some instruments used to study religious coping have only considered the positive side of religious coping (Boudreaux et al., 1995; Carver et al., 1989). However, religious coping can be both effective and ineffective. Pargament et al. (2000) constructed the Religious Coping (RCOPE) Questionnaire to measure seven negative religious coping strategies. Examples include redefining the stressor as a punishment from God for the individual’s sins, expressing confusion and dissatisfaction with God’s relationship with the individual in the stressful situation, or expressing confusion and dissatisfaction with the relationship of clergy or members with the individual in the stressful situation. This kind of coping is a source of stress and tension. The RCOPE has a Polish version developed by Talik (2011) and adapted to the study of adolescents. The structure of the Polish version of the RCOPE differs from the original in the number of subscales and the number of statements in each subscale. The RCOPE also has a shortened version (Brief RCOPE), facilitating the measurement of two main coping strategies, which are a combination of personal and instrumental-specific methods: positive and negative religious coping (Jarosz, 2011; Pargament et al., 2011). Five of the seven Brief RCOPE items measure tensions experienced in relationship with God. The other two items capture tensions related to feeling influenced by an evil spirit (I decided the Devil made this happen) and disillusionment with the church (I wondered whether my church had abandoned me). There are separate versions of religious stress coping scales for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (Exline, 2013). The Content Scales which are part of the Religiosity Structure Test developed by Huber (2006) are also used to measure negative religious coping styles. These scales, although used since 2003 and confirmed in studies on approximately 2,000 representatives of different religions, are still in the stage of improving their reliability and theoretical accuracy (Huber, 2006; Zarzycka & Bartczuk, 2011, 2020). The last method that measures affective reactions toward God in the context of difficult life events is the Suffering with God (SWG) Scale. This method includes two subscales containing stress and tension items: Struggling with God; and Enduring with God (Webb et al., 2010).

Scales for Measuring Struggle as a Psychological Strain

2.4

37

Scales for Measuring Struggle as a Psychological Strain

Some tools have moved away from framing religious struggles in terms of responses that are negative religious coping with stress, and focus on generalized tendencies to experience religion-related tension. The Religious Comfort and Strain Scale (RCSS) is an example here. This method was first published in 2000 as a questionnaire containing 20 statements measuring comfort and strain originating from religion (Exline et al., 2000). This version of the method contained four subscales: Religious Comfort; Alienation from God; Fear and Guilt; and Religious Rifts. Several years later, Exline (2009), in collaboration with Yali et al., modified the RCSS. The new version of the method included 24 statements and five subscales: Positive Relationship with God; Benefits of Religious Faith; Negative Emotions Toward God; Fear–Guilt; and Negative Social Interactions Surrounding Religion. This version of the scale was, with the authors’ approval (private correspondence, February 17, 2009), adapted to Polish conditions (Zarzycka, 2014). Analysis of the internal structure of the RCSS revealed that the Polish adaptation contains four subscales – Negative Emotions Toward God; Negative Social Interactions Surrounding Religion, Fear–Guilt, and Religious Comfort – which was found to be unidimensional, in contrast to the original version (Zarzycka, 2014). In 2014, Exline, Pargament et al. published a new method, the Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale (RSSS). It includes six subscales: Divine Struggle (negative emotion centered on beliefs about God or a perceived relationship with God); Demonic Struggle (concern that the Devil or evil spirits are attacking an individual or causing negative events); Interpersonal Struggle (concern about negative experiences with religious people or institutions); Moral Struggle (wrestling with attempts to follow moral principles; worry or guilt about perceived offenses by the self); Religious Doubt (feeling troubled by doubts or questions about one’s religious/spiritual beliefs); and Ultimate Meaning Struggle (concern about not perceiving deep meaning in one’s life). The RSSS does not include subscales measuring religious support (Exline et al., 2014). The RSSS also has a Polish adaptation (Zarzycka et al., 2018). Work is currently underway on the psychometric evaluation of a shortened, 14-item version of the RSSS scale (Damen et al., 2021). Recent qualitative research confirmed that the themes emerging from open-ended descriptions of religious struggle generally fell within the broad domains of the RSSS (Wilt et al., 2020). Past research has also used tools that measure specific categories of struggle, such as negative social interactions in religious organizations (Krause et al., 2000) and interpersonal struggle related to religion (Ellison et al., 2009). Also notable is the Spiritual History Scale, which provides a subjective assessment of the cost of religiousness (Hays et al., 2001).

38

2.5

Tools for Studying Religious Struggle

Scales to Measure Struggle in a Clinical Setting

Some methods have been constructed for use in a clinical setting. The Spiritual Transformation Scale is a unidimensional instrument that measures spiritual growth and regression in worldview, goals, values, sense of self, and interpersonal relationships in the process of coping with cancer (Cole et al., 2008). Also, the Cancer and Deity Questionnaire assesses perceived relationships with God after a cancer diagnosis. This method, founded on object relations theory, includes two subscales that measure benevolent and abandoning God representations (Bowman et al., 2009). The overview of methods presented here certainly does not exhaust the entire spectrum of tools used in research on religious struggles. For example, it does not include scales for the measurement of cognitive aspects of religiosity that are sources of tension. For example, Exline et al. (2011) used a method measuring religious attributions in their study of struggle. Ten items described cruelty attributions (e. g., God wanted to hurt me; had betrayed me; wanted to see me suffer), and another nine described attributions of kind intent (God cared for me; was protecting me; was trying to help me grow). This method has been translated into Polish and has been used in studies of religious groups in Poland (Pietruszka et al., 2014). Certainly, however, the presented review of methods indicates the complexity and heterogeneity of the research technique used in the study of religious struggle. The proposed way of organizing the existing tools into five categories is conventional in nature, and its purpose is to make it easier to navigate a rather heterogeneous workshop. In contemporary empirical research, issues of struggle are generally explored using measures developed by Exline and her colleagues (Exline et al., 2000, 2014) and with scales that measure struggle as negative religious coping with life stressors (Pargament et al., 2000, 2011). Other methods are used within independent theoretical perspectives – the attachment theory and the object relations theory.

3.

Predictors of Religious Struggle

Researchers addressing religious struggle have noted the importance of situational, social, subjective, and religious factors in predicting struggle (Ano & Pargament, 2013). People may feel anger toward God, for example, in response to experienced suffering, injustice, or personal disappointments and failures. Struggles may be related to a developmental stage or a person’s particular psychological sensitivity. Finally, certain characteristics of religiosity may promote the experience of struggle. This chapter reviews research findings on the contextual and subjective predictors of religious/spiritual (r/s) struggle.

3.1

Situational Predictors of Religious Struggle

According to the Judeo-Christian tradition, the source of r/s struggles is confronting difficult life events. The story of Job, described in the Bible, serves as a classic example. Having lost his material possessions, learned of the death of his own children, and lost his health, Job felt a strong divine struggle, struggled with doubts about the existence of justice in the world, and experienced strained relationships with friends (Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). Psychological research consistently confirms that religious struggle often occurs in the context of stressful life events. Pargament, Murray-Swanket al. (2005) cite research conducted by Brenner (1980) on 708 Jewish Holocaust survivors. According to this study, 38% of the respondents who meticulously adhered to the principles of Judaism prior to the Holocaust abandoned their observance after being saved. One participant gave the following explanation: I used to have a very personal, intimate relationship with God. I thought everything I did and every move I made God knew and was right there and He was participating in my life every step of the way…. . . That’s the kind of person I was, and that’s how observant I was then. Then the Nazis came, and where did He go? God was no longer near me. Disappeared. And I am no longer the person I was (Brenner, 1980, pp. 67–68 for: Pargament, Murray-Swank et al., 2005, p. 251).

40

Predictors of Religious Struggle

Stress occurs in response to negative circumstances and life events that unexpectedly threaten or shatter a person’s previous way of life. Johnson and Hayes (2003) demonstrated that among college students, relatively common contexts of religious stress include confusion about worldview issues and value crises, loss of interpersonal relationships, sexual abuse, homesickness, and suicidal thoughts and tendencies (see also Fallot & Heckman, 2005). Ano and Pargament (2013) noted that people are prone to religious struggle when they evaluate life events as highly stressful and having a negative impact on their life (see also Wilt, Evans, et al., 2019). Other studies have shown that negative evaluations of events lead to divine struggle because they significantly violate beliefs about the goodness of God and the meaningfulness of the world (Exline et al., 2011; Janoff-Bulman, 1989). Trevino and co-authors (2019) examined factors that cushion or exacerbate the effects of stressful life events on religious struggle. They indicated that some domains of an indiviual’s orienting system can magnify the relationship between stressful life events and religious struggle. The results indicated that emotional (e. g., anger), social (social isolation), behavioral (smoking status), and spiritual (insecure relationship with God) burdens moderated the relationship between stressful life events and religious struggle. Whereas cognitive (self-esteem, optimism), social (emotional support), and spiritual (religious hope) resources did not moderate this relationship.

3.2

Social Predictors of Religious Struggle

In the area of social variables, social support and family problems are significant predictors of religious struggle (McConnell et al., 2006). Lack of or insufficient social support promotes the use of negative religious coping strategies (McConnell et al., 2006). Bryant and Astin (2008) compared several environments in terms of their likelihood of generating religious struggle. The results suggest that students at religious, evangelical, and Catholic colleges, and other institutions associated with Christian churches, are more likely to experience religious struggle than students at public schools. This is likely a result of the emphasis an institution places on religion. If students are encouraged to take on difficult spiritual issues in class or interact with peers, e. g., about the appropriateness of life to the demands of faith, it can create tension and stress. Interestingly, psychology students were also more likely to experience religious struggle more often compared to students in other majors. This may be because psychology encourages introspection and raising questions about the relationship between body, mind, and spirit. Stronger struggle was also observed in those belonging to minority religious groups. Being a member of such a group may be

Psychological Predictors of Religious Struggle

41

associated with experiencing challenges not encountered by members of majority groups (see also Pargament, Magyar, et al., 2005). Research has revealed that certain family problems may contribute to religious struggle and has provided insight into the mechanisms of these relationships. High parental authoritarianism, harsh discipline and conflict in the family, and a conflicted relationship with the mother promoted religious doubts in adolescent Protestants (Kooistra & Pargament, 1999). Problematic relationships with peers were predictors of religious struggle in public and private college students (N = 5,472) in the United States (Johnson & Hayes, 2003). Also, the presence of an alcohol problem in the family correlated positively with struggle (Szewczyk & Weinmuller, 2006). Exline, Homolka, and Grubbs (2013) looked for mechanisms of the relationship between struggle and experiences with parents. In two studies, they examined the relationships of anger toward God and concern about God’s anger or disapproval toward the self with perceptions of parents and the mediation of these relationships by seeing God as cruel and perceptions of an unstable, anxious bond with God. The first study, conducted online with a sample of 471 adults, found that a cruel God concept is a mediator in the link between seeing one’s mother or father as cruel with divine struggle. The second study, conducted on a sample of 300 college students, found that not only a cruel God concept but also a sense of instability or anxiety about abandonment in one’s perceived bond with God were important in predicting the link between seeing one’s mother or father as cruel with divine struggle. A correspondence between working models of parents and some religious struggle was further supported by other studies (e. g., Williams et al., 2019; Zarzycka, 2019). The latter’s study’ analyzed the associations of attachment to parents with different types of struggle. Avoidant attachment to one’s parents was confirmed as a predictor of divine, meaning making, and religious doubt struggle through its effect on seeing God as distant. On the other hand, avoidant attachment to one’s parents also predicted interpersonal struggle through its effect on the cruel God image. Inconsistent with the presented results, however, are the data obtained by Ano and Pargamenta (2013), who found no significant relationship between social support and loneliness with religious struggle defined as negative religious coping.

3.3

Psychological Predictors of Religious Struggle

Certain characteristics of the subject may promote religious struggle. Studies have found associations of struggle with some demographic variables. For example, young people experienced struggle more often than older people (Exline et al., 2011; Zarzycka & Sliwak, 2015), women more often than men (Bryant & Astin, 2008), and unmarried people more often than those with families

42

Predictors of Religious Struggle

(McConnell et al., 2006). It has also been shown that college students are particularly sensitive to experiencing religious struggle. This is because they experience a variety of stressors while studying – for example, confronting different value systems, often in conflict with their own – and at the same time their independence from their family of origin increases (Bryant & Astin, 2008; Johnson & Hayes, 2003). Among personality characteristics, the following characteristics increase the likelihood of experiencing religious struggle: high neuroticism (Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005; Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, et al., 2016); pessimism and trait anger (Ano & Pargament, 2013); disappointment and anger with God and low conscientiousness (Wood et al., 2010); entitlement (Wood et al., 2010); confusion about values (Johnson & Hayes, 2003); and some dimensions of narcissism (Franczak, et al., 2010; Sandage & Moe, 2011; Zarzycka, Tomaka, et al., 2020), e. g., exploitativeness (Hall & Edwards, 2002). Trait anger correlated with feelings of alienation from God (Exline et al., 1999) and negative emotions toward God (Exline, 2003). Neuroticism predicted less favorable perceptions of God’s intent in the struggle, less meaning found in the struggle, and less spiritual growth, and more spiritual decline as a result of the struggle (Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, et al., 2016). Narcissism correlated positively with interpersonal struggle. Kind religious attributions were mediators in the relationships between narcissism and demonic, moral, and religious doubt struggle. Psychological entitlement correlated with divine struggle. Cruel and kind religious attributions were mediators in the relationships between psychological entitlement and demonic, moral, and struggle with ultimate meaning (Zarzycka, Tomaka, et al., 2020). Homosexual orientation may also be a factor leading to religious struggle, especially in traditional religious contexts that negatively evaluate homosexuality (Bryant & Astin, 2008; Hamblin & Gross, 2014; Rybarski et al., 2015; Yakushko, 2005). The presence of meaning in life (negatively) and search for meaning (positively) predicted struggle with ultimate meaning. People with low levels of presence combined with high levels of search for meaning were particularly likely to struggle with ultimate meaning (Wilt et al., 2018).

3.4

Religious Predictors of Religious Struggle

Certain characteristics of religiosity may promote the experience of religious struggle. When it comes to religious affiliation, students who identified themselves as Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Unitarian, or Orthodox experienced stronger struggle compared to Catholics and Protestants and those who declared unbelief. Spirituality correlated negatively with struggle – those who rated themselves as more spiritual experienced less struggle (Ano & Pargament, 2013).

Religious Predictors of Religious Struggle

43

A change of religious affiliation and spiritual search (e. g., desiring to find answers to the mysteries of life, attain inner harmony, develop a meaningful philosophy of life), and discussions with peers about religious issues were associated with a stronger struggle (Bryant & Astin, 2008). Engaging in these types of activities may indicate that the respondents are more sensitive, and prone to deep reflection and consideration of complex issues. Religiously engaged students, i. e., those who attended religious services, joined religious organizations on campus, read sacred religious texts, etc., were characterized by low levels of religious struggle. Although religious involvement manifested a weak positive relationship with religious struggle, the relationship changed when other variables were controlled. For example, it became negative after accounting for discussing religion/spirituality with friends (Bryant & Astin, 2008). Certain characteristics of individual religiosity may promote the experience of struggle. Pargament, Murray-Swanket al. (2005) point to three characteristics of a person’s spiritual orientation that may lead to struggle. First, struggle may flow from an undifferentiated spiritual orientation that does not adequately consider the “darker side of life,” involving evil and human suffering. Second, the source of anxiety and inner turmoil may be a spirituality that is not well integrated into the individual’s life. Third, struggle may grow out of insecure religious attachments, such as an anxious-ambivalent relationship with God. When confronted with difficult life events, insecure attachments can lead to struggles in which the individual confronts feelings of abandonment by God, anger, anxiety, or guilt. What does not seem to be conducive to the emergence of struggle is a lack of spirituality – struggle is more a matter of the quality of spirituality than the level of spirituality. Research has shown that people experience religious struggle when they disengage from religion. Students who had pulled back from religion, either by no longer identifying as religious or spiritual or by disengaging from organized religion while maintaining an identity as religious, reported higher levels of religious struggles compared with those with more stable identities as religious or nonreligious (Exline et al., 2020). A positive relationship of struggle with being on a spiritual quest and the feeling that God is distant, unloving, or perhaps nonexistent rather than loving and protecting has also been confirmed (Bryant & Astin, 2008). A God perceived as elusive is a God whose wisdom, identity, and intentions are not obvious and must be sought. Struggle may arise as a result of trying to understand a God whose image is elusive. In contrast, the image of a loving, secure God connotes a close relationship with God and a sense of security. People who perceive God in this way are more likely to trust God, are convinced that God’s intentions are good, that God loves them, and may experience less struggle related to religion. Anger toward God occurred more frequently in people with low religious attachment (Exline et al., 2011), low intrinsic and high

44

Predictors of Religious Struggle

extrinsic religious orientation (Hall & Edwards, 2002), and when people perceived God’s intentions as cruel (Exline et al., 2011) and rated anger toward God as morally acceptable (Exline et al., 2012). Associations between religious attachment styles and religious struggle have also been reported. Individuals with secure attachment to God experienced less religious struggle, compared to individuals with insecure ambivalent or insecure avoidant attachment. God image, negative attitudes toward the church, and a weak familial religious history did not correlate with religious struggle (Ano & Pargament, 2013). According to Christian theology, struggle can take the form of the so-called “dark night of the soul.” It is then treated as a natural stage of spiritual development. The “dark night of the soul” includes experiences of spiritual purification and abandonment initiated by God in order to bring a person to spiritual maturity. From the perspective of the theology of spiritual development, the “dark night of the soul” is a transitional stage that follows an initial period of joy and precedes a stage of spiritual peace that comes from the conviction that God accompanies a person along the paths of their life. Although this perspective is beyond the scope of psychology’s research capabilities, it can be a source of interesting questions for the psychology of religion. For example, is struggle that is perceived to be caused by God less harmful than struggle determined by other factors? (Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). The studies presented analyzed the importance of situational, social, personality-related, and religious variables in conditioning religious struggle. Most of the studies presented were limited to assessing only one of the four categories of factors in conditioning struggle. In contrast, when a study included several different predictors (e. g., Bryant & Astin, 2008), the analyses conducted were limited to establishing direct relationships between the independent variables and struggle. Some studies included a configuration of situational factors, personality traits, and religiosity. For example, Ano and Pargamenta (2013) showed that negative evaluation of life events, high neuroticism, and ambivalent attachment to God explained 19% of the variance in the scores of negative religious coping. Wilt, Evans, and co-workers (2019) pointed to a constellation of religious/ spiritual, psychosocial, and military factors that play unique roles in the development and maintenance of moral struggle in a veteran sample. However, no similar multivariate analyses of the conditioning processes of different types of struggle have been conducted to date.

4.

Consequences of Religious Struggle

Within the Judeo-Christian tradition, both the positive and negative sides of religious and spiritual struggle are recognized. Some biblical texts describe critically the process of struggle itself and its consequences. However, there are also accounts in which moral conflicts, difficulties in understanding God’s work, and tensions in relationships with believers are described as stages leading to the development of faith.6 Psychologically, struggle can serve both negative and positive functions. Psychologists of religion, beginning with James (1902/2002), have emphasized that faith is shaped by questions and doubts. Thus, struggle may contribute to the maturity of a person’s religiosity. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of research data confirms the negative consequences of struggle. Conflicts and inconsistencies, which are a key component of struggle, breed tension and stress, especially among individuals for whom religiosity is central to their identity (Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). Various indicators of psychological and somatic well-being have been included in research on the functions of religious struggle. Much of this research treats struggle as negative religious coping with life stressors (Exline, 2013; Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). In turn, those that capture different types of struggle are relatively often limited to divine struggle, specifically negative emotions toward God. This chapter reviews those studies that illustrate the functional aspects of struggle. The literature is much more abundant in this area compared to the data on the predictors of struggle. To keep the data in order, results from studies examining struggle in relation to indicators of personal adjustment and mental health are presented first. Next, results showing the associations of struggle with physical symptoms and mortality rates are pre-

6 The biblical story of Moses recorded in the Book of Numbers contains examples of religious doubts and interpersonal tensions within a group of religious people that produce negative consequences. In the Psalms, struggle results in relief and a positive resolution (Millennial Bible, 2003).

46

Consequences of Religious Struggle

sented. Finally, findings showing struggle as a predictor of development are presented.

4.1

Religious Struggle and Mental Health

The overwhelming majority of empirical data suggests that religious and spiritual struggle shows associations with indicators of low personal adjustment and poorer mental health (Bockrath et al., 2021). The following order was used in presenting the results of this research. First, results from studies conducted in nonclinical samples are presented, followed by results from clinical samples, and finally conclusions based on meta-analyses. Research in the general population has consistently found associations of religious struggle with poorer psychological functioning and higher emotional distress (Bockrath et al., 2021). A study with a sample of 1,629 individuals found positive correlations between struggle and measures of depression, paranoid imagery, somatization, and anxiety (McConnell et al., 2006). Such correlation patterns have been observed in samples of Jews, Christians (Rosmarin et al., 2009), and Muslims (Raiya et al., 2008). Among Catholics, religious doubt has been associated with low self-esteem, low measures of psychological functioning, high anxiety, negative mood (Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998), and low satisfaction with life (Szczes´niak et al., 2019, 2020). Also, in a sample of 1,272 clergy of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, struggle was related positively to indicators of psychological distress. It has also been confirmed that stressful events worsen health by exacerbating religious struggle (Ellison et al., 2010). Religious struggle was related to adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic among community residents in a southern region of the US. In particular, disappointment at God’s distance was tied to increased generalized anxiety, depressive, and trauma symptoms (Sherman et al., 2021). Robust links between religious struggle and lower levels of mental health were observed among college students. Bryant and Astin (2008) found that students experiencing more intense religious struggle had lower ratings of their own abilities and skills, but were more tolerant and open to different viewpoints. Students’ religious struggle was accompanied by higher rates of psychological distress (i. e., feeling overwhelmed, depressed, and stressed or anxious) and psychosomatic symptoms (Bryant & Astin, 2008), lower self-esteem (Exline et al., 2000), negative mood, overall poorer psycho-social functioning, and lower rates of religious functioning (Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998). Even when controlling for demographic variables (e. g., study type), and variables such as seeking psychological counseling, time spent studying, and homework, religious struggle was the strongest factor in explaining the severity of psychological dis-

Religious Struggle and Mental Health

47

tress. Pargament, Koenig, and Perez (2000) identified negative religious coping strategies as predictors of low personal adjustment in college students – the spiritual discontent, punishing God reappraisal, and interpersonal religious discontent. Similarly, Genia (1996) noted that students scoring high on the religious orientation quest (defined as a tendency to critically evaluate religious beliefs and values) were more likely to score lower on measures of spiritual wellbeing and mental health, compared to students with low scores. Associations of struggle with lower levels of mental health have been confirmed both over various time frames, such as “over the past couple of weeks,” “over the last few months,” and at the daily level (e. g., Wilt, Exline, et al., 2021). Struggle has been associated with poorer adjustment to interpersonal stressors such as divorce (Krumrei et al., 2009), childhood sexual abuse (Pargament et al., 2008), intimate partner violence (Bradley et al., 2005), and experiencing grief (Exline et al., 2011, Study 4). Jouriles and colleagues (2020) provided findings which indicated that divine spiritual struggle (e. g., feeling betrayed by God) is important for understanding the adjustment of adolescents who have been abused sexually. The relationship between divine struggle and adolescent psychological adjustment problems was confirmed across independent clinical samples and across informants (adolescents and caregivers). Religious struggle adversely influenced the mental health of people convicted of sexually offending. A greater level of religious struggle was related to higher neuroticism, greater selfreported shame, depression, anxiety, and hopelessness, as well as lower levels of self-compassion (Robertson et al., 2020). The negative impact of religious struggle on mental health has been confirmed in veterans’ samples. They reported emotional pain and distress related to this struggle, highlighting the connection between spiritual and emotional well-being (Fletcher et al., 2020). Significant associations between religious struggle and suicide symptom severity were confirmed in the sample of veterans seeking outpatient treatment. The perception that one is a burden on family members accounted for the links between spiritual struggle and risk of suicide (Raines et al., 2020). Finally, parents whose infants required care in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) after birth reported higher levels of spiritual struggle related to their mental health. Even after accounting for NICU-related stress, religious struggle remained significantly related to parents’ anxiety, depression, and well-being following NICU discharge (Brelsford & Doheny, 2020). Some authors have focused on particular categories of struggle. Krause, et al. (1998) analyzed the relationship between negative interactions with religious people and the psychological well-being of members of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Clergy involved in negative social interactions experienced more severe stress than religious lay persons. Interpersonal tensions related to religion and conflicts with clergy were associated with poorer indicators of

48

Consequences of Religious Struggle

general mental health (low self-esteem, high anxiety, and lowered mood) in college students (Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998). According to Krause et al. (1999), religious doubt has a stronger negative impact on young adults (under 20 years of age) than on older adults – over 80 years of age. These authors speculated that perhaps older people were able to cope with religious doubt better, thus reducing its negative consequences on well-being. Positive relationships have also been observed between religious doubting and anxiety and negative affect in adolescents (Kooistra & Pargament, 1999) and severity of depressive symptoms in adults (Ellison, 1991). Some studies have tested relationships between divine struggle and indicators of psychological well-being. Alienation from God correlated positively with the severity of depression in college students (Exline et al., 2000). Pargament and colleagues (Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005) examined the relationships between various measures of relationship tension with God (feeling that God has punished me; feeling abandoned by God; anger toward God; attributing responsibility for difficulties to demonic forces) and indicators of psychological distress in several studies. Struggle correlated with depressive symptoms and lower religious satisfaction in Protestants, stronger psychological distress in flood victims (Pargament, Tarakeshwar, et al., 2001), stronger depressive symptoms in family members of home hospice patients, and higher ratings of pain experienced by patients (Exline et al., 2013). Fitchett et al. (2004, p. 181) noted that “some types of religious struggle may contribute to poor physical or mental health outcomes for clinical samples.” This is because patients have a greater sensitivity and vulnerability of mental and physical condition to stressors. Studies have shown that religious struggle is associated with high levels of depressive symptoms and emotional distress in diabetic, congestive heart failure, and oncology patients (Fitchett et al., 2004), and with the perceived likelihood of attempting suicide in the future among people in recovery from substance use disorders (Currier et al., 2020). Some studies have sought to assess the associations between religious struggle and adaptation to stressful life events in psychiatric samples. These studies have found associations of struggle with emotional distress, stress coping, anxiety, and depression in adolescent psychiatric patients (Dew et al., 2010), among female alcohol and substance abusers (Conners et al., 2006), and patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (Phillips & Stein, 2007). Dew and colleagues (2010) showed that in a group of 145 adolescents, loss of faith was a predictor of weaker improvement in depression after six months. Exline et al. (2000) noted that in a sample of patients attending outpatient psychotherapy, feeling alienated from God correlated positively with the severity of depressive symptoms. Suicidal thoughts were associated with a high fear of God and religious guilt. A detailed content analysis of the statements of the Fear–Guilt subscale revealed that this relationship was related to items measuring the belief

Religious Struggle and Mental Health

49

that one has committed an unforgivable sin. In a study conducted on a small sample of geriatric patients with mood disorders (16 with a bipolar disorder and 18 with a depression), religious struggle was shown to be a risk factor for depressive symptoms in this group of patients regardless of their level of religiosity (Rosmarin et al., 2009). A study was also conducted on the relationship of struggle, perseverance in the relationship with God, and religious support with indicators of recovery among 81 psychiatric patients with a diagnosed depression, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophrenia. The results showed that religious support mediated the relationship between struggling with God and recovery in this group of patients. This means that benefits derived from religion enhance the healing process for those patients who experience religious doubt, anger, or disappointment in their relationship with God (Webb et al., 2011). Religious and spiritual struggle was also a significant predictor of distress in individuals hospitalized for somatic conditions. Cardiac patients experienced stronger emotional distress as a result of experiencing religious and spiritual struggle (e. g., Ai et al., 2009; Magyar-Russell et al., 2014; Park et al., 2011). Also, patients hospitalized for suspected acute coronary syndrome who experienced a strong religious struggle scored significantly higher on measures of anxiety, depression, and sleep problems, compared to patients not experiencing religious tension (Magyar-Russell et al., 2014). In older patients with congestive heart failure, religious struggle was a significant predictor of increased depression and decreased sense of efficacy at six months (Park et al., 2009). In a group of 101 patients with congestive heart failure who completed questionnaires twice with a three-month interval, high-intensity religious struggle was found to be a significant predictor of low well-being, high severity of depressive symptoms, and lower satisfaction with life. Struggle was not associated with the sense of quality of life in relation to mental and physical health. In addition, severity of struggle at the first survey was a predictor of the number of hospitalizations in the following three months, also when controlling for the number of hospitalizations in the three months preceding the first survey. Religious identification was a moderator of the association of struggle with the number of days spent in the hospital and physical condition. This association was stronger in patients who identified with religion more strongly (Park et al., 2011). Some studies have looked for mediating variables of the relationship between religious struggle and health indicators. A study by Edmondson et al. (2008) of 98 patients with end-stage congestive heart failure, found that the relationship between religious struggle and depression was mediated by fear for death. Fear of death completely mediated both the relationship between religious struggle and depression, as well as the relationship of depression with religious support. Other studies have shown that in a group of cardiac surgery patients, the relationship between preoperative religious struggle

50

Consequences of Religious Struggle

and postoperative stress may be explained partially by deficits in social support (Ai et al., 2007). Religious and spiritual struggle has proven to be a significant experience for patients diagnosed with cancer (Fitchett et al., 2004). A study conducted in blood and marrow transplant patients found that religious struggle was more likely to occur immediately after a cancer diagnosis and in men than in women (King et al., 2013). In contrast, no significant associations were found between struggle and quality of life, pain, and severity of depressive symptoms in this group of patients. It has also been confirmed that religious and spiritual struggle is associated with a lower overall quality of life and satisfaction with life in women with breast cancer (Manning-Walsh, 2005). Similarly, in women with a recent diagnosis of gynecological cancer, religious struggle correlated with high levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms (Boscaglia et al., 2005). Negative effects of religious struggle have been reported in patients with multiple myeloma receiving stem cell transplantation. Among 213 patients, high levels of struggle during their initial work-up for autologous stem cell transplantation co-occurred with high levels of general distress, depression, high pain scores, fatigue, and poorer physical well-being. However, patients who experienced religious struggle in response to their illness had greater difficulty coping with general distress and depression than with pain, fatigue, and physical functioning (Sherman et al., 2005). In a cancer population receiving palliative care, approximately 66% of the patients reported religious struggle. The prevalence of some struggle ranged from 17% to 32%, with demonic struggle being less and interpersonal struggle more common. Greater religious struggle was associated with greater symptom burden, greater dignity-related distress and poorer quality of life (Damen et al., 2021). Religious struggle was positively associated with anxiety in a group of children and adolescents hospitalized for asthma. This positive relationship of anxiety and struggle was revealed both when measured during hospitalization and in a follow-up study after one month (Benore et al., 2008). Struggling also correlated with high levels of depressive symptoms and emotional distress in diabetics (Fitchett et al., 2004) and patient caregivers (e. g., Hexem et al., 2011). Among cancer caretakers, the relationship between religious struggle and personal adjustment was moderated by social support, optimism, and self-efficacy (Pearce et al., 2006). The few longitudinal studies that exist to date are particularly noteworthy. Pargament et al. (2004) examined a sample of medically ill, elderly, hospitalized patients. The patients were classified into one of four groups: non-negative religious copers; transient negative religious copers (those who reported negative religious coping of any kind at baseline but not at follow-up); acute negative religious copers (those who reported negative religious coping of any kind at

Religious Struggle, Somatic Health and Mortality

51

follow-up but not at baseline); and chronic negative religious copers (those who reported negative religious coping at both baseline and follow-up). The analyses conducted showed that only chronic negative religious copers manifested a decline in mental and physical health indicators after two years (Pargament et al., 2004). A longitudinal study of 94 myeloma patients, assessed during stem cell collection and again in the immediate aftermath of transplantation, confirmed that negative religious coping at baseline was associated with worse post-transplant anxiety, depression, emotional well-being, and transplant-related concerns (Sherman et al., 2009). In another longitudinal study involving adult survivors of cancer, it was reported that anger toward God correlated with poorer adjustment both at baseline and at follow-up one year later. If anger toward God increased between the first and second measurement, adjustment scores worsened simultaneously. The worst personal adjustment was found in individuals with high scores of anger toward God on both measures (Exline et al., 2011, Study 5). A meta-analysis of 49 studies (totaling 13,512 respondents) on the relationship of struggle with indicators of personal adjustment found low but significant associations between struggle and indicators of low adjustment, such as anxiety, depression, anger, negative mood, guilt, and social dysfunction (Ano & Vasconcelles, 2005). Similar relationships were reported in a meta-analysis of 147 studies (N = 98,975), describing associations of religiosity with depressive symptom severity (Smith et al., 2003). Negative religious coping (e. g., avoiding difficulties through religious activities, blaming God for difficulties) was associated with a high severity of depressive symptoms. Finally, a relatively recent meta-analysis of 32 studies indicated that religious struggle predicted increases in negative psychological adjustment significantly (32 studies), whereas the effects of positive psychological adjustment were nonsignificant (12 studies). These findings are consistent with a primary religious struggle model in which struggle leads to worsening psychological adjustment (Bockrath et al., 2021). These data point to the need to identify patients experiencing religious struggle in order to neutralize its negative effects as quickly as possible.

4.2

Religious Struggle, Somatic Health and Mortality

The literature on the associations of religious struggle with physical health indicators is not as extensive as the data describing the relationship between struggle and mental health. In general, the available data indicate that struggle co-occurs with poorer physical health indicators and higher rates of disease processes (Exline, Prince-Paul, et al., 2013). Bryant and Astin (2008) noted that religious struggle is also associated with poorer physical health in college students when demographic variables are controlled for. They also demonstrated an

52

Consequences of Religious Struggle

association of negative religious coping with increased levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-6 (IL-6) in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. IL-6 is a stress-related, multifunctional proinflammatory cytokine, which is elevated in certain chronic diseases. IL-6 increases as we age and with concurrent cardiovascular diseases. Studies have shown a positive association between religious struggle and IL-6 levels (Ai et al., 2009). A study of the relationship between religiosity and health-promoting lifestyles among 167 younger adult survivors of a variety of cancers found a negative association between religious struggle and some positive health behaviors (Park et al., 2009). Those experiencing a strong religious struggle were less likely to adhere to doctors’ advice and were characterized by more frequent alcohol consumption. Religious struggle was linked to frequency of alcohol use and lack of adherence to doctors’ advice in participants with high levels of guilt/shame. However, guilt/shame did not mediate the association of struggle with taking prescribed medication. Longitudinal studies have confirmed the negative consequences of struggle for somatic health in medical rehabilitation patients (Fitchett et al., 1999). High levels of religious struggle at the time of admission (especially strong anger toward God) were predictors of poorer rehabilitation outcomes after four months. Furthermore, the association of anger toward God with recovery could not be explained by the overall level of anger of the patients studied. An increase in HIV/AIDS symptom severity was also observed as a result of experiencing religious struggle (Trevino et al., 2010). Religious struggle correlated positively with mortality rates. Feeling abandoned or unloved by God and harassed by an evil spirit were reported to be associated with higher mortality rates (Larson & Larson, 2003). A similar pattern of relationships has been reported in studies of medically ill elderly patients (Pargament, Koenig, et al., 2001). Three statements from the Religious Coping Scale predicted mortality risk: “I wondered whether God had abandoned me,” “I questioned God’s love for me,” and “I decided the Devil made this happen.” Furthermore, even when controlling for potential mediating variables such as demographic characteristics, somatic health, and mental health, struggling in one’s relationship with God increased the risk of death over two years from 22% to 33%. Although we have less empirical data on the association of struggle with indicators of physical health (compared to data on mental health), the value of these studies is that they increasingly include objective physiological indicators in addition to self-report measures.

Religious Struggle as a Predictor of Growth

4.3

53

Religious Struggle as a Predictor of Growth

Although a significant number of empirical reports have provided evidence that religious struggle is a detractor of well-being, there are data indicating that struggle can also foster growth and enhance human life. Growth is often accomplished through suffering. Some theoretical concepts accept that a crisis is not a tragedy but a point of transition, and is therefore a necessary stage in the process of individual growth and development (e. g., Erikson, 1968). Research in positive psychology shows that satisfaction with life is explained to a small extent by simple pleasures – engagement and meaning play an important role. In view of the above, can people gain a better understanding of themselves and the world by experiencing struggle of a religious and spiritual nature? Unfortunately, we still do have little empirical data to provide a complete answer to this question. A small number of researchers to date have attempted to assess positive changes as a result of religious struggle. Regardless, data from several studies suggest that experiencing religious struggle can be a source of benefit (Pargament et al., 2006). In the sample of people coping with the Oklahoma City bombing, religious struggle was associated not only with more post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, but also with higher levels of callousness, and slightly associated with stress-related growth (Pargament, Smith, et al., 1998). Individuals experiencing religious struggle are characterized by broader mental horizons and more open-mindedness in thinking (Hill & Pargament, 2003). Religious doubt assessed using the quest religious orientation was associated with greater tolerance, promotion activities facilitating tolerance, and greater flexibility in helping activities (Batson et al., 2001). As a result of a multiyear study, Holcomb and Nonneman (2004) defined three categories of crisis experienced by evangelical university students: prolonged exposure to diverse ways of thinking (exposure to people who think differently); extensive multicultural exposure (exposure to people who live differently); and general emotional crisis. Each crisis consequently led to a more complex and reflected faith. However, spiritual growth was not automatic. It required a balance between challenge and support. A lack of adequate challenge resulted in stagnation, and a lack of adequate support increased the risk of losing faith (cf. Bryant & Astin, 2008). The results presented here suggest that religious and spiritual struggle may play an important role in the processes of confronting life’s challenges and contributing to individual growth. Arguably, the most important question in this context of the results presented is: What determines whether religious struggle contributes to serious somatic and psychological problems or is a source of growth and maturity? (Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). Desai (2006) identified three categories of factors that may determine individual growth as a result of

54

Consequences of Religious Struggle

struggle: religious struggle characteristics (the severity of the struggle and finding meaning); religious history (religious integration and secure attachment to God); and religious coping techniques (benevolent religious reappraisal, collaborative religious coping, religious purification, and spiritual connection). Severity and the ability to find meaning in struggle can promote growth. People experience more growth as a result of severe struggle (Brennan, 2002). The ability to discover meaning in their religious struggle also facilitates growth. Parents who lost a child in an accident, domestic violence, or suicide, experienced less distress and better psychosocial functioning when they were able to discover meaning in that death over time (Murphy et al., 2003). In the context of an individual’s history of religious commitment, the degree of integration of religiosity into a person’s overall life, style of attachment to God, and religious support were important in predicting the consequences of religious struggle (Desai, 2006). Research shows that the greater the coherence of religious beliefs with a person’s life, the stronger the distress associated with the initial experience of struggle. However, in predicting the later consequences of struggle, stronger integration is a predictor of growth (Kooistra & Pargament, 1999). The style of attachment to God (secure, insecure ambivalent, and insecure anxious) does not protect against experiencing religious tension; however, ambivalent and anxious attachment leads to the negative consequences of struggle, whereas secure attachment may lead to growth (Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002). Research has also confirmed that support received from a religious institution or community increases well-being as a result of a struggle experienced (Krause et al., 2000, 1998). The relationships between religious struggle and psychological wellbeing, as explained by religious support and meaning making, depend on the types of struggle. During divine, ultimate meaning, and interpersonal struggle, people feel deprived of religious support, which is associated with higher difficulties in giving meaning to their struggle, and adversely influence well-being. During moral and demonic struggle, people feel supported by their religion, which facilitates assigning meaning to struggles and positively influences wellbeing (Zarzycka et al., 2020). The other mechanism explaining how religious struggle influences psychological well-being is through its effects on internal dialogues. Three types of internal dialogues have been confirmed as mediators in these relationships – ruminative, supportive, and social simulation dialogues. Religious struggle decreased well-being through its effects on ruminative dialogues, but improved well-being through its effects on supportive and social simulation dialogues (Zarzycka & Puchalska-Wasyl, 2020). The ability to cope with religious struggle is also a significant contributor to growth (Szczes´niak et al., 2020; Wilt, Stauner, et al., 2019; Zarzycka & Zietek, 2019;). According to Exline and Rose (2013), in order to assess the consequences of struggle, it is necessary to differentiate, within the group experiencing struggle, between those who can

Religious Struggle as a Predictor of Growth

55

cope with the stress experienced and those who cannot, and only then make comparisons between the two groups with those not experiencing struggle. In a recent study, wholeness has been confirmed as a predictor of growth in the wake of religious struggle. Four dimensions of wholeness (purposiveness; breadth and depth; life affirmation; cohesiveness) were associated with reports of more growth and less decline after religious struggle (Hart et al., 2020). It is also worth mentioning that some research reports have confirmed a negative association between struggle and indicators of post-traumatic growth (for a review of studies see Ano & Vasconcelles, 2005). For example, longitudinal studies of patients with congestive heart failure suggest that a high severity of religious struggle at baseline is a predictor of poor growth within 6 months. In conclusion, the presented research results show that religious and spiritual struggle does not exist in isolation but is related to other dimensions of wellbeing and human quality of life. Significant associations of struggle with indicators of mental and somatic health have been confirmed, both in the general population and in clinical samples. Although most research suggests that struggle undermines a person’s somatic and psychological well-being, there is also data indicating that struggle may play an important role in the processes of growth and development. The Judeo-Christian tradition provides theological justifications for these relationships, but further psychological research is needed to understand the benefits that religious struggle may provide and the mechanisms that condition them. Currently, patterns of relationships obtained suggest that religious struggle functions as a “double-edged sword.” On the one hand, it carries destructive and even deadly potential. On the other hand, it brings people closer to wisdom, maturity, and a sense of unity with transcendence.

5.

Research Plan

The theoretical considerations presented so far justify conducting research on the predictors of religious struggle and its function on psychological well-being. The present chapter introduces the issues mentioned in the author’s own research. First, the theoretical assumptions made are listed. This is a kind of summary of and emphasis on the points of view described in the theoretical part, which determined the organization of the research and the formulation of the hypotheses. Then the general plan of the research is outlined and the characteristics of the people participating in the research are presented.

5.1

Theoretical Assumptions

The construct of religious struggle encompasses various forms of distress experienced by humans in the context of their relationship with God. Tensions can arise in direct relation to the Sacred and take the form of negative affect felt toward God (e. g., Exline, 2013; Pargament, 2007). They can be intrapersonal and expressed in moral doubts, guilt-ridden experiences, or fear of not receiving forgiveness from God (Exline et al., 2014; Pargament, 2007). Interpersonal relationships with clergy members representing religious institutions and other believers may also generate tensions related to religion (Exline, 2013; Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005). Finally, struggles may be expressed in the belief that humans are subject to the influence and attacks of the Devil, and that negative events in their lives happen through the actions of evil spirits (Pargament et al., 2000). These categories are further discussed in Section 1.2. Three categories of religious struggle were examined in this research: guilt and fear of not being forgiven by God (Fear–Guilt); tensions related to the concept of deity (divine struggle); and interpersonal tensions related to matters of faith (interpersonal struggle). The research problem was formulated based on the results of previous research presented in Chapters 3 and 4. In general, one may say that there are two paths along which research on the issue of religious struggle

58

Research Plan

is organized. The first is oriented toward the search for the predictors and the second toward the consequences of struggle (cf. Exline, 2013; Exline & Rose, 2005, 2013). Knowledge about the predictors of religious struggle is relatively less advanced compared to knowledge about its functional aspects. The research presented in this work continues this exploration. It seeks to identify selected variables that determine religious struggle, as well as some of the consequences of struggle on psychological well-being. The analyses also include the Religious Comfort variable, which is a measure of the support derived from faith and the relationship with God. Indeed, the function of religious struggle is easier to understand and interpret from the perspective of the positive function of religion (see, for example Morrill et al., 2008).

5.1.1 Predictors of religious struggle The direction of the search for variables determining religious struggle adopted in this study was determined by the results of previous research on the predictors of religiosity. This research is based on the assumption that the ways in which an individual interacts with the world, other people, and herself or himself are also manifested in her or his forms of response to religious stimuli (Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, et al., 2016). Thus, the predictors of religiousness have been sought both in the area of environmental variables and within the subject’s dispositions, both those of a relatively fixed nature (personality traits) and those that are the consequence of one’s own activity (character traits). These issues have attracted much research interest and an abundance of empirical reports (for a metaanalysis of studies see, for example, Saroglou, 2002b). The same assumptions have guided the search in the area of variables determining religious struggle (Ano & Pargament, 2013). The resulting data confirmed the importance of some environmental, personality, and character variables in predicting struggle (e. g., Bryant & Astin, 2008; McConnell et al., 2006). However, most analyses have consisted of assessing the importance of single factors in explaining religious struggle (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 for reviews of studies). Little is known about the complex relationships among these variables, and thus the ways in which personality and character traits and social functioning variables condition religious struggle (Ano & Pargament, 2013). Such data could provide insights into the mechanisms by which struggle arises and, in the future, facilitate the development of concepts that explain how and why it arises. This research attempted to determine the extent to which three categories of struggle – fear and guilt; divine struggle; and interpersonal struggle – are conditioned by personality traits, parental attitudes, and humility. Personality traits are captured in the McCrae and Costa (2005) model, in which the basic structure

Theoretical Assumptions

59

of personality boils down to five traits: extraversion; neuroticism; openness to experience; conscientiousness; and agreeableness. Humility is an example of a character variable that is conditioned by a person’s own activity. It has been defined as a nonegoistic orientation toward others, including the expression of positive, other-oriented emotions, expressed by an adequate appraisal of one’s abilities, the ability to be aware of one’s limitations, seeing one’s abilities in a broader perspective; and openness to new or different information, appreciation of the value of all things, and low self-centeredness (Tangney, 2000, 2009). Parental attitudes were captured based on Plopa’s (2011) typology, which includes six dimensions describing parents’ potential attitudes toward children: acceptance; rejection; autonomy; protectiveness; demandingness; and inconsistency. The analyses conducted aimed to determine the structure of parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility dimensions conditioning the best prediction of each category of religious struggle, as well as to search for mechanisms describing the relationships between these variables. Age was also added to the assumed “hierarchy of causality” model. The range of variables conditioning struggle was expanded to include religiosity. The search for predictors of struggle in the area of religious variables draws on the distinction present in the psychology of religion between substantive and functional aspects of religiosity (Hill & Edwards, 2013). The former focus on individuals’ religious tendencies, beliefs, or behaviors, such as religious or spiritual commitment, religious motivation, relational spirituality, and religious or spiritual development (Tsang & McCullough, 2003). Functional approaches to religion, exemplified by the concept of religious struggle, focus on “how religion operates within individuals’ lives” (Hill & Edwards, 2013, p. 64). The consideration of substantive measures of religiosity as predictors of struggle will provide an answer to the question: What type of religiosity increases the likelihood of religious tension? The conditioning of religious struggle by religious variables has not been addressed in a structured manner in the literature to date. The first analyses illustrating the relationship of struggles with religious or spiritual variables can be found in the works of: Pargament, Murray-Swank, et al. (2005), and Bryant and Astin (2008). They show that spirituality is a factor that reduces the likelihood of struggle (Pargamenta, Murray-Swank, et al., 2005), while quest religious orientation and the perception of God as more elusive and unknowable promotes struggle (Bryant & Astin, 2008). The association of struggle with religious beliefs and practices is supported by the findings of Exline et al. (2014). Validity of religious beliefs and attendance at religious services correlated positively with feelings of evil spirit influence and moral struggle, and negatively with conflicts about ultimate meanings. These analyses, however, only appeared in the psychometric property analyses of the Religious and Spiritual Struggle Scale (the method is described in Section 2.4). Interesting data on the

60

Research Plan

specificity of religious struggle in the context of general religiosity was provided by Stauner et al. (2016). They demonstrated a satisfactory differential validity of religious struggle in relation to religiosity measured as the validity of religious beliefs and attendance at religious services. However, they did not show consistent patterns of relationships between measures of religiosity and specific types of struggles across groups. This research is a continuation of previous explorations. Following the suggestion made in the work of Stauner and his colleagues (2016), the phenomenon of religiosity was broadly considered. Three of its dimensions were examined: motivational (centrality), which is an indicator of the importance of a religious meaning system in the personality; cognitive (post-critical beliefs), which is a measure of how people think about religion; and relational, defined as attachment to God style. The analyses conducted aimed to identify patterns of association between dimensions of religiosity and religious struggle. Knowledge of these may provide answers to the questions: Does the high centrality of religiosity reduce the risk of struggle? Does a literal understanding of religiosity foster experiencing struggle and a symbolic one protect against it? What style of attachment to God increases the likelihood of religious struggle? Three moderating variables were included in the analysis of the relationship between centrality of religiosity and struggles: gender; severity of stress; and change in religion. The analysis of the relationship between the way of thinking about religiosity and struggle includes age as a moderating variable. The analysis of the relationship between attachment to God and struggle is comparative in nature – its purpose is to determine differences in religious struggle between groups with different styles of attachment to God.

5.1.2 Consequences of religious struggle The second stream of research focuses on analyzing the functional aspects of struggle. This has resulted in a significant number of empirical reports highlighting the importance of the construct of religious struggle in the areas of personal adjustment, mental and somatic health, and quality of life (for reviews of research see Exline, 2013; Exline & Rose, 2005, 2013). Research to date has been conducted both in the general population and in groups of individuals dealing with the stress of difficult, often prolonged, life circumstances. Studies conducted in the general population have included, for example, high school graduates and college students (Bryant & Astin, 2008; Johnson & Hayes, 2003), nonstudent adults (Nielsen, 1998) religious leaders (Pargament, Tarakeshwar, et al., 2001), and representatives of various faith traditions: Islam (e. g., Raiya et al., 2008), Judaism (e. g., Rosmarin et al., 2009), and Christianity (e. g., Krause et al.,

Theoretical Assumptions

61

1998). Studies conducted in so-called special populations have ranged from clinical trials, e. g., cardiac patients (Ai et al., 2007), terminally ill (Edmondson et al., 2008), diabetic, congestive heart failure (Fitchett et al., 1999), and oncology patients (Park, Edmondson, et al., 2009), as well as individuals dealing with the stress of difficult, often prolonged life circumstances, such as homeless men (Exline, 2003), or individuals in the process of adjusting to a situation after the breakdown of a marriage (Warner et al., 2009). Initially, researchers’ attention was directed toward demonstrating relationships between categories of struggle and indicators of psychological well-being or somatic health. Currently, their interest has shifted to looking for the mechanisms that determine the observed relationships and the conditions under which they occur. In other words, researchers are trying to understand the processes through which struggle interacts with well-being. This direction of analysis is a continuation of this trend. The analyses performed aimed to determine the mechanisms through which fear– guilt, divine struggle, and interpersonal struggle condition various aspects of mental health. We will present the results of research conducted in a sample of adults (Chapter 8), and in groups of people struggling with stress resulting from difficult life circumstances – among patients hospitalized for depressive disorders and men struggling with unwanted homosexual inclinations (Chapter 9). A study conducted in a sample of adults examined the associations of religious struggle (fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle) with indicators of psychological well-being. As the literature suggests, religious struggle contains elements of tension and stress associated with experiencing a relationship with God. Thus, it shows similarity to the psychological categories of distress and religiosity (Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998). Previous research has confirmed the positive relationships of struggle with indicators of distress. However, the correlation coefficients obtained, although significant, were low. This confirms the content specificity of the religious struggle construct in relation to psychological distress (Stauner et al., 2016). Based on this data, a prediction was made that religious struggle may participate in the effect of stress on mental health. The presence of religious struggle may amplify the negative effects of stress on mental health and the strength of this effect appears to depend on the severity of the stress. Previous research has also confirmed the presence of negative relationships between struggle and measures of religiosity – the importance of religious beliefs and attendance at religious services. Correlation coefficients were also low, confirming the content specificity of the religious struggle construct in relation to the variable “religiosity” (Stauner et al., 2016). This data provided context for the prediction that religious struggle participates in the effect of religiosity on health status in such a way that it blocks the supportive function of religiosity in the area of health. The mediating function of struggle depends on the level of religiosity. The final section explores the relationship between struggle and

62

Research Plan

hopelessness. Since previous research has not addressed this issue, it was limited to examining whether the relationship between these variables is rectilinear or curvilinear. Although religious struggle can be experienced independently of life events, it is relatively common when people are in a difficult situation or struggling with life in general (Ano & Pargament, 2013). Research has confirmed that struggle is experienced more often and more strongly by individuals confronting difficult life circumstances than by the so-called general population (Ellison & Lee, 2010; Fitchett et al., 2004; Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998). The final chapter presents the results of research examining the function of religious struggle in mental health in groups experiencing the stress of difficult life circumstances. Previous analyses have indicated that the type of stressor (illness vs. social stressors) determines the relationship between struggle and indicators of wellbeing (McConnell et al., 2006). This is why the study was conducted in two samples. The first sample included depressed patients. The question sought here was: Does religious struggle participate in the effect of depression on self-evaluation of illness? The second sample consisted of a group of men experiencing unwanted homosexual inclinations. This study sought to answer the question: Does religious struggle attenuate the effect of the centrality of religiosity on anxiety and satisfaction with life in these participants? The processes of conditioning religious struggle by age, parental attitudes, personality traits, humility, and religiosity, as well as the functions of struggle on psychological well-being, are presented in the context of the supportive function of religiosity. The processes of struggle are easier to understand from the perspective of the support function of religiosity.

5.2

Research Plan

The research plan presented here includes four studies. The first two studies examined the predictors of fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle. The next two studies examined the functions of religious struggle on psychological well-being. The first study, presented in Chapter 6, seeks to answer the question: What is the extent to which religious struggle (fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle) is conditioned by parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility? This study presents three analyses. The first one includes correlations between parental attitudes, personality traits, and dimensions of humility and fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle. The second analysis tested an assumed “causal hierarchy” of parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility dimensions, which condition the best prediction of fear–guilt, divine, and inter-

Research Plan

63

personal struggle. In the third analysis, mediation models were built to account for the complex relationships among the independent variables, and their contribution to explaining religious struggle was estimated. The use of such procedures made it possible to: (1) establish associations of each independent variable with fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle; (2) determine the configuration of the independent variables (parental attitudes, personality traits, and dimensions of humility) that best predicts each type of struggle; and (3) make predictions about the ways in which parental attitudes, personality traits, and dimensions of humility condition struggle. The second study, presented in Chapter 7, seeks to answer the question: What type of religiosity increases the likelihood of experiencing religious struggle? This study consists of three parts that successively test the importance of motivational, cognitive, and relational dimensions of religiosity in predicting fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle. Part one established the extent to which struggle was predicted by the centrality of religiosity. First, correlations were calculated between the centrality dimensions and the types of struggle examined. Next, moderation of the associations between centrality of religiosity and struggle by gender, severity of stress, and change of religion was tested. In part two, correlations were established between cognitive attitudes toward religion (post-critical beliefs) and religious struggle. Correlations between post-critical beliefs and struggle were calculated and moderation of these relationships by age was tested. In part three, the associations of religious struggle with attachment type to God were established. First, correlations between attachment styles and struggle were calculated. Next, groups differing in attachment style to God were identified. Finally, intergroup comparisons were made across types of religious struggle. The third study, presented in Chapter 8, seeks to determine the relationship of struggle to indicators of psychological well-being. It includes a total of five analyses. The first two tested whether religious struggle amplifies the negative effects of stress on mental health. The first analysis sought to answer the question of whether religious struggle participates in the effect of stress on overall mental health. Thus, the mediation effect of religious struggle in the relationship of stress to four health status indicators was tested: the presence of somatic symptoms; anxiety and insomnia; social dysfunction; and depression. It also tested whether the mediation effect depended on the level of stress perceived. The second analysis had a similar design. It tested the mediation of religious struggle in the relationship of stress with the severity of somatoform symptoms under conditions of different stress severity. The next two analyses tested whether religious struggle attenuates the supportive function of religiosity in mental health and whether this effect depends on the level of religiosity. The third analysis tested the mediating function of religious struggle in the relationship of centrality of religiosity with sense of coherence in men and women. The fourth analysis tested

64

Research Plan

whether the relationship of religiosity with satisfaction with life is mediated by religious struggle and whether the mediation effect depends on the level of religiosity. The last part of Chapter 8 examines the relationship between fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle and hopelessness. Hopelessness has not been included in research on struggle issues thus far. This is why it was limited to exploring the nature of the relationship between these variables, that is, determining whether the relationships are rectilinear or curvilinear. The fourth study, reported in Chapter 9, examines the function of mental health struggles in two groups — depressed patients and men experiencing unwanted homosexual inclinations. In the group of depressed patients, the mediating function of struggles was analyzed in the relationship between the severity of depressive symptoms and self-evaluation of the illness. In the group of homosexual men, the mediating effect of struggle in the relationship between centrality of religiosity and satisfaction with life was analyzed.

5.3

Study Participants

The surveys were conducted between 2009 and 2015. A total of 1,758 individuals participated. The mean age of participants was M = 29.86 (SD = 8.30). Women comprised 48.88% of the respondents. Respondents came from nine samples: – Group I – 636 adults examined by Zarzycka and Rydz in 2009–2010 as part of a grant funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, entitled “Centrality and Content of the System of Religious Constructs and the Sense of Coherence” (no. N N106 227636); – Group II – 267 adults surveyed in 2011 by psychology students at the Catholic University of Lublin as part of a project titled “Functions of Religiosity in Mental Health,” conducted as part of a course in the psychology of religion under Zarzycka’s direction; – Group III – 146 adults surveyed in 2015 by faculty members of the Department of Social Psychology and Psychology of Religion at the Catholic University of Lublin as part of a study on the accuracy of the Psychoimmunological Structure Scale, and 100 individuals surveyed in 2016 by psychology students as part of a project entitled “Religious Strain and Mental Health,” conducted during a course in the psychology of religion under Zarzycka’s direction; – Group IV – 57 adults surveyed in 2012 by psychology students at the Catholic University of Lublin, as part of a project entitled “Predictors and Consequences of Religious Strain,” under Zarzycka’s direction; – Group V – 246 people surveyed in 2015 by psychology students at the Catholic University of Lublin as part of a project titled “Predictors of Religious Strain” under Zarzycka’s direction;

65

Study Participants

– Group VI – 116 adults surveyed in 2015 by psychology students at the Catholic University of Lublin as part of a project entitled “Predictors of Religious Struggles,” conducted during a course in the psychology of religion under Zarzycka’s direction; – Group VII – 97 people surveyed in 2011 by psychology students at the Catholic University of Lublin within the framework of research on the internal structure of the Polish adaptation of the Huber Scale of Emotions Toward God (Huber & Richard, 2010), conducted during a course in the psychology of religion under Zarzycka’s direction; – Group VIII – 52 men declaring homosexual orientation (n = 54), surveyed in 2013 by Rybarski as part of the research for his master’s thesis in a social psychology seminar under the direction of S´liwak and the supervision of Zarzycka; – Group IX – 41 hospitalized psychiatric patients diagnosed with a depressive episode, interviewed in 2014 by S´wistowicz as part of the research for his master’s thesis in an adult clinical psychology seminar under the direction of Steuden and supervision of Zarzycka.7 The characteristics of the study samples are presented in Table 5.1. In all groups except the first and eighth one, the study was conducted individually. All respondents were made aware of the purpose of the study and agreed to participate before the actual study. Because the analyses were conducted on different groups, information about the individuals participating in the study is given with each study. Table 5.1. Characteristics of the study samples Sample 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Adults Adults Adults Adults Adults Adults Adults Homosexual Patients

Total

Date

N

2009 2012 2012 2012 2015 2015 2011 2013 2014

636 267 246 57 246 116 97 52 41 1,758

Age % women Min. Max. M SD 52.20 18 79 41.70 16.79 49.40 19 61 25.00 7.53 69.90 18 59 24.75 8.18 50.90 18 32 22.26 2.38 66.30 18 74 25.28 8.37 50.90 19 51 28.00 9.35 51.50 19 60 26.05 8.62 0.00 18 43 23.89 4.91 48.80 31 70 51.82 8.57 48.88

19.78 58.78 29.86 8.30

7 The author would like to thank Radosław Rybarski, M.A., and Artur S´wistowicz, M.A., for providing the research results used in this work.

6.

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility I have a hard time believing in God or a higher power because you see so much suffering everywhere. You wonder if someone is in charge or why would He or She do this to other people. Why are some people suffering while other people have all the riches in the world? Bryant & Astin (2008 p. 1)

Expressions of human religious involvement depend on many factors. As in the processes of individual development (Brzezinska, 2000), three categories of factors play an important role here – environmental influences; personality dispositions; and character properties – which are the result of a person’s own activity. Research results have confirmed that religious functioning depends on parental religiosity and the nature of the relationship with parents (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2013), personality traits (for a meta-analysis of studies, see Saroglou, 2002b), and some virtues (Ahmed, 2009; Petersen & Seligman, 2004; Rowatt et al., 2006). Findings from previous research suggest that the predictors of religious struggles can also be sought in the areas of parental influence (Exline, Homolka, et al., 2013), personality traits (Grubbs et al., 2016; Wilt, Grubbs, Pargament, & Exline, 2016), and character (Ano, 2005; Grubbs & Exline, 2014). For example, perceiving one’s father and mother as unkind or rejecting (Exline, Homolka, et al., 2013; Kirkpatrick, 1992) and high neuroticism (Grubbs et al., 2016) fostered feelings of anger toward God. Humility, in turn, was a protective factor against feeling anger toward God, both in general and in reaction to a specific event (Grubbs & Exline, 2014). Past research has focused on two types of struggle: negative religious coping (Ano & Pargament, 2013) and divine struggle. In this study, three categories of struggle were considered: fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle. The research sought to explore the predictors of struggle. Parental attitudes were included as environmental variables. Personality traits were analyzed as dispositional variables. Within the character variables, shaped by self-activity, humility was included. First, correlational relationships were established between parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility and types of struggle. This was followed by a regression analysis that tested the assumed “hierarchy of causality” in the set of parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility dimensions that best predicted each type of struggle. In a final step, the mechanisms of these relationships were analyzed.

68

6.1

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

Parental Attitudes

Parental attitude is “the overall form of the parents’ (mother’s and father’s) attitude toward children, toward educational issues, etc., formed during the performance of parental functions” (Rembowski, 1972, p. 55). It comprises three components: cognitive; emotional–motivational; and behavioral. The first is expressed in views about the child and evaluation of his/her behavior; the second is expressed in statements, especially their tone and manner of expression; the third is expressed in the parents’ behavior toward the child, e. g., in the way they treat the child, solve problems, and the system of punishments and rewards used (Plopa, 2008). There are more than a dozen categorizations of parental attitudes in the psychological literature. Some of them are descriptive, while others are factorbased.8 Examples of descriptive typologies of parental attitudes include the proposals of Kenworthy and Newell, and in Poland, the work of Ziemska (after: Plopa, 2011). Examples of factor typologies are the proposals of Becker and Siegelman (after: Plopa, 2011). These typologies, although they differ in the number and content of dimensions, as well as in the adopted theoretical assumptions, unanimously indicate that parents’ interactions with their children may be reduced to five dimensions, defined as: acceptance; rejection; autonomy; protectiveness; and demandingness. Plopa (1987) proposed adding inconsistency to this list. Plopa’s (2011) six-dimensional typology of parental attitudes was applied in this research. The search for the origin of man’s relationship with God in the area of his or her relationship with his or her parents has a long tradition in psychology. The first attempts to account for the image of God as a projection of the image of the father come from Freud (1927/2009). Rizutto (1979) applied the object relations theory perspective to analyze the ways in which parents’ perceptions can condition perceptions of God. Kirkpatrick (1992, 1999, 2005; Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002) referred to the attachment theory in his analysis on how parental attachment style conditions the relationship with God. The results of many empirical studies to date have confirmed the presence of links between parental perceptions and images of God (Dickie et al., 2006; Exline, Homolka, et al., 2013; Granqvist et al., 2007). People address God as an attachment figure (Granqvist & 8 Various criteria have been used in organizing typologies of parental attitudes, such as the source of information about attitudes, the number of attitudes listed, and the way the typology was constructed. In his book Family Psychology. Theory and Research, Plopa (2011) reviewed existing typologies of parenting attitudes and categorized them into descriptive and factor typologies. Descriptive typologies attempt to encapsulate variables describing parental behavior into overarching concepts. Factor typologies sought to justify their objectivity through a factor analysis.

Personality Traits

69

Kirkpatrick, 2013) and imagine God using terms that describe parental relationships (Kunkel et al., 1999). This assumption is especially true for Western, monotheistic religious traditions, which emphasize the image of God as a close and loving father (Exline, Homolka, et al., 2013; Matys & Bartczuk, 2011; Wilt et al., 2019). There are few data illustrating how relationships with parents may condition religious struggle. Pioneering in this area is a study by Exline, Homolka, and Grubbs (2013). They analyzed the relationships of negative views of one’s mother or father with the struggle with God in a broad-based Internet sample and in a sample of undergraduates. In both samples, seeing one’s mother or father as cruel (unkind and rejecting) correlated positively with anger toward God and concern about God’s anger or disapproval toward the self. In addition, these authors tested two potential mediators of these relationships: a cruel God concept and a sense of instability or anxiety about abandonment in one’s perceived bond with God. The first mediator (a cruel God concept) showed consistent patterns of relationships across both samples: perceiving one’s mother or father as harsh was positively related to perceiving God as harsh, which in turn conditioned stronger anger toward God and stronger fear of disapproval from God. The mediation obtained, although consistent in both samples, was only partial. The second mediator (instability/anxiety) was also helpful in explaining the relationship between perceptions of parents and a struggle with God. The more harshly participants rated their parents, the more anxious and insecure their relationship with God was, and this in turn was associated with a stronger religious struggle.9

6.2

Personality Traits

Personality traits can be defined as relatively stable, consistent, and environmentally independent patterns of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functioning in humans (McCrae & John, 1992). Similarly, religious variables describe dynamic cognitive and behavioral processes relating to a person’s perceived relationship with God (Hill & Pargament, 2003). The hypothesis tested in this research about the relationship between personality traits and religious struggle is based on the assumption that the way a person interacts with other people, the world, and himself or herself is related to how he or she relates to religious and 9 Anxious attachment to God was also a significant mediator of the relationship between perception of parents and religious struggle after removing from the Instability subscale of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory (Hall & Edwards, 1996) and from the Anxiety about Abandonment subscale of the God Attachment Inventory (R. Beck & McDonald, 2004) those items that show semantic relatedness to measures of religious struggle.

70

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

spiritual issues. A religious person thinks, feels, and behaves differently than a non-religious person when confronted with stress (neuroticism), novelty (openness to experience), challenges of the external and internal world requiring self-control and responsibility (agreeableness), when engaged in interpersonal relationships (agreeableness), or in general in social contacts (extraversion) (Saroglou & Muñoz-García, 2008). The issue of personality traits as predictors of religiosity has received considerable attention in empirical research (Piedmont, 2005; Saroglou, 2002b, 2010). However, still little is known about the personality predictors of religious struggle (Ano & Pargament, 2013; Grubbs et al., 2016; Wilt, Grubbs, Pargament, et al., 2016). This study examined the relationship between religious struggle and the personality traits described in the Five Factors Model (FFM, Big Five) (McCrae & Costa, 2005): neuroticism; extraversion; openness to experience; agreeableness; and conscientiousness. Neuroticism characterizes humans on a continuum – emotional stability vs. emotional instability – and is expressed by six traits: anxiety; hostility; depression; self-consciousness; impulsiveness; and vulnerability to stress. Extraversion describes a person in terms of the quality and intensity of his or her social interactions, their degree of activity, need for stimulation, and ability to enjoy life. Extraversion describes six traits: warmth; gregariousness; assertiveness; activity level; excitement seeking; and positive emotions. Openness to experience assesses an individual’s type of mindfulness and intellectual dispositions, the quality of components related to experience and interpretation of the world, the ability to think divergently, and creativity. It is defined by the following characteristics: fantasy; aesthetics; feelings; actions; ideas; and values. Agreeableness reflects the quality of interpersonal orientation on a continuum from sympathy to hostility. It is defined by the following characteristics: trust; straightforwardness; altruism; compliance; modesty; and tenderness. Conscientiousness assesses the degree of organization, persistence, and motivation in goal-oriented activities and the degree of impulse control. Conscientiousness has been expressed by the following traits: competence; order; dutifulness; striving to achieve; self-discipline; and deliberation (McCrae & Costa, 2005; Pervin, 2000; Zawadzki et al., 1998). A trait that is associated with religious struggle is neuroticism. People with high levels of neuroticism feel stronger anger toward God (Grubbs, Exline, & Campbell, 2013) and score high on measures of negative religious stress coping (Ano & Pargament, 2013). Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, and Pargament (2016) showed that neuroticism predicted less favorable perceptions of God’s intent in the struggle and less meaning found in the struggle. Furthermore, neuroticism impairs spiritual growth and intensifies spiritual decline as a result of the struggle. No consistent results were obtained for the other four personality traits. In a study by Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, and Pargament (2016), all personality traits correlated low

Humility

71

with struggle, but the patterns of these correlations varied across samples. Grubbs, Exline, and Campbell (2013) showed that anger toward God correlated negatively with conscientiousness and agreeableness (Wood et al., 2010).

6.3

Humility

Some researchers have looked for personality characteristics that may be a risk factor for religious struggle. This has highlighted narcissism and trait anger as potential predictors of struggle (Grubbs et al., 2013). This study examined humility as a trait that may be a protective factor against religious struggle (Grubbs & Exline, 2014). Humility is among the characterological variables that are selfinduced rather than biologically determined (Exline et al., 2004). Defining humility is not an easy task. Existing definitions emphasize either a way of perceiving oneself or relational aspects in humility. In the first approach, humility implies an accurate view of self, a weaker tendency to raise self-esteem and present oneself in a better light (Baumeister & Exline, 2002; Exline et al., 2004). In the second view, humility refers to a nonegoistic orientation toward others combined with the expression of positive emotions (empathy, gratitude, and kindness) toward others (D. E. Davis et al., 2011). The existing ambiguities in defining the concept of humility lead some researchers to treat it as a multidimensional construct. An example of this approach is the definition proposed by Tangney (2000), according to which humility is: a rich, multifaceted construct […]. Specifically, the key elements of humility seem to include the: (1) accurate assessment of one’s abilities and achievements […]; (2) ability to acknowledge one’s mistakes, imperfections, gaps in knowledge, and limitations (often vis-à-vis a “higher power”); (3) openness to new ideas, contradictory information, and advice; (4) keeping of one’s abilities and accomplishments – one’s place in the world – in perspective (e. g., seeing oneself as just one person in the larger scheme of things); (4) relatively low self-focus, a “forgetting of the self”, while recognizing that one is but one part of the larger universe; and (6) appreciation of the value of all things, as well as the many different ways that people and things can contribute to our world. (Tangney, 2000, pp. 73–74)

Despite definitional difficulties, researchers agree that humility is associated with indicators of positive psychological, behavioral, and social functioning. For example, studies have found a positive association of humility with personal adjustment and politeness (Exline & Geyer, 2004), inner aspirations (Zalewska & Zawadzka, 2013), willingness to forgive (D. E. Davis et al., 2010; Stephen J. Sandage & Wiens, 2001) with prosocial behaviors (Exline & Geyer, 2004), maintenance of positive social relationships (D. E. Davis et al., 2013), and overall life satisfaction (Zalewska & Zawadzka, 2013). In other words, despite the in-

72

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

creasing contemporary narcissistic and individualistic tendencies, which is especially a characteristic of Western culture, humility remains a virtue with a number of positive connotations, highly valued by numerous cultural and religious traditions (Grubbs & Exline, 2014). According to some writers, it is “the most difficult of all virtues to achieve; nothing dies harder than the desire to think well of self” (Eliot, 1927, p. 8). Although humility is not necessarily motivated by religion, these variables have been observed to co-occur. Research supports positive correlations of humility with religiosity (Rowatt et al., 2006), and exemplary religious role performance is characterized as humble (Exline & Geyer, 2004). Given that humility fosters religiosity it seems likely that humility may provide a favorable ground that protects against the experience of religious struggle. Grubbs and Exline (2014) conducted a study to examine whether humility, as the opposite of entitlement, conditions low levels of divine struggle – struggle focused on emotions or ideas about God. The results of this research revealed that humility was related negatively to both forms of divine struggle. Furthermore, humility was a significant predictor of general and situational anger toward God, even after accounting for other variables conditioning religious struggle (e. g., psychological entitlement, agreeableness, trait anger).

6.4

Research Problem and Hypotheses

Research conducted to date has revealed that parental influences, personality traits, and humility may play an important role in predicting religious struggle (Exline, Homolka, et al., 2013; Grubbs & Exline, 2014; Wilt, Grubbs, Pargament, et al., 2016). Because this research is in its infancy, many questions still remain unanswered. Previous explorations of the personality sources of religious struggle have considered two categories of struggle: negative religious coping and divine struggle (Ano & Pargament, 2013; Grubbs et al., 2013). The extent to which personality traits condition religious tensions experienced in interactions with religious people and feelings of guilt and unforgiveness from God has not been established. Research on parental sources of struggle has been limited to one dimension of parental perceptions – strictness (Exline, Homolka, et al., 2013). Research on humility as a factor in reducing the risk of struggle has only considered an overall measure of humility, without considering its dimensions (Grubbs & Exline, 2014). Furthermore, multivariate analyses could not be found in the literature to identify a configuration of types of parental interactions, personality traits, and humility to best predict religious struggle. Finally, there is episodic knowledge about the conditioning mechanisms of religious struggle – that is, the conditions and ways in which these processes occur.

Research Problem and Hypotheses

73

This research attempts to fill in the gaps identified. Religious struggle is covered more broadly. In addition to divine struggle, guilt and fear of unforgiveness from God (fear–guilt) and interpersonal struggle were included. Parental attitudes were broadened to include both warm (acceptance, autonomy, protectiveness) and cold (rejection, demandingness, and inconsistency) attitudes of mothers and fathers. This will capture the variation in the extent to which religious struggle is conditioned by each parent’s parental attitudes. Humility has been framed multidimensionally. This will make it possible to determine the extent to which religious struggle is conditioned by particular aspects of humility. Obtaining such knowledge seems important, especially in the context of the still much debated issue of defining humility (e. g., Tangney, 2000). The analyses presented here are not limited to looking for associations between individual variables, but aim to test an assumed “hierarchy of causality,” that is, a configuration of parental attitudes, personality traits, and dimensions of humility that allows for the best prediction of each category of struggle (fear– guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle). Age was also included in the analyses. Results from many studies, including longitudinal studies, suggest that the importance of religion increases with age. Longitudinal studies of American adults have revealed an increase in religious involvement with age (Argue et al, 1999; Miller & Nakamura, 1996). Age-related increases in the importance of religion have also been observed in a representative sample of Poles. In individuals between the ages of 18 and 39, religion occupied a subordinate position in the personal meaning system. However, an increase in its importance was noted first after the age of 40 and then at the age of 60 (Zarzycka, 2009). In this research, it was assumed that age is the most primary variable that can condition struggle, with the next most important variable being parental influences, then personality traits, and the last one is dimensions of humility. In the model adopted, it was assumed that parental influence encounters a specific personality ground and conditions the child’s functioning through personality processes. The extent to which each category of struggle is conditioned by the assumed configuration of independent variables will be tested by hierarchical regression. The “causality hierarchy” of religious comfort will also be checked. Taking into account the context of support derived from faith and a relationship with God facilitates the understanding of processes responsible for the emergence of struggle (Morrill et al., 2008). Based on the models obtained, predictions will be formulated regarding the mechanisms of relationships between the variables analyzed, i. e., the ways in which the observed processes occur. The first predictor examined is parental attitudes. Psychology abounds with theories and research findings indicating that parental perceptions may condition one’s relationship with God, especially in Western, monotheistic religious systems (E. B. Davis et al., 2013; Freud, 2009; Granqvist et al., 2007; Granqvist

74

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

et al., 2010; Kirkpatrick, 1992; Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002). The research presented here focuses on seeking answers to the question of whether (and how) parental attitudes are related to fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle. The following general hypothesis is formulated: Hypothesis 6.1 Religious struggle depends on the parental attitudes of the father and mother (H6.1). Two specific hypotheses were formulated for H6.1, consistent with the correspondence hypothesis (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2013), according to which “positive follows positive” and “negative follows negative.” These were formulated as follows: Hypothesis 6.1.1 Cold parental attitudes of mother and father (demandingness and inconsistency) are associated with a higher intensity of religious struggle (including fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle) (H6.1.1). Hypothesis 6.1.2 Warm parental attitudes of mother and father (acceptance and antonomy) co-occur with low intensity of fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle (H6.1.2). Within the attachment theory, the compensation hypothesis has also been developed, which has also been confirmed in empirical research. According to this hypothesis, individuals with a nonsecure type of attachment to their parents compensate for experienced deficits by turning to God (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2013). However, this hypothesis has been applied mainly in research on the determinants of religious experiences and sudden religious conversions in individuals whose parents were not strongly religiously committed (Exline, Homolka, et al., 2013). The verification of hypotheses H6.1.1 and H6.1.2 will confirm the importance of parental attitudes in conditioning religious struggle. The second hypothesis is of a general nature, which is justified by the multidimensional structure of the studied variables. It was formulated as follows: Hypothesis 6.2 Religious struggle (fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle) depends on personality traits (H6.2). Findings from previous research suggest that neuroticism has links to anger toward God (Wood et al., 2010) and negative religious coping among college students (Ano & Pargament, 2013) and women over the age of 60 (Boland & Cappeliez, 1997). Given that neuroticism contains negative emotionality and

Research Problem and Hypotheses

75

cognitive processes, it was expected to enhance religious coping. The following hypothesis was formulated: Hypothesis 6.2.1 Higher neuroticism is associated with higher levels of religious struggle: fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle (H6.2.1). Conscientiousness and agreeableness have shown consistent relationships with various measures of traditionally defined religiosity. Saroglou’s (2002b) metaanalysis of findings on the relationship of personality traits with religiosity found that conscientiousness and agreeableness are most closely related to religiosity, both with intrinsic religious orientation as well as with spirituality and more open forms of religiosity. Preliminary (still inconsistent) research findings suggest that conscientiousness and agreeableness may undermine religious struggles (Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, et al., 2016). The following hypothesis was formulated: Hypothesis 6.2.2 High conscientiousness and agreeableness are associated with low levels of religious struggle: fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle (H6.2.2). Other features of the Five Factor Model (Extraversion and Openness to experience) have not yet shown consistent patterns of relationship with religiosity (Saroglou, 2002b). For example, with regard to openness, some authors believe that people interested in spirituality should score high on this dimension (McCrae, 1999). In contrast, others believe that openness does not show a relationship with religiosity (A. Taylor & MacDonald, 1999, p. 1254). Because there is insufficient theoretical and empirical evidence to make detailed predictions about the relationship between struggle and extraversion and openness to experience, this part of the analyses was treated as exploratory. The final predictor of religious struggle tested is humility. Previous research suggests that high humility decreases, and high psychological entitlement and narcissistic entitlement increase, the risk of experiencing anger with God (Grubbs et al., 2013; Grubbs & Exline, 2014). Thus, it was expected that humility would decrease the likelihood of experiencing religious struggle, in the form of: fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle. The following hypothesis was formulated: Hypothesis 6.3 High humility is associated with a low intensity of religious struggle: fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle (H6.3). It was also predicted that specific dimensions of humility would condition different categories of religious struggle to varying degrees. Because struggle shows

76

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

an affinity with religiosity, it was expected that seeing oneself in a broader, largerthan-life perspective (spirituality) would be a significant factor in reducing the risk of struggle. It was also expected that being open to new ideas, different information and guidance (openness) and appreciating the value of others and their contributions to an individual’s life (other-orientation) would reduce the likelihood of interpersonal struggle. These predictions are expressed by the following specific hypotheses: Hypothesis 6.3.1 Spirituality is associated with low intensity of fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle. Hypothesis 6.3.2 High openness and high other-orientation are associated with low interpersonal struggle severity. The next step examined the extent to which each category of struggle was predicted by a configuration of independent variables (parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility). The assumption made here was that parental attitudes condition struggle through personality traits. Therefore, parental attitudes were entered into the hierarchical regression model before personality traits and humility dimensions. Additionally, age was controlled. This analysis will result in models that contain configurations of independent variables that best predict each of the categories of struggle examined. Based on the results of regression analysis, mediation models were constructed to describe the ways in which parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility are related to struggle. Research suggests that cold parental attitudes increase the severity of neurotic tendencies and adjustment difficulties (Plopa, 2011), and neuroticism conditions stronger divine struggle (Ano & Pargament, 2013; Wood et al., 2010). Therefore, it has been speculated that neuroticism may mediate the relationship between parental attitudes and religious struggle. This prediction is expressed by the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 6.4 Neuroticism mediates the relationship between parents’ cold parental attitudes (demandingness and inconsistency) and religious struggle (H6.4). It was also predicted that humility would participate in the effect of age on religious struggle. Age promotes the acquisition of humility (Tangney, 2000), which in turn weakens divine struggle (Grubbs & Exline, 2014). Thus, it was conjectured that humility may mediate the relationship between age and religious struggle. This prediction is expressed by the following hypothesis:

77

Method

Hypothesis 6.5 Humility is a mediator of the relationship between age and religious struggle (H6.5). The analyses conducted are designed to verify these hypotheses.

6.5

Method

The characteristics of the participants, methods used, and methods of analyzing data on the relationship between parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility and religious-fear-guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle are presented below.

6.5.1 Participants The relationships between religious struggle and parental attitudes, personality traits, and dimensions of humility were established based on the results of Group 5 (see Section 5.3 for a description of the groups). This group consisted of 246 participants, 163 females and 83 males. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 74 years (M = 25.28; SD = 8.37). Table 6.1 includes the characteristics of the study participants. Table 6.1. Characteristics of the participants (n = 246) Group Gender Women Men Education Basic Essential-Vocational Secondary Higher Marital status Single Married Divorced / separated Widow / widower Professed religion Roman Catholic Greek Catholic Pentecostal Agnostic No data available

n

%

163 66.30 83 33.70 7 105 93 41

2.80 42.70 37.80 16.70

197 46 1 2

80.10 18.70 0.40 0.80

215 1 1 5 24

87.40 0.41 0.41 2.03 9.75

78

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

Table 6.1 (Continued) Group Religious tradition – upbringing Roman Catholic Greek Catholic Pentecostal Jehovah’s Witnesses No data available Changing religious traditions Not Yes No data available Place of residence Village of City up to 200,000 City over 200,000

n

%

237 5 1 1 2

96.34 2.03 0.41 0.41 0.81

189 76.83 41 16.67 16 6.50 76 30.90 124 50.40 46 18.70

6.5.2 Tools Independent variables were operationalized with the Parental Attitudes Scale (PAS) by Plopa (2008), the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) by Costa and McCrae (1989) and the Healthy Humility Inventory (HHI) by Quiros (2006). The dependent variable (religious struggle) was operationalized using the Religious Comfort and Strain Scale (RCSS) by Exline (Exline et al., 2000). 6.5.2.1 Parental Attitudes Scale (PAS) The Parental Attitudes Scale by Plopa (2008) is used to measure parental attitudes of the father and mother in an adult child retrospective assessment. The questionnaire contains two parts. The first one is designed to assess the mother’s attitude and the second one, the father’s. Each part contains 50 items grouped into five subscales (10 statements in each subscale): – Acceptance / Rejection – a high score is indicative of an attitude of acceptance. The participant remembers the parent as a person who accepts him or her unconditionally, and contact with the parent as affectionate and close. A low score indicates an attitude of rejection. The adult child remembers the relationship with the parent as cold and devoid of dialogue. – Autonomy – a high score indicates that the adult remembers the parent as a person who understood his or her need for autonomy, which grew with age, allowed for “experimentation,” learning to solve problems and make decisions independently.

79

Method

– Demandingness – a high score indicates that the adult child remembers the parent as a person who demands absolute obedience even in trivial matters, blocking the child’s striving for independence through prohibitions, orders, and punishments that have no regard for the child’s feelings. – Inconsistency – a high score indicates that the adult child remembers the parent as volatile, moody, nervous, and inconsistent in expressing their opinions, feelings, and decisions. – Protectiveness – a high score indicates that the adult remembers the parent as overly intrusive in their personal affairs, wanting to know everything and giving their advice in many situations. Respondents respond to each statement on a 5-point response format. Raw scores on each subscale range from 10 to 50 points. The PAS has satisfactory psychometric properties. The factor structure of each version of the test was confirmed by a confirmatory factor analysis – the goodness-of-fit values obtained are at a good level. The PAS has satisfactory reliability as measured by the internal consistency method on a sample of 1,552 adults (αA in Table 6.2). Theα-Cronbach coefficients calculated in the sample included in this study (αΒ in Table 6.2) were also found to be satisfactory – at a similar level as in the adaptive sample. Table 6.2. Parental Attitudes Scale (PAS) characteristics PAS Fathers’ attitudes Acceptance / Rejection Demandingness Autonomy Inconsistency Protectiveness Mothers’ attitudes Acceptance / Rejection Demandingness Autonomy Inconsistency Protectiveness

k

MK

SDK

MM

SDM

αΑ

αΒ

10 10 10 10 10

35.10 26.80 35.50 26.00 30.30

10.80 10.66 8.98 10.40 8.70

34.10 27.40 35.30 26.30 28.20

10.47 10.72 9.23 10.38 8.52

0.89 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.84

0.94 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.86

10 10 10 10 10

38.80 25.50 37.60 23.60 34.10

9.19 9.75 7.82 9.34 7.71

38.50 25.50 37.80 23.30 34.00

8.79 9.40 8.24 9.20 8.62

0.90 0.90 0.86 0.93 0.87

0.92 0.90 0.90 0.87 0.83

Note. Descriptive statistics obtained in the female (MK , SDK) and male (MM , SDM) samples are presented separately. Source. Plopa (2008, pp. 19, 51).

The assessment of PAS accuracy was based on the method of examining the internal structure of the test (scale intercorrelation matrix), the method of examining intergroup differences and criterion accuracy. The results obtained were in accordance with the predictions and testified to the high theoretical relevance

80

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

of the described tool. The PAS has sten norms developed on a sample of 2,053 women and 2,018 men aged 20 to 60 years (Plopa, 2008). A principal component analysis (PCA) with orthogonal Varimax rotation was performed on the PAS subscales. Its purpose was to reduce the number of PAS subscales and to obtain some more general factors describing parental interactions. The number of components was determined based on the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue greater than 1). Table 6.3. shows three sets of items were thus obtained – their factor loadings and common variance resources, as well as their eigenvalues and the range of variance explained by each component. Table 6.3. Factor loadings obtained from Principal Components Analysis: Pooled variance resources, eigenvalues, and percent explained variance for PAS (n = 246) Subscale

Components

1 1 Demanding mother -0.90 2 Autonomous mother 0.89 3 Accepting mother 0.83 4 Inconsistent mother -0.79 5 Inconsistent father 6 Demanding father 7 Autonomous father 8 Accepting father 9 Protective father 10 Protecting mother 3.80 Eigenvalue % of explained variance 38.02

2

0.89 0.88 -0.86 -0.77

3

Variability Resources Common

0.82 0.70

0.86 0.80 0.81 0.71 0.81 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.67 0.50

2.16 1.65 21.55 16.46

The three components obtained were characterized as follows: (1) Cold–Warm Mother – describes the mother’s parental attitude on a continuum from cold to warm. It includes four subscales: Mother’s Autonomy and Acceptance (positive signs) and Mother’s Demands and Inconsistency (negative signs). This component explains 38% of the variance in parental attitude scores; (2) Warm–Cold Father – describes the father’s parental attitude on a continuum from warm to cold. It includes four subscales: Father’s Inconsistency and Demands (positive signs) and Father’s Autonomy and Acceptance (negative signs). This component explains more than 21% of the variance in parental attitude scores; (3) Overprotective parents – contains two subscales: Protecting Mother and Protecting Father (positive signs). This explains more than 16% of the variance in parental attitude scores. Together, the three components explain 76% of the variance in parental attitude scores.

81

Method

6.5.2.2 NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) by Costy and McCrae (1989) contains 60 statements designed to assess five basic personality traits: (1) Neuroticism (NEU) – measures emotional stability vs. emotional imbalance. A high score indicates difficulty controlling urges and coping with stress, susceptibility to reacting with anxiety and tension, and a tendency to worry; (2) Extraversion (EKS) – measures the quality and intensity of social interactions, degree of activity, need for stimulation, and ability to enjoy life. A high score indicates sociability, talkativeness, propensity for fun, activity, vigor, optimism, and cheerfulness; (3) Openness to experience (OPE) – assesses the type of mindfulness, intellectual aptitude, and how one experiences and interprets the world. A high score is an indicator of curiosity about the phenomena of the external and internal world, interest in the unknown and different, and tolerance and exploration of experiences; (4) Agreeableness (AGR) – assesses the quality of interpersonal orientation on a continuum from sympathy to hostility. A high score indicates a friendly attitude toward others and a willingness to help; (5) Conscientiousness (CON) – measures the degree of organization, persistence, and motivation in goal-oriented activities and the degree of impulse control. A high score indicates conscientiousness, regularity, dutifulness, high ambition, and perseverance. Each subscale contains 12 statements to which respondents respond on a 5point response continuum (0 – strongly disagree, 4 – strongly agree) (McCrae & Costa, 1989). The Polish adaptation of the NEO-FFI has satisfactory psychometric properties and interim norms developed on a sample of 2,041 individuals aged 16 to 77 years (M = 28.32; SD = 13.57) (Zawadzki et al., 1998). Table 6.4 presents descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of the NEO-FFI obtained in the adaptive sample (αΑ ) and in this research (αΒ ). All subscales (except for Openness) have satisfactory reliability. Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness obtained slightly higher reliability than the adaptive sample in this study. On the other hand, Openness has lower reliability than the other subscales in both this sample and the adaptive sample. Table 6.4. NEO-FFI Scale characteristics NEO-FFI Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness

k 12 12 12 12 12

Scope 0–48 0–48 0–48 0–48 0–48

M 22.79 27.79 22.80 28.68 29.40

SD 7.87 6.86 6.31 5.76 7.26

Source. Zawadzki et al. (1998, pp. 37–38, 51).

αΑ 0.80 0.77 0.68 0.68 0.82

αΒ 0.85 0.82 0.60 0.71 0.75

82

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

6.5.2.3 Healthy Humility Inventory (HHI) The Healthy Humility Inventory (HHI) by Quiros (2006) is used to measure humility as a multidimensional construct. In the theoretical layer, the author relied on the definition proposed by Tangney (2000). This definition was the starting point for delineating the area of behaviors that are indicators of humility and constructing test items that operationalize this area. The construction of the HHI proceeded as follows. The initial item pool consisted of 200 statements. These were subjected to an expert assessment of how well the individual test items matched the content of the dimensions described by Tangney (2000). This evaluation resulted in an initial version of the method containing 88 statements. Respondents rated each item on a 6-point rating from 1 (not at all like me) to 6 (very much like me). The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) did not confirm the assumed structure of the scale. In further work, items with low factor loadings were revised or removed. This resulted in a questionnaire containing 39 statements. Another analysis of the HHI structure conducted with EFA also did not show good indicators of model fit to the data. Consequently, the author of the method decided to remove those items that obtained low factor loadings (< 0.60) in their own factor or high loadings in several factors simultaneously (Quiros, 2006). This resulted in a method consisting of 11 statements, organized into four subscales: (1) Other-Orientation – appreciating the value of others and their contributions to the individual’s life; (2) Spirituality – seeing oneself in a broader perspective guided by a force that transcends the individual; (3) Accurate view of self – striving for an accurate assessment of one’s abilities and achievements (not understating or depreciating oneself); and (4) Openness – to new ideas, different information, and guidance. The total score is the sum of the subscale scores and the overall measure of humility. The reliability of the total score determined by the internal consistency method on the results obtained in a sample of 183 students (M = 5.05; SD = 0.51) is α = 0.83. The author did not provide reliability indices or descriptive statistics for the subscale scores (Quiros, 2006). The accuracy of the scale was examined in several ways. Intercorrelations of the HHI subscales were tested, and associations of HHI subscale scores with scores on scales measuring constructs similar to or different from humility (e. g., hope, sense of worthiness, spiritual significance, depression, anxiety) were established. The results were consistent with predictions and demonstrated the theoretical relevance of the tool described (Quiros, 2006). The Polish adaptation of the HHI was prepared in 2015 as part of a research project carried out by psychology students at the Catholic University of Lublin

83

Method

under the guidance of Zarzycka.10 The translation was performed according to the guidelines of the International Test Commission (Hambleton, 2001). Statements 2 (I believe that all things happen for a reason) and 11 (I often challenge my beliefs) were translated in two ways. The second version of the translation was added to the HHI as statements 12 and 13. Thus, the Polish version of the HHI consists of 13 items with a 6-point response format. The factor structure of the Polish version of the HHI was based on the results of a survey of 331 adults, 204 females and 96 males (female proportion 61.60%)11 aged 16 to 51 (M = 24.81; SD = 7.22). The principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was performed. Based on the Keiser criterion (eigenvalue greater than 1), it was determined that four components should be extracted. These explained a total of 72.74% of the variance in scale item scores – Table 6.5. Table 6.5. Eigenvalues, percentage of explained variance and cumulative percentage for the proposed components of the 12-item Healthy Humility Inventory Component Eigenvalue 1 2 3 4

4.54 2.18 1.54 1.20

% of explained Cumulative % variance 34.95 34.95 16.75 51.70 11.83 63.52 9.21 72.74

The resulting components were consistent with the assumed model and were identified as: Other-Orientation; Spirituality; Accurate View of Self; and Openness. All items received high factor loadings (> 0.60) and the highest loadings in their own component. The Spirituality component includes an additional statement 12 (I believe that nothing happens without a reason), and the Openness component includes a statement 13 (I often challenge my beliefs). Of the scale items that entered the two components, statement 8 (0.33) received the highest factor load in the “not own” component. As a result, the Polish version of the HHI contains 13 items grouped into four subscales. Table 6.6 shows the grouped HHI items with their factor loadings.

10 The research report is available at the Department of Social Psychology and Psychology of Religion at the Catholic University of America. 11 Thirty-one individuals (9.40%) did not provide gender information.

84

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

Table 6.6. Factor loadings for Healthy Humility Inventory items (n = 331) obtained by the Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation Statements Component 1 Spirituality 5. I am guided by some higher being. 2. I believe that all things happen for a reason. 12. I believe that nothing happens without a reason. 1. I believe in something greater than myself.

Λ 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.74

Component 2 Other-Orientation 9. I have compassion for others. 10. I show gentleness toward others. 8. I desire to help others. Component 3 Accurate view of self 4. I want to know my true self. 6. I think it is important to know myself. 7. I seek wisdom.

0.85 0.79 0.78

Component 4 Openness 13. I often challenge my beliefs. 11. I often put my beliefs to the test. 3. I keep my opinions open to change.

0.90 0.88 0.61

0.87 0.81 0.76

The Polish version of the HHI obtained satisfactory reliability indices for the subscales and total score (α ) (Table 6.7). Table 6.7. Healthy Humility Inventory (HHI) characteristics (n = 331) HHI Other-Orientation Spirituality Accurate view of self Openness

k 3 3 3 3

M 4.51 4.31 4.85 3.13

SD 0.89 1.21 0.82 1.14

α 0.83 0.87 0.80 0.73

HUMILITY

12 4.20 0.64 0.81

Note. descriptive statistics were averaged by number of items.

The accuracy of the Polish version of the HHI was determined using the following methods: checking the intercorrelation between subscales and analyzing the correlation with the results of other scales measuring constructs similar to and different from humility (entitlement, hope, personality traits). The obtained results were consistent with the predictions and testified to the theoretical accuracy of the described tool.

85

Method

6.5.2.4 Religious Comfort and Strain Scale (RCSS) The Religious Comfort and Strain Scale (RCSS) is a questionnaire method used to examine three categories of religious struggle: (1) preoccupation with one’s own sin, guilt, feeling unforgiven by God; (2) negative emotions toward God; (3) negative social interactions surrounding religion, and religious comfort, which is the support drawn from faith and relationship with God (Exline et al., 2000). The method includes four subscales (Zarzycka, 2014): (1) Religious Comfort (RC) is a measure of support drawn from faith (the perception of faith as a source of strength, peace, harmony, a sense of meaning and purpose in life) and from the relationship with God (a sense of trust in God, a perception of God as almighty, supportive, and caring for human beings); (2) Fear–Guilt (FG) measures the intensity of preoccupation with one’s sins, feelings of guilt and unforgiveness by God; (3) Divine Struggle (DS) measures negative feelings toward God, perceptions of God as unjust, untrustworthy, cruel and abandoning to man; (4) Interpersonal Struggle (IS) – measures the intensity of negative emotions and interactions in relationships with believers. The RCSS contains 24 statements to which respondents respond on an 11point response format (from 0 – Not at all, 10 – Extremely). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the method was conducted in several samples of adults (Zarzycka, 2014). The four-component structure of the Polish adaptation of the RCSS and its reliability were confirmed. Basic descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients obtained in the adaptive sample (αΑ) are presented in Table 6.8. It also contains internal consistency coefficients obtained in this study (αB). These estimates were found to be satisfactory, and even higher in the Fear–Guilt and Interpersonal Struggle subscales than in the adaptive sample. Table 6.8. Characteristics of the Religious Comfort and Strain Scale (n = 303) RCSS Religious Comfort Fear–Guilt Divine Struggle Interpersonal Struggle

k 10 6 6 2

M 7.14 3.04 1.63 2.80

SD 2.37 1.81 1.53 1.99

αΑ 0.96 0.74 0.86 0.56

αΑ 0.96 0.80 0.85 0.70

Source. Zarzycka (2014, p. 692).

The method can be used to measure struggle experienced in a unit of time or in response to specific life events (Stauner et al., 2016). In the research presented in this work, participants were asked to describe their own experiences and sensations over the past two months.

86

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

6.5.3 Method of analysis An analysis of the associations between the independent variables (parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility) and the categories of religious struggle (fear–guilt, divine struggle, and interpersonal struggle) was conducted using correlational methods. First, r-Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. A correlation analysis provided an overall picture and facilitated a preliminary understanding of the relationships between the study variables. The relationship structure between the predictors (parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility) and each of the dependent variables (fear–guilt, divine struggle, and interpersonal struggle) was analyzed using hierarchical regression. The configuration of variables to predict religious comfort was determined in the same manner. A regression analysis was conducted for each dependent variable in turn, first for religious struggle (fear–guilt, divine struggle, and interpersonal struggle) and then for religious comfort. The independent variables were entered into the model in four blocks. In the first block, Age was entered. In the second, parental attitudes were introduced (as three factors: warm–cold father, cold–warm mother, overprotective parents). Block 3 introduced five personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness), and Block 4 introduced dimensions of humility (other-orientation, spirituality, accurate view of self, and openness).12 Hierarchical regression, with its ability to define blocks of predictors and enter them in a specific order, enables: – modeling a “hierarchy of causality” in the studied set of predictors, allowing for the best prediction of the dependent variable – thus obtaining information about which configuration of parental attitudes, personality traits, and dimensions of humility best explains each category of religious struggle; – comparing how the configuration of the independent variables changes in successive blocks – analyzing these changes allows us to predict the mechanisms of the relationship of religious struggle to parental attitudes, personality traits, and dimensions of humility.

12 In this research, it was hypothesized that parental interactions condition a child’s functioning through his or her personality tendencies, and thus parental attitudes encounter a specific personality ground. Therefore, parental attitudes were introduced into the model in Block 2, before personality traits (Block 3). Humility, on the other hand, introduces an additional element of self-activity. That is why it was introduced at the end. However, another model is also possible. In particular, it may be assumed that the child’s personality is primary to the influence of the parents, i. e., the parents adjust their parental attitudes to the child’s traits. Then the block of personality trait variables would have to be introduced before the block containing parental attitudes.

87

Results

The final stage of the analyses consisted in verifying the models obtained in the hierarchical regression analysis. For this purpose, the conditional process methods contained in the Hayes’ PROCESS macro (2013) were used. PROCESS is a versatile modeling tool that integrates many functions of existing and popular statistical tools for mediation and moderation analyses and their integration, freely available as an add-on to SPSS. It combines many of the functions of existing procedures and tools into one easy-to-use procedure, also providing multiple models incorporating mediation and moderation. It allows the measurement of indirect effect sizes in both single and multiple mediator models and provides the ability to test two or three interactions simultaneously. The effect sizes were estimated using the bootstrap method. This involves generating an empirical representation of the sample distribution and treating it as a miniature representation of the population. When performing the bootstrap method, the sample is subjected to repeated draws with returns (5,000 samples were drawn; Hayes, 2009). Typically, each new sample contains the same number of observations as the original sample, but some observations may be randomly selected multiple times while some not at all. Each time, estimates of sample parameters, such as direct and indirect effects, are made. This method does not require an assumption about the distribution of the indirect effect to be met and allows analyses to be conducted on relatively small samples (Cichocka & Bilewicz, 2010). Based on the values of the indirect effect estimates, their 90% confidence intervals were generated: if 0 does not appear between the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval, one can conclude with 90% confidence that the effect is non-zero. Simulation studies (MacKinnon et al., 2002) have shown that the bootstrap test has greater power and is a more accurate method for testing indirect effects than the proposal of Baron and Kenny (1986) and the Sobel (1982) test. Since the same model was not tested for each category of struggle, but models were created based on the results of a regression analysis, each model used was described on the fly.

6.6

Results

This section presents results showing the relationships between the independent variables (parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility dimensions) and the dependent variables (fear–guilt, divine, and interpersonal struggle). The order of the presentation of the results obtained is as follows. First, the characteristics of the study sample in terms of the retrospectively assessed mother’s and father’s parental attitudes, personality traits, humility, and religious struggle and support will be presented. Next, the correlation coefficients between parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility, and the categories r/s struggle and

88

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

religious comfort will be presented. In the following step, the results of the hierarchical regression analysis that was used to determine the structure of the independent variables (parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility) conditioning each of the categories of struggle and religious support will be presented. The final section of this chapter presents the results of the mediation analyses used to verify assumptions about the ways in which parental attitudes, personality traits, and humility dimensions condition struggle.

6.6.1 Parental attitudes, personality, and humility in the study sample The following are characteristics of the study sample drawn from the retrospectively assessed mother and father parental attitudes, personality traits, humility, and religious struggle and support. 6.6.1.1 Parental attitudes in the study sample The Parental Attitudes Scale (PAS) is used to measure the following parental attitudes of the father and mother: acceptance; demandingness; autonomy; inconsistency; and protectiveness. Table 6.9 presents the values of the descriptive statistics for the distributions of the PAS scores obtained from the study sample and the results of tests for consistency of these distributions with a normal distribution. Table 6.9. Descriptive statistics and normality tests of the distributions of scores in the PAS (n = 246) PAS Fathers’ Attitudes Acceptance Demandingness Autonomy Inconsistency Protectiveness Mother’s Attitudes Acceptance Demandingness Autonomy Inconsistency Protectiveness

xmin xmax

M

SD

SKE

K

-0.36 0.10 -0.24 0.17 0.41

-0.71 -0.75 -0.27 -0.68 -0.24

S–W

pS–W

10 10 13 10 10

50 50 50 50 50

32.80 29.89 34.24 28.82 28.48

10.12 9.72 7.99 9.32 8.48

0.97 < 0.001 0.98 0.003 0.99 0.027 0.98 0.005 0.98 0.001

10 10 10 10 14

50 50 50 49 50

38.18 27.95 36.19 24.82 36.00

9.03 -0.88 0.43 0.93 < 0.001 9.63 0.32 -0.53 0.98 0.001 9.02 -0.76 0.17 0.95 < 0.001 9.63 0.44 -0.56 0.97 < 0.001 7.90 -0.35 -0.38 0.98 0.002

The resulting distributions of scores on subscales measuring the fathers’ and mothers’ attitudes do not follow a normal distribution. The subscales Demandingness, Inconsistency, and Protectiveness in a fathers’ attitudes are

Results

89

characterized by rightward asymmetry, with many individuals giving low-scoring responses. Whereas the subscales Acceptance and Autonomy of the father show a leftward asymmetry, with many individuals giving high-scoring responses. Distributions of the mothers’ scores for the subscales Acceptance, Protectiveness, and Autonomy show a leftward asymmetry, while the subscales Demandingness and Inconsistency show a rightward asymmetry. After comparing the obtained data to the PAS (Plopa, 2008) sten norms, it was found that the raw scores obtained in all subscales measuring the fathers’ attitudes were within the range of 5 sten. Scores on the subscales measuring the mothers’ Acceptance, Demandingness, and Inconsistency also included a 5th sten, and the Autonomy subscale included a 6th sten. On the subscale measuring the mothers’ Protectiveness, participants obtained scores corresponding to the 7th sten. Thus, the results of all subscales (except for the mothers’ Protectiveness) can be treated as average, typical for the ratings of most Polish parents by children and adolescents. The only difference concerned the assessment of the mother’s protective attitude – participants in the present group assessed their mothers as more interfering in their personal affairs than the standardization sample. Comparisons were also made between mothers’ and fathers’ parental attitude ratings in the study sample, as well as between men’s and women’s ratings of parental attitudes. The t-test values obtained indicated significant differences in fathers’ and mothers’ ratings on all subscales. Mothers’ attitude ratings were significantly higher on the Acceptance, Autonomy, and Protectiveness subscales, while fathers’ attitude ratings were higher on the Demanding and Inconsistency subscales. Results obtained in individual subscales are presented in the appendix (Table A.1). A comparison of male and female ratings of parental attitudes showed that daughters and sons rated parental attitudes similarly on all subscales except their mother’s Protectiveness and their father’s Acceptance. Women rated mothers as more protective and fathers as more accepting than men. Subscale scores are reported in the appendix (Table A.2). The results are analogous to those obtained by Plopa (2008) and confirm the thesis repeatedly stressed in the literature that mothers have “warmer” relations with their children than fathers. As for fathers’ attitudes, they are perceived as more accepting by daughters than by sons. 6.6.1.2 Personality traits in the study sample The NEO-Five Factor Inventory is used to measure five personality traits: neuroticism; extraversion; openness to experience; agreeableness; and conscientiousness. Table 6.10 shows descriptive statistics and normality tests of the distributions of the NEO-FFI subscales scores in the study sample.

90

Predictors of Religious Struggle. Parental Attitudes, Personality, and Humility

Table 6.10. Descriptive statistics and normality tests of score distributions in the NEO-FFI (n = 246) NEO-FFI Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness

xmin 0.00 5.00 10.00 6.00 3.00

xmax 49.00 46.00 44.00 47.00 48.00

M 23.82 28.42 26.39 30.34 29.24

SD 9.88 7.28 6.67 6.32 8.31

SKE 0.15 -0.47 0.03 -0.42 -0.25

K -0.23 0.15 -0.26 0.30 -0.28

S–W 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99

pS–W 0.126 0.001 0.248 0.003 0.029

The Shapiro–Wilk test (Razali & Wah, 2011) was used to assess the consistency of the obtained distribution with the normal distribution. The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated a significant deviation from the normal distribution in the subscales: Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The distributions of scores on these subscales are characterized by leftward asymmetry, with many individuals giving high-scoring responses. The distributions of scores for Neuroticism and Openness to Experience do not differ significantly from the normal distribution. In all subscales (except Neuroticism) there are no results from the highest and lowest ranges of the scale. There were atypical observations in the Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness subscales. Compared to the adaptive sample (Zawadzki et al., 1998 cf. Table 6.4), the present group shows higher Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness. The reason for these differences may be that this sample has a higher proportion of young people, aged between 19 and 24 years. In the adaptive sample, the different age levels of adulthood are more numerous and proportionately represented (Zawadzki et al., 1998, p. 44). The results of the comparisons are included in the appendix (Table A.3). 6.6.1.3 Humility in the study sample The Healthy Humility Inventory (HHI) can be used to measure four dimensions of humility: other-orientation; spirituality; accurate view of self; and openness. The HHI total score is the sum of the subscale scores and measures the severity of Humility. Characteristics of the distributions of HHI scores obtained in the study sample are presented in Table 6.11. The distribution of the total score (Humility) follows a normal distribution, while the results of the HHI subscales are characterized by left asymmetry – i. e., there are more high scores. All subscales (except Openness) have atypical observations. A comparison of the total score obtained in the present sample with the score obtained in the HHI test sample (Quiros, 2006) showed a significant intergroup difference. The mean obtained in the present group (M = 4.21; SD = 0.61) is significantly lower (t = 15.11; p < 0.001) than in the test sample (M = 5.05;

91

Results

SD = 0.51). Thus, the present group is characterized by a lower intensity of humility. Table 6.11. Descriptive statistics and normality tests of the distributions of scores on the Healthy Humility Inventory (n = 246) HHI Other-Orientation Spirituality Accurate view of self Openness HUMILITY

xmin 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.13

xmax 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.83

M 4.40 4.37 4.67 3.39 4.21

SD 0.89 1.01 0.77 1.00 0.61

SKE -0.79 -0.72 -0.79 -0.30 -0.22

K 1.42 0.38 1.96 -0.23 0.12

S–W 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.98 0.99

pS–W