Abstract
While recent life events (RLE) cause ill health and psychological distress, religiosity is positively associated with health. The adverse effect of RLE on health is usually explained in terms of stress theory; the positive religiosity-health association is explained by the nature of the religious network, or by the effect of religiosity on the internal environment of the individual. Using data collected from a sample (n = 230) of two Israeli kibbutzim, one religious and one non-religious, with similar ecology, demography, and social structure, the stress-deterrent effect of religiosity is studied. Self-administered questionnaires, including a list of RLE, five health measures, and five religiosity measures, were randomly distributed. Our findings show that whereas RLE adversely relate to health, belonging to a religious community counterbalances the negative health consequences of RLE. Individual religiosity (private praying, theodicity, and religious commitment) do not have the same stress-deterrent effect.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1051-1066 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Human Relations |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1 Jan 1990 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- Social Sciences (all)
- Strategy and Management
- Management of Technology and Innovation
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Recent Life Events, Religiosity, and Health: An Individual or Collective Effect'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Human Relations, Vol. 43, No. 11, 01.01.1990, p. 1051-1066.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Recent Life Events, Religiosity, and Health
T2 - An Individual or Collective Effect
AU - Anson, Ofra
AU - Carmel, Sara
AU - Bonneh, Dan Y.
AU - Levenson, Arieh
AU - Maoz, Benjamin
N1 - Funding Information: Anson Ofra Department of Sociology of Health, University Center for Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheba 84 105, Israel. Carmel Sara Bonneh Dan Y. Ben-Gurion University Levenson Arieh National Fund for Medical Education Maoz Benjamin Soroka Medical Center 11 1990 43 11 1051 1066 While recent life events (RLE) cause ill health and psychological distress, religiosity is positively associated with health. The adverse effect of RLE on health is usually explained in terms of stress theory; the positive religiosity-health association is explained by the nature of the religious network, or by the effect of religiosity on the internal environment of the individual. Using data collected from a sample (n = 230) of two Israeli kibbutzim, one religious and one non-religious, with similar ecology, demography, and social structure, the stress-deterrent effect of religiosity is studied. Self-administered questionnaires, including a list of RLE, five health measures, and five religiosity measures, were randomly distributed. Our findings show that whereas RLE adversely relate to health, belonging to a religious community counterbalances the negative health consequences of RLE. Individual religiosity (private praying, theodicity, and religious commitment) do not have the same stress-deterrent effect. sagemeta-type Journal Article search-text Human Relations, Volume 43, Number 11, 1990, pp. 1051-1066 Recent Life Events, Religiosity, and Health: An Individual or Collective Effect Ofra Anson,I Sara Carmel, and Dan Y. Bonneh Ben-Gurion University Arieh Levenson National Fund for Medical Education Benjamin Maoz Soroka Medical Center While recent life events (RLE) cause ill health and psychological dis- tress, religiosity is positively associated with health. The adverse effect of RLE on health is usually explained in terms of stress theory; the positive religiosity-health association is explained by the nature of the religious net- work, or by the effect of religiosity on the internal environment of the in- dividual. Using data collected from a sample (n = 230) of two Israeli kibbutzim, one religious and one non-religious, with similar ecology, demog- raphy, and social structure, the stress-deterrent effect of religiosity is studied. Self-administered questionnaires, including a list of RLE, five health meas- ures, and five religiosity measures, were randomly distributed. Our findings show that whereas RLE adversely relate to health, belonging to a religious community counterbalances the negative health consequences of RLE. In- dividual religiosity (private praying, theodicity, and religious commitment) do not have the same stress-deterrent effect. 'Requests for reprints should be send to Ofra Anson, Department of Sociology of Health, University Center for Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheba 84 105, Israel. 1051 0018-7267/90/1100-1051$06.00/1 ( 1990 Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Anson, Carmel, Bonneh, Levenson, and Maoz INTRODUCTION The causal, negative relationships between recent life events (RLE) and well-being have been extensively documented in the last three decades, since the pioneering works of Hinkle and Wolff (1957, 1958) and Holms and Rahe (1967). In numerous retrospective as well as prospective studies, recent life events were found to be associated with physical ill health (Holms & Rahe, 1967; Rahe, 1974; Rahe, Meyer, Smith, Kiaser, & Holms, 1967; Rahe, Gun- derson, Pugh, Rubin, & Ranson, 1972; Holms & Masuda, 1974), poor men- tal health (Myers, Lindenthal, & Pepper, 1974; Mueller, Edwards, & Yarvis, 1977; McFarlane, Norman, Streiner, Roy, & Scott, 1980; Thoits, 1981; Tau- sig, 1982; Vinokur & Caplan, 1986), and to erode self-esteem and sense of control (Caplan, 1981; Pearlin, Menagham, Lieberman, & Mullan, 1981; Krause & Van Tran, 1989). Nonetheless, personality (Nuckolls, Cassel, & Kaplan, 1972; Kobasa, 1982; Antonovsky, 1979, 1987) and social assets (Nuckolls et al., 1972; Cobb, 1976; Thoits, 1982; Patrick, Morgan, & Charlton, 1986) are resources which moderate the adverse effects that re- cent life events have on the well-being of the individual experiencing them. The role that religion and religiosity might have in alleviating the negative consequences that recent life events have on well-being, however, has been largely neglected (Krause & Van Tran, 1989). The purpose of this study is to look at the health consequences of recent life events (RLE) in two Israeli kibbutzim (collective settlements), one religious and one non-religious, which are similar in ecology, demography, and social structure, and thus to inves- tigate the role of religiosity in coping with RLE. The association between religion and health has been widely studied (Witter, Stock, Okun, & Haring, 1985; Levin & Schiller, 1987; Levin & Van- derpool, 1987; Troyer, 1988). Generally, positive but weak relationships have been found between religious affiliation, church attendance, or religious feel- ings, and physical and mental well-being. Several explanations have been offered for this association. Epidemiologists have argued that religion regu- lates daily behavior, such as diet, fertility, smoking, and alcohol (Troyer, 1988). Sociologists and social psychologists have suggested that religiosity promotes health by offering social support (Idler, 1987), offers comfort dur- ing marginal situations, such as recent life events (Idler, 1987; Studzinski, 1987), enables the individual to locate and explain RLE in comprehensive and meaningful world or life schemes (Frankl, 1975; Walsh, 1980; O'Brien, 1982; Thompson & Janigian, 1988), or is a resource for imaginary interaction with divine figures (Caughey, 1984; Pollner, 1989). Nonetheless, the mechanisms through which religion and religiosity promote health or prevent illness are not yet clear (Zuckerman, Kasl, & Ostfeld, 1984). Durkheim's analysis of religion sheds some light on the role of religion in coping with personal crisis, or recent life events. For Durkheim, religion, 1052 Life Events, Religiosity, and Health as a social institution, is a mechanism of social integration (1951) and social regulation (1961). At the turn of the century, he showed that different religions varied in their levels of social integration, and that the more in- tegrated ones offered better protection against suicide. Durkheim, then, calls on us to look into the collective properties of religion, rather than into the individual religious experiences, as suggested by others. Almost 100 years later, after rapid social changes including a process of secularization in the Western world (Crippen, 1988), Pescosolido and Georgianna (1989) found empirical evidence to support Durkheim's basic thesis. After considering the changes which the various religions have undergone in the United States, they evaluated them in terms of their levels of integra- tion and regulation. Drawing on network theory concepts, they concluded that religious networks provided their members with additional social sup- port (integration) and guidance (regulation) at times of personal crises, and thus helped them avoid self-destructive behavior such as suicide. The findings reported by Krause and Van Tran (1989) can be interpret- ed along the same lines. In studying the compensating effect of religiosity on the negative consequences of RLE among elderly blacks, they conclude that "... . religious involvement may play an important role in bolstering and main- taining positive self feeling. . . . Particularly strong effects were observed with organizational religiosity" (p. SbO, emphasis added). Organizational religiosity was measured by items related to church attendance, and non- organizational religiosity by items related to individual religiosity such as "How religious would you say you are?" and "How often do you pray?" The study conducted by Krause and Van Tran (1989) is of special in- terest in our context not only because it deals specifically with religiosity and RLE, but because it offers some insight into the process by which religiosity might buffer stress. Based on Wheaton's (1985) review of the stress litera- ture, they test three possible models: the moderator model, which predicts that religiosity will progressively reduce the negative relationships between RLE and the outcome measure, the suppressor model, which predicts that RLE have negative consequences but also increase religiosity, which, in turn, diminishes the overall negative effects of RLE, and the distress-deterrent model, which predicts that RLE and religiosity exert direct but contradictory effects on the outcome measures, with no correlation between them, thus counterbalancing each other. Krause and Van Tran (1989) found empirical support only for the counterbalacing effect of religiosity and RLE, as predict- ed by the distress-deterrent model. The special nature of the kibbutz community provides a unique oppor- tunity for testing the counterbalancing effects of religion and RLE on health. The aspiration to establish a community in the Gemeinschaft sense of the word has produced intensive formal and informal networks of social sup- port and mechanisms which enhance integration and decrease alienation 1053 Anson, Carmel, Bonneh, Levenson, and Maoz (Antonovsky & Antonovsky, 1974; Spiro, 1983). Thus, exploring the role of religiosity in coping with RLE within the kibbutz movement, by studying a religious and a non-religious kibbutz, is an excellent, almost laboratory opportunity to gain some insight into the "net effect" that religion might have in reducing the negative health consequences of RLE. Apart from the major difference in religiosity between the two kibbut- zim, there is, within each one, some degree of variability in individual religiosi- ty. In each kibbutz, members differ in their personal degree of religious observation, in their commitment to religion, and in the consolidation each finds in religion. Given this variability, we hope to be able to differentiate between the "network" effect of religion, the effect of organizational religiosi- ty on health at times of personal crisis, and the effect of individual, non- organizational religiosity on the health of those facing RLE. On the basis of the above discussion, the following hypotheses will be tested: (1) RLE will be adversely related to health, (2) in accordance with the distress-deterrent model, belonging to a religious community will have a positive effect on health that will counterbalance the negative health con- sequences of RLE, and (3) non-organizational religiosity, that is, individual religiosity, will not have the same stress-deterrent effect, and will not coun- terbalance the negative health outcomes of RLE to the same extent. METHOD The Settings Two kibbutzim located in the Western Negev region in Israel were chos- en for the present study. Three criteria were used in choosing the kibbutzim: geographical proximity, to control for ecological variation, similar size (the religious kibbutz has 370 members aged 21 +, and the non-religious kibbutz has 430 members of the same age), and well-established kibbutzim to avoid differences that might reflect the enthusiasm on the one hand and the social disorganization on the other, peculiar to new communities (the religious kib- butz was established in 1947 and the non-religious kibbutz in 1946). The Sample Structured questionnaires were distributed to randomly selected sam- ples of adults (members aged 21 years or older) in the two kibbutzim. The questionnaires were anonymously returned to a designated mailbox. In the 1054 Life Events, Religiosity, and Health religious kibbutz, 105 full questionnaires were returned (75% response rate), and 125 full questionnaires were returned in the non-religious kibbutz (86Do response rate). The greater response rate in the non-religious kibbutz is due to a better follow-up procedure. Eleven questionnaires, seven of the religious subsample and four of the non-religious subsample, were excluded from the present analysis, because of inadequate response on critical items. There are almost no significant differences in the demographic charac- teristics of the two samples (Table I). Although the respondents of the reli- gious kibbutz are slightly older, and more men than women volunteered to fill in the questionnaire than in the non-religious kibbutz, the differences are not statistically significant. Moreover, both samples represent the age and sex distributions of their respective kibbutzim. A similar proportion of the respondents in the two kibbutzim was born in Israel and on a kibbutz. RLE Measures Respondents were presented with a list of 32 RLE and asked to check the events that occurred to them during the previous year. The list was ad- justed for the kibbutz reality from the original scale used by Holms and Rahe (1967). Thus, items related to job loss, loans, and mortgage were excluded, and one item, "a family member joined the army," was added. Table I. Socio-Demographic Background - the Two Samples Non-religious Religious (n= 125) (n= 105) P Age Sample (mean) 42.9 46.2 (13.1) (14.2) NS Population (mean)' 41.5 42.6 (13.8) (15.1) NS Sex Sample (07W male) 43.2 54.3 NS Population (0Vo male)a 48.4 48.5 NS Place of birthb Israel (0Vo) 70.5 65.4 Europe-America 22.1 32.7 Asia-Africa 7.4 1.9 NS Kibbutz (0lo) 27.0 30.0 NS aObtained from the secretarial of each kibbutz. bComparison data for the total population of the studied kibbutzim are not available. 1055 Anson, Carmel, Bonneh, Levenson, and Maoz RLE were counted to generate one global score for each subject.2 The classification of RLE by criteria of desirability (Mueller et al., 1977), con- trollability or predictability (McFarlane et al., 1980), and the weighting of RLE by the degree of adaptation required (Holms & Rahe, 1967), have con- tributed to the understanding of the adverse effect of RLE on health but did not substantively or significantly increase the predictive value of RLE (Shrot, 1981; Tausig, 1982). Health Measures One measure of mental well-being and four measures of physical health were used. Psychological well-being was measured by the Scale of Psycho- logical Distress (SPD; Ben-Sira, 1982), a six-item scale in which the respon- dent is asked to report the frequency of psycho-physiological symptoms, such as heart palpitations and trembling hands. The possible range of scores is from 6 (most distressed person) to 24 (least distressed). Physical health was measured by: 1. Subjective evaluation of health: the subjects were asked to evaluate their own health on a 5-point scale, from (1) excellent to (5) poor. 2. Reported frequency of having any of 14 symptoms, such as cough- ing and diarrhea, during the previous month, adapted for the present study from the much more elaborate Quality of Well-Being Scale (Bush, 1984). The possible range was 14 (often experienced all symptoms) to 56 (did not experience any of the symptoms during the past month). 3. Reported disability: the respondents were asked the extent to which their health limits their daily activity: (1) very much to (4) not at all. 4. Reported number of chronic conditions. Religiosity Measures Five measures of religiosity were used to differentiate the degree of religiosity between the two types of kibbutz: 1. Self-rated religiosity: respondents were asked "how do you describe yourself?" (1) very observant, . . . (4) not at all observant, completely secu- lar. This measure of religiosity is widely used in Israel, and its construct va- 2Given the volunteer nature of the respondents, non-relevant response patterns such as all-positive responses, or set patterns of a positive, b negative responses, seem unlikely. To test for this, 10% of the questionnaires were analyzed for response patterns of this kind, and in none of them could we find significant departures from the random response pattern (answer to each question independent of the answer to the previous question). 1056 Life Events, Religiosity, and Health lidity is supported by its ability to predict various phenomena ranging from modernity and marital satisfaction (Katz & Briger, 1988) to political attitudes (Inbar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1989). 2. Religious commitment: respondents were asked whether they were (1) more, (2) similarly, or (3) less religious than other members of their kibbutz. 3. Religious practice: respondents were asked about their observance of nine religious practices, concerning dietary prohibitions, fasting, and pray- ing. A Religious Practice Scale ranging from 9 (very observant) to 35 (not at all observant) was then constructed (Cronbach's alpha = .83). 4. Private praying: respondents were asked whether they spontaneous- ly turn to God in personal prayer: (1) almost daily . . . (4) almost never. 5. Theodicity: respondents were asked to what extent they find com- fort in religion at times of suffering and distress: (1) very much . . . (4) not at all. FINDINGS The first hypothesis predicted that RLE will be adversely associated with health. This hypothesis was supported by the data, with three of the five health measures significantly and negatively correlated with RLE. Con- trolling for age and sex, the partial correlation of RLE with the Scale of Psy- chological Distress (SPD) was -0.20 (p 0.8) with kibbutz type, and among themselves, so that they are, in fact, all measuring the same thing. The other two measures, private praying and religious commitment, have far lower correlations, and measure aspects of religiosity within the kibbutz, irrespective of its organizational affiliation. The independence of these two variables can be seen in Fig. 1, which presents a Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) of the correlation matrix (Gutt- man, 1968). SSA is a geometrical analysis in which each variable is present- ed as a point in Euclidean space, and the stronger the correlation, the smaller the distance between two points. The goodness of fit of the geometric presen- tation to the actual correlation is presented by the coefficient of alienation, ranging between 0-1 (the smaller the coefficient the better the fit). The SSA clearly shows that religious practice, self-rated religiosity, and theodicity form the main cluster, and the other two variables, private praying and religious commitment, stand out as measuring relatively independent facets of individu- al religiosity. These last two were used for testing the third hypothesis. The- odicity was also chosen for the individual religiosity analysis for two reasons. First, we felt that the content of this variable taps more the concept of non- organizational religiosity than the concept of organizational religiosity. Sec- ond, of the three religiosity measures which are highly correlated with com- munity type and among themselves, theodicity had the lowest coefficient. The third hypothesis is largely supported by the data (Table IV). As shown in the first two panels of the table, neither private praying, nor reli- gious commitment has a significant effect on any of the three health meas- ures negatively affected by RLE, and the overall variance explained is consistently lower than when using kibbutz type as the predictor variable. The- Table III. Pearson Correlations - Community Type and Religiosity Measuresa RP SR THEO PP RC Kibbutz (1 = secular, 2 = religious) -.96 -.92 -.80 -.54 -.32 Religious practice - .92 .82 .55 .40 Self-rated religiosity - .82 .60 .42 Theodicity - .67 .44 Private praying - .40 Religious commitment 'All coefficients are significant at p 0.8). Second, pri- vate praying and religious commitment, though not autocollinear and not overlapping the others, are nonetheless substantially correlated with the other measures of religiosity (r > 0.5, r > 0.4, respectively). Theoretically, one can think of at least three concepts which would lead one to predict that religiosity would strengthen the individual's ability to cope with stress. According to Frankl (1975), faith may obstruct the development of the pathogenic existential vacuum which is the result of the frustrated "will to meaning." Frankl believes that man is a "being in search for meaning" (p. 112). Failure in finding meaning might be pathogenic, cause mental dis- order, addiction, and probably physical ill-health. Faith, religious or other- wise, might provide this sense of the meaning of life and of human existence, and, thus, decrease vulnerability to illness. 1062 Life Events, Religiosity, and Health Taking a salutogenic approach, Antonovsky (1979, 1987) developed the concept of the "sense of coherence." The sense of coherence is composed of three, intertwined components: comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness, and develops through life experiences from childhood to young adulthood. Religiosity could promote the development of the com- prehensibility constituent, the orientation that "the stimuli . . . are structured, predictible, and explicable . . . " (1987, p. 19), and manageability, which reflects an orientation in which " . . . the resources are available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli . . ." (p. 19). The meaningfulness component is close to Frankl's concept of the will to meaning discussed previ- ously. The person with a strong sense of coherence is able to select the par- ticular coping resource(s), style(s), or strategy(s) that are most appropriate to deal with a specific stressor confronted at a given time. Finally, Kobasa (1982) has developed the concept of "hardiness," which is also composed of three intertwined components: commitment, control, and challenge. Religiosity could provide one cornerstone for the commit- ment aspect of this triad, by offering a sense of purpose, and promoting one's "ability to believe in the truth, importance, and interest values of what one is and what one is doing" (1982, p. 6). The hardy personality is better equipped to cope with stressors, and to avoid their possible negative effects on health. Nevertheless, in congruence with the works of Krause and Van Tran (1989) and Pescosolido and Georgianna (1989), it is the belonging to a reli- gious community rather than the individual religiosity that have the stress- deterrent effect in our study. It should be kept in mind that all subjects of this study have the same religious affiliation, live in small and cohesive com- munities, which are most concerned with social integration, togetherness, and support, while negating alienation and social isolation. Yet, even in such communities, the religious community is better equipped to deal with stress and personal crisis. In line with the theories of Durkheim and later sociologists, our find- ings suggest that in searching for the mechanisms through which religion and religiosity provide the capability to cope with stress, scholars should focus on the nature of the religious networks. It is possible that the structure of social ties in religious networks, such as the nature of the commitment of its members to each other, the demands made of the individual member, and the ways in which religious networks are organized and get reorganized at time of individual crisis, are the sources of the advantage that religious com- munities and organizational religiosity have in dealing with stress. In order to validate these suggestions, we need more research within and between different religious networks and affiliations. 1063 Anson, Carmel, Bonneh, Levenson, and Maoz REFERENCES ANSON, 0. Women, their work and their health. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Depart- ment of Sociology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, 1985. ANTONOVSKY, A. Health, stress, and coping: New perspectives on mental and physical well- Being. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979. ANTONOVSKY, A. Unraveling the mystery of health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967. ANTONOVSKY, H. F., & ANTONOVSKY, A. Commitment in an Israeli kibbutz. Human Rela- tions, 1974, 27, 303-319. BEN-SIRA, Z. The scale of psychological distress (SPD). Research Communications in Psy- chology, Psychiatry and Behavior, 1982, 7, 329-346. BUSH, J. W., General health policy model: The Quality of Well Being (QWB) Scale. In N. K. Wenger, M. E. Matson, C. D. Furbery, and J. Elinson, (Eds.), Assessment of quali- ty of life. New York: LeJacq, 1984. CAPLAN, G. Mastery of stress: Psychological aspects. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1981, 138, 413-420. CAUGHEY, L. L. Imaginary social worlds. Lincoln, Nebraska and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. COBB, S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1976, 38, 300-314. CRIPPEN, T. Old and new gods in the modern world: Toward a theory of religious transi- tion. Social Forces, 1988, 67, 316-336. DURKHEIM, E. Suicide. The Free Press: New York, 1951. DURKHEIM, E. The elementary forms of the religious life. Collier Books: New York, 1961. FRANKL, V. E. The unconscious God. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975. GUTTMAN, L. A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 469-506. HINKLE, L. E., & WOLFF, W. C. Health and social environment: Experimental investiga- tion. In A. Leighton et al. (Eds.), Explorations in social psychiatry. New York: Basic Books. 1957. HINKLE, L. E., & WOLFF, W. C. Ecological investigation of the relationships between ill- ness, life experiences, and the social environment. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1958, 49, 1373-1388. HOLMS, T. H., & MASUDA, M. Life change and illness susceptibility. In B. Dohrenwend and B. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects. New York: Wiley, 1974, pp. 45-72. HOLMS, T. H., & RAHE, R. H. The Social Readjusting Rating Scale. Journal of Psychoso- matic Research, 1967, 11, 213-218. IDLER, E. L., Religious involvement and the health of the elderly: Some hypotheses and an initial test. Social Forces, 1987, 66, 226-238. INBAR, M., & YUCHTMAN-YAAR, E. The people's image of conflict resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1989, 33, 37-66. KATZ, R., & BRIGER, P. Modernity and quality of marriage in Israel. Journal of Compara- tive Family Studies, 1988, 19, 371-380. KOBASA, S. C. The hardy personality: Toward a social psychology of stress and health. In G. E. Sanders and J. Suls (Eds.), Social psychology of health and illness. New York: Erlbaum Hillsdale, 1982. KRAUSE, N., & VAN TRAN, T. Stress and religious involvement among older blacks. Jour- nal of Gerontology-Social Sciences, 1989, 44, S4-13. LEVIN, J. S., & SCHILLER, P. L. Is there a religious factor in health? Journal of Religion and Health, 1987, 26, 9-36. LEVIN, J. S., & VANDERPOOL, H. Y. Is frequent religious attendance really conductive to better health: Toward an epidemiology of religion. Social Science and Medicine, 1987, 24, 589-600. McFARLANE, A. H., NORMAN, G. R., STREINER, D. L., ROY, R., & SCOTT, D. J. A longitudinal study of the influence of the psychological environment on health status: A preliminary report. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1980, 21, 124-133. 1064 Life Events, Religiosity, and Health MUELLER, D. P., EDWARDS, D. W., & YARVIS, R. M. Stressful life events and psychiatric symptomology: Change or undesirability? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1977, 18, 307-317. MYERS, J. K., LINDENTHAL, J. J., & PEPPER, M. P. Social class, life events, and psy- chiatric symptoms. In B. Dohrenwend and B. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects. New York: Wiley, 1974. NUCKOLLS, K. B., CASSEL, J., & KAPLAN, B. H. Psychological assets, life crisis and the prognosis of pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1972, 95, 431-441. O'BRIEN, M. E. Religious faith and adjustment to long-term hemodialysis. Journal of Religion and Health, 1982, 21, 68-80. PATRICK, D. L., MORGAN, M., & CHARLTON, J. R. H. Psychological support and change in health status of psychiatry disabled people. Social Science and Medicine, 1986, 22, 1347-1354. PEARLIN, L. I., MENAGHAM, E. G., LIEBERMAN, M. A., & MULLAN, J. T. The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1981, 22, 337-356. PESCOSOLIDO, B. A., & GEORGIANNA, S. Durkheim, suicide, and religion: Toward a net- work theory of suicide. American Journal of Sociology, 1989, 54, 33-48. POLLNER, M. Divine relations, social relations, and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1989, 30, 92-104. RAHE, R. H. The pathway between subjects' recent life changes and their near-future illness reports. In B. Dohrenwend and B. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their na- ture and effects. New York: Wiley, 1974. RAHE, R. H., MEYER, M., SMITH, M., KIASER, G., & HOLMS, T. H. Social stress and illness onset. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1967, 8, 35-44. RAHE, R. H., GUNDERSON, E. K., PUGH, W. M., RUBIN, R. T., & RANSON, J. A. Illness prediction studies: Use of psychological and occupational characteristics and predic- tors. Archives of Environmental Health, 1972, 25, 192-197. SHROT, P. A. Developments in life change measurement: Subjective change unit scoring. In B. Dohrenwend and B. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and ef- fects. New York: Wiley, 1981. SPIRO, M. E. Intruduction: Thirty years of kibbutz research. In E. Krausz (Ed.), The sociolo- gy of the kibbutz: Studies of Israeli society (Vol. II), New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1983. STUDZINSKI, R. Impasse, finitude and guilt: Some religious challenges of aging. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1987, 51, 436-446. TAUSIG, M. Measuring life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1982, 23, 52-64. THOITS, P. A. Undesirable life events and psychophysiological distress: A problem of opera- tional confounding. American Sociological Review, 1981, 46, 97-109. THOITS, P. A. Conceptual methodological and theoretical problems in studying social sup- port as a buffer against life stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1982, 23, 145-158. THOMPSON, S. C., & JANIGIAN, A. S. Life schemes: A framework for understanding the search for meaning. Journal od Social and Clinical Psychology, 1988, 7, 260-280. TROYER, H. Review of cancer among four religious sects: Evidence that life-styles are distinc- tive sets of risk factors. Social Science and Medicine, 1988, 26, 1007-1017. VINOKUR, A., & KAPLAN, R. D., Cognitive and affective components of life events: Their relations and effects on well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1986, 14, 351-370. WALSH, A. The prophylactic effect of religion on blood pressure levels among a sample of immigrants. Social Science and Medicine, 1980, 14B, 59-63. WHEATON, B. Models of stress-buffering functions of coping resources. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1985, 26, 352-364. WITTER, R. R., STOCK, W. A., OKUN, M. A., & HARING, M. J. Religion and subjective well-being in adulthood: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Religious Research, 1985, 26, 332-342. ZUCKERMAN, D. M., KASL, S. V., & OSTFELD, A. M. Psychosocial predictors of mortal- ity among the elderly poor. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1984, 119, 410-423. 1065 1066 Anson, Carmel, Bonneh, Levenson, and Maoz BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES OFRA ANSON is a medical sociologist and lecturer in the Department of Sociology of Health at the University Center for Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. In addition to her interest in religion and health, she is teaching and doing research on adjustment to chronic illness, sex roles, family structure and health, and professional attitudes among health care providers. SARA CARMEL is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology of Health at the University Center for Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Her current research projects are (1) the compassionate physician: personal and social characteristics, (2) the effectiveness of com- munity intervention on health-promoting behavior, (3) AIDS-related knowledge, attitudes, fears, and behavioral changes, and (4) stress and anxiety among medical students. DAN Y. BONNEH is a family physician in the Department of Family Medicine at the Univer- sity Center for Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba, Israel. ARIEH LEVENSON is a medical student supported by the National Fund for Medical Education. BENJAMIN MAOZ is associate professor of psychiatry at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and at the Soroka Medical Center, Beer-Sheba, Israel. 2. Given the volunteer nature of the respondents, non-relevant response patterns such as all-positive responses, or set patterns of a positive, b negative responses, seem unlikely. To test for this, 10% of the questionnaires were analyzed for response patterns of this kind, and in none of them could we find significant departures from the random response pattern (answer to each question independent of the answer to the previous question).
PY - 1990/1/1
Y1 - 1990/1/1
N2 - While recent life events (RLE) cause ill health and psychological distress, religiosity is positively associated with health. The adverse effect of RLE on health is usually explained in terms of stress theory; the positive religiosity-health association is explained by the nature of the religious network, or by the effect of religiosity on the internal environment of the individual. Using data collected from a sample (n = 230) of two Israeli kibbutzim, one religious and one non-religious, with similar ecology, demography, and social structure, the stress-deterrent effect of religiosity is studied. Self-administered questionnaires, including a list of RLE, five health measures, and five religiosity measures, were randomly distributed. Our findings show that whereas RLE adversely relate to health, belonging to a religious community counterbalances the negative health consequences of RLE. Individual religiosity (private praying, theodicity, and religious commitment) do not have the same stress-deterrent effect.
AB - While recent life events (RLE) cause ill health and psychological distress, religiosity is positively associated with health. The adverse effect of RLE on health is usually explained in terms of stress theory; the positive religiosity-health association is explained by the nature of the religious network, or by the effect of religiosity on the internal environment of the individual. Using data collected from a sample (n = 230) of two Israeli kibbutzim, one religious and one non-religious, with similar ecology, demography, and social structure, the stress-deterrent effect of religiosity is studied. Self-administered questionnaires, including a list of RLE, five health measures, and five religiosity measures, were randomly distributed. Our findings show that whereas RLE adversely relate to health, belonging to a religious community counterbalances the negative health consequences of RLE. Individual religiosity (private praying, theodicity, and religious commitment) do not have the same stress-deterrent effect.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84970735914&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/001872679004301101
DO - 10.1177/001872679004301101
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84970735914
SN - 0018-7267
VL - 43
SP - 1051
EP - 1066
JO - Human Relations
JF - Human Relations
IS - 11
ER -