Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life

Samuel Stroope • Scott Draper • Andrew L. Whitehead

Accepted: 12 December 2011 / Published online: 21 January 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Although prior studies have documented a positive association between reli-

giosity and sense of meaning in life, the role of specific religious beliefs is currently

unclear. Past research on images of God suggests that loving images of God will positively

correlate with a sense of meaning and purpose. Mechanisms for this hypothesized rela-

tionship are drawn from prior work on attachment theory, religious coping, and symbolic

interaction. We suggest that these mechanisms are complementary and that secure

attachment styles, reliable coping strategies, and positive self-images work in tandem to

facilitate a sense of meaning and purpose. Using a random, national sample from the

second wave of the Baylor Religion Survey, we perform multivariate regression analysis

that controls for key religious and demographic effects. In our full model, results indicate

that the dependent variable is positively associated with student status, religious non-

affiliation, congregational friendship networks, and frequency of prayer. Most important

from the perspective of the present study, the connection between loving images of God

and a sense of meaning and purpose is consistent and robust.

Keywords Religion � Beliefs � Images of God � Sense of meaning � Sense of purpose �Well-being � Mental health

1 Introduction

In this study, we test the hypothesis that belief in a loving God will increase the likelihood

of having a strong sense of meaning and purpose in life. This relationship interests us for a

number of reasons. In a broad sense, it suggests a specific link between social ontologies or

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2009 Baylor Symposium on Faith and Culture, Waco,TX.

S. Stroope (&) � S. Draper � A. L. WhiteheadDepartment of Sociology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97326, Waco, TX 76798-7326, USAe-mail: sam_stroope@baylor.edu

123

Soc Indic Res (2013) 111:25–44DOI 10.1007/s11205-011-9982-7

worldviews and a wide range of purposeful human behaviors. But it also pertains to a

growing literature on the relationship between religiosity and health. The well-being and

health literature stands out as offering a clear path forward in understanding the current

hypothesized relationship.

Conclusions regarding religion’s effect on health have tended to depend on a number of

factors, including the ‘‘dimension’’ of religion in view, the health outcome being resear-

ched, and the respective approaches of the different fields and subfields conducting the

research (Bradshaw et al. 2008; Branden 1995; Ellis 1962; Ellison et al. 2009). Psychol-

ogists and epidemiologists pioneered much of the religion-health research (Levin 1994),

although sociologists have also contributed throughout (Ellison 1991; Ellison et al. 2001;

Hadaway 1978; Jang and Johnson 2005; e.g., Sternthal et al. 2010). Social theorists make a

case for the social construction of knowledge (Berger and Luckmann 1967), especially

with respect to definitions of mental health (Foucault 1965; Goffman 1961). Noting this,

we follow well-being researchers who have linked subjective measures of meaning and

purpose with specific health-related outcomes (Idler et al. 2003; Krause 2007a; Levin

2009, 2010; Park 2005a). We employ the logic of these studies by discussing sense of

meaning as having generally positive or health-promoting effects, especially with regard to

social interaction, emotions, and self-image.

Sociologists of religion argue that religion is a multidimensional phenomenon (Kellstedt

et al. 1996; Stark and Glock 1968). Religion’s multidimensionality (e.g. beliefs, behaviors,

collective identity) is also considered in health research. Distinguishing between different

dimensions of religion has helped explain variation in life outcomes (Smith and Snell

2009), health risk behaviors (Nonnemaker et al. 2003, 2006), mental health (Levin 2010),

and general health (Idler et al. 2003). In many instances, religion’s positive association

with health exists because religion provides individuals with a subjective sense of meaning

that in turn positively affects health outcomes. Considering the mediating role of a sense of

meaning, researchers observe that there is a need to better understand how it is influenced

by religion (Krause 2009a, p. 526; Park 2005b).

In this study, we focus on one dimension of religion highlighted by the well-being and

health literature: images of God (Gorsuch 1968; Levin 2002; Schieman et al. 2006; Spilka

et al. 1964). At present, it is unclear if and how images of God relate to sense of meaning.

Additionally, many studies of religion’s role in health, well-being, and meaning focus on

older adults, and this literature frequently calls for broadening inquiry to other social

groups, populations, and national data (Krause 2008, p. 421). We contribute to the liter-

ature on religion and well-being by using new national data to document the effects of

images of God on sense of meaning and purpose in life.

2 Background

2.1 The Importance of Meaning and Purpose

Based on past research, we define subjective sense of meaning as an individual’s feelings

that she has purpose or direction in life (Klinger 1977; Park 2005b, p. 298). In past studies,

sense of meaning has been associated with a variety of outcomes including mental health

(Reker 1997), optimism, self-esteem, life satisfaction (Krause 2003; Mascaro and Rosen

2006; Steger and Frazier 2005), physical health (Krause 2004; Park et al. 2007), surgery

recovery (Smith and Zautra 2004), and mortality (Krause 2009a). The relationship between

health and well-being likely exists because those who do not maintain a sense of meaning

26 S. Stroope et al.

123

have fewer psychological resources with which to mitigate depression (Krause 2007a;

Reker 2000). Those who sense less meaning in life are more apt to engage in self-

destructive behavior (Park 2007). Sense of meaning is also associated with human

physiology, specifically better immune system functioning (Salovey et al. 2000). Because

sense of meaning is a resource that can buttress both mental and physical health, scholars

have argued that its social antecedents should be examined (see Mascaro and Rosen

2006).

2.2 Sources of Meaning and Purpose

A sense of meaning can stem from a variety of sources including family, personal

relationships, career, and social activism (Debats 1999; Wong 1998). Religion is a

common source, as well. Clark (1958, p. 419) argues that ‘‘religion more than any other

human function satisfies the need for meaning in life.’’ Much of the research linking religion

and sense of meaning focuses on worship service attendance. The association between service

attendance and a sense of meaning is well-documented, especially in studies of older adults

(Krause 2003). The specific mechanism linking worship attendance and meaning is

unclear, however, and may include a variety of factors (Krause 2008). Berger (1967, p. 16)

contends that ‘‘conversation with significant others’’ creates tightly-knit worlds of social

relations—what he calls ‘‘plausibility structures’’—providing religious believers with a

sense of coherence and purpose. Krause (2007b) has adapted Berger’s theory for empirical

research, showing that church-based social support is associated with a greater probability

of sensing more meaning in life. In particular, church-based social support promotes a

sense of meaning among older adults and especially among African Americans (Krause

2008).

2.3 Imagining a Loving God

Prior research has uncovered links between religious beliefs and a sense of meaning in life

(Ebersole and DeVogler-Ebersole 1986). Yet Ellison et al. (2001) maintain that religious

beliefs have been too often neglected in religion-health studies, and call for their wider

examination (see also Greeley and Hout 2006). There is mounting evidence that images of

God are a central category of religious belief (Froese and Bader 2010; Greeley 1996).

Along these lines, recent studies have shown the importance of images of God not only for

a variety of religious and social outcomes (Bader et al. 2010; Ellison and Bradshaw 2009;

Froese and Bader 2007; Whitehead 2010), but also for well-being outcomes such as mental

health (Bradshaw et al. 2008; Bradshaw et al. 2010; Flannelly et al. 2009; Schieman et al.

2006, 2010). Images of God are depicted by Greeley (1996) as theological narratives that

influence the thoughts and behaviors of individuals from a wide range of religious (or even

non-religious) backgrounds. He argues that these narratives have broad implications, as

‘‘One’s ‘picture’ of God is, in fact, a metaphorical narrative of God’s relationship with the

world and the self as part of that world’’ (124). This line of thought points to the potential

relevance of God concepts to research on psychological well-being, a possibility that has

not been missed by health researchers. Levin (2004, p. 85), for instance, points out that

‘‘[e]xperiencing a loving relationship with God—loving God and feeling God’s love—may

be especially salutary.’’

Based on prior research, there are at least three mechanisms that help explain why

images of a loving God might positively influence subjective meaning and purpose.

Although these explanations are largely discrete in the existing literature, we propose that

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 27

123

they are complementary, not competing, and can be usefully co-considered as a cohesive

explanatory framework. We bring together work on attachment theory, religious coping,

and Mead’s ‘‘generalized other,’’ and suggest that images of a loving God facilitate sub-

jective purpose as the individual draws on a secure attachment style, religious coping

strategies, and positive self-image.

First, recent research has employed attachment theory as a framework for understanding

a sense of closeness to God (Bradshaw et al. 2008; Granqvist and Hagekull 2001).

Attachment theory was initially used in the study of children, and has since been applied in

analysis of adult relations (Hazan and Shaver 1994). The theory outlines three styles of

attachment: anxious, insecure, and secure (Kirkpatrick 2004). The secure attachment style

represents relations of love, support, warmth, approval, and intimacy with others. In this

way, a loving view of God operates to boost a sense of meaning through perceptions of

personal intimacy with God and confidence in God’s concern and care. Confidence in

God’s love and concern may alleviate the individual of the pressure of bearing the full

burden of life’s outcomes, including the burden to make outcomes meaningful. If her

desired outcomes do not happen, she can still find consolation and meaning in the belief

that the failure actually better advances God’s broader purposes. Actions remain mean-

ingful, even if indirectly.

Second, research on spiritual coping indicates that individuals who feel a strong sense of

attachment to God tend to use positive and collaborative coping strategies that provide

psychological buffers against traumatic life events (Belavich and Pargament 2002). When

life presents hardships, an individual’s theology may be a resource for making sense of

suffering. For example, an individual can believe that behind the immediate difficulties lies

the larger hand of a lovingly involved God (Park 2005a). Belief in such a God also

positively influences emotions (Silberman 2005). In this way, conceptions of divine-human

relations may factor into health outcomes because one of religion’s main functions is the

provision of beliefs that foster emotional consolation, hopefulness, and cognitive schemas

for how life difficulties can be understood as ultimately meaningful (Clements and Koenig

1994). Similarly, Berger (1967) emphasizes ways in which religion provides a variety

of cognitive strategies for reconstructing the nomos in the wake of painful events and

perceptions of evil.

Third, previous research has suggested that images of God are related to images

of the self. Pollner (1989), Froese and Bader (2010), and Whitehead (2012) reason that

God concepts contribute to self-image in a similar manner to symbolic interaction’s

‘‘generalized other’’ (Mead 1934). The generalized other objectifies one’s view of one’s self,

serving as an internal conversation partner that evaluates one’s actions (see Athens 1994).

A religious person experiences something very similar to this when she engages in prayer,

meditation, and spiritual reflection (Ladd and Spilka 2002, 2006). If she imagines God to

be loving or nurturing, it follows that she will tend to take a positive view of her own

actions. Accordingly, previous studies have found positive self-image and self-esteem to

covary with belief in a loving God (Francis 2005; Roberts 1989; Spilka et al. 1975). Loving

images of God provide a potential resource for developing self-esteem and an accompa-

nying sense of meaning and purpose.

These studies of attachment theory, coping strategies, and symbolic interaction support

our expectation that belief in a loving God will positively associate with a sense of

meaning in life. There is no justification for these explanations to remain discrete since

they are not presented as competing explanations in prior research, are logically com-

patible, likely work in tandem, and all suggest the same hypothesis. We seek to confirm the

28 S. Stroope et al.

123

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

random sample of the U.S. population.

3 Data and Methods

3.1 Data

We use data from the 2007 administration of the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS).

Administered by the Gallup Organization, the BRS consists of a random, national sample

of 1,648 American adults. The survey utilized a mixed-mode sampling design consisting of

two phases. This resulted in a total of 3,500 individuals screened (1,000 in phase 1 ? 2,500

in phase 2) with 2,460 possible respondents (624 from phase 1 ? 1,836 from phase 2).

A total of 1,648 questionnaires were returned resulting in a response rate of 47% (1,648/

3,500) among all individuals screened and 67% (1,648/2,460) for those who agreed to

receive a mailed survey.1 The BRS compares favorably to the General Social Survey on

many important measures including religious affiliation, church attendance, and belief in

God (see Bader et al. 2007). The BRS contains demographic, attitudinal, and image of God

measures that allow us to build upon previous studies.

3.2 Measures

3.2.1 Dependent Variable

A subjective sense of meaning is defined as an individual’s feelings of direction or purpose

in life (Klinger 1977; Park 2005b). Though many studies that focus on sense of meaning in

life combine several factors, it is also important to consider particular facets of meaning,

especially a sense of purpose, because of its relation to well-being outcomes (Damon et al.

2003; Kiang and Fuligni 2009; Krause 2009b). The dependent variable in the present study

measures whether or not the respondent strongly agrees with the statement ‘‘My life has a

real purpose.’’ Twenty-nine percent of respondents strongly agreed (strongly agree = 1,

else = 0). Original variable coding is: strongly agree (28.7%), agree (54.9%), undecided

(6.1%), disagree (9.1%), and strongly disagree (1.1%). Results of cumulative logistic

regression using this five-point response variable coding scheme support the findings

discussed below; the standardized coefficient for belief in a loving God ranks as the largest

in the model. We present results (Table 2) using a dichotomous response variable in order

to focus on persons most certain about their sense of purpose in life.

3.2.2 Key Independent Variable

Our key independent variable is a composite measure of images of a loving God. The BRS

asked respondents, ‘‘How well do you feel that each of the following words describe God

in your opinion?’’ The four views of God used to create the loving God measure were

‘‘Forgiving,’’ ‘‘Friendly,’’ ‘‘Kind,’’ and ‘‘Loving.’’ Possible responses included, ‘‘Very

well,’’ ‘‘Somewhat well,’’ ‘‘Undecided,’’ ‘‘Not very well,’’ and ‘‘Not at all.’’ Factor loadings

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

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 29

123

for all items are above 0.92 and the resulting scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95.

The distribution is bimodal, with close to 58% of respondents reporting that all four

adjectives describe God ‘‘Very well.’’ Therefore, we create a dummy variable where

1 = all four adjectives describe God very well, and 0 = all other responses. This coding

scheme is consistent with past research employing a composite measure of loving God

imagery (see Mencken et al. 2009).

3.2.3 Religion Controls

We control for several religious factors to help identify the independent effects of our key

variable. First, congregation-based social immersion is an important dimension of religion

(Stroope 2011a, b, c), is an indicator of religious belonging (Stroope 2012) and is asso-

ciated with a variety of well-being and health outcomes, both among older adults (Krause

2008) and the general population (Lim and Putnam 2010). Therefore we include a measure

that asks how many of a respondent’s friends attend the respondent’s congregation. This is

a five point item ranging from ‘‘none’’ (1) to ‘‘all’’ (5) (Stroope 2011d). We control for

frequency of attendance at worship services due to its positive influence on sense of

meaning in past research (Krause 2003) (range is 0 ‘‘never’’ to 8 ‘‘several times a week’’).

We also control for frequency of prayer, a personal religious behavior that has also been

considered a possible mechanism linking religiosity and health outcomes. This measure

ranges from ‘‘never’’ (0) to ‘‘several times a day’’ (5). Religious tradition is measured using

the RELTRAD typology (Steensland et al. 2000). Individuals are divided into seven dif-

ferent religious traditions: Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Black Protestant,

Catholic, Jewish, Other, and no religious tradition.2

3.2.4 Demographic Controls

Marital and employment statuses are controlled due to their relationship to meaning in life

(Debats 1999). We control for the influence of employment status using a series of

dichotomous variables with employed persons serving as the contrast category. Other

categories are ‘‘homemaker,’’ ‘‘student,’’ ‘‘unemployed,’’ and ‘‘retired.’’ Marital status is a

dichotomous measure where ‘‘married’’ = 1 and all others = 0. Additional controls

include gender (female = 1), race (nonwhite = 1), income ($10,000 or less, $10,001–

$20,000, $20,001–$35,000, $35,001–$50,000, $50,001–$100,000, $100,001–$150,000,

and greater than $150,000), education (8th or less, 9–12th no diploma, high school

graduate, some college, trade/technical/vocational training, college graduate, postgraduate

work/degree), and age (in years). Missing values on income (6.7%) were assigned mean

income. Otherwise we handle missing values with listwise deletion. Table 1 presents

descriptive statistics.

3.3 Analytic Strategy

We first display bivariate correlations between the sense of purpose measure, the loving

God composite measure, and the demographic and religion control variables. We then

employ binary logistic regression in all multivariate analyses. The analyses are divided into

three separate models. Model 1 includes each of the demographic measures as well as

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

30 S. Stroope et al.

123

religious affiliation. Model 2 includes the religious measures (prayer, attendance, and

congregational friends) found in previous research to be important predictors of well-

being. The final model introduces the composite measure of loving God imagery. We are

interested in substantive significance in addition to statistical significance and for this

reason we include the standardized effects for each independent variable.3 This will allow

for comparisons of strength of effects from one independent variable to another (Pampel

2000, pp. 33, 72–73). We then compute and graphically display the predicted probabilities,

net of controls, of respondents strongly agreeing that they possess a sense of purpose,

comparing those who strongly view God as all-loving with those who do not strongly view

God as all-loving.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Mean/percentage SD Min Max

Dependent variable

Sense of meaning in life 28.72% 0 1

Independent variables

Female 52.98% – 0 1

Nonwhite 2.86% – 0 1

Income 4.31 1.54 1 7

Age 47.35 16.82 18 96

Educational attainment 4.29 1.53 1 7

Married 62.40% – 0 1

Employment status

Employed 71.07% – 0 1

Homemaker 8.92% – 0 1

Student 3.00% – 0 1

Unemployed 9.04% – 0 1

Retired 17.04% – 0 1

Religious tradition

Evangelical Protestant 33.09% – 0 1

Black Protestant 4.79% – 0 1

Mainline Protestant 20.69% – 0 1

Catholic 22.14% – 0 1

Jewish 1.90% – 0 1

Other 6.06% – 0 1

None 11.34% – 0 1

Prayer 3.06 1.78 0 5

Church attendance 3.74 2.93 0 8

Congregational friends 1.99 1.05 1 5

Loving God 58.44% – 0 1

Data are weighted

3 SAS computes standardized coefficients for logistic regression using the logit distribution’s standarddeviation (p2/3). Although interpreting coefficients for standardized dummy variables is difficult, dummyvariable standardized coefficients are useful in comparing their effects to those of continuous predictors (seePampel 2000, pp. 72–73).

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 31

123

4 Results

The bivariate correlations for each measure included in the final analysis are available in

Table 3. We find that the loving God measure is positively and significantly correlated with

a sense of purpose in life. Similarly, many of the other religion control variables are

positively and significantly associated as well. More congregational friends, more frequent

worship service attendance, and consistent prayer are all associated with a sense of purpose

in life. To ensure that the bivariate association between a sense of purpose and believing in

a loving God is robust, we move on to multivariate models to account for the effects of the

demographic and religion control variables.

Table 2 presents the results of a series of logistic regressions. In model 1 we find that

women are more likely than men to report having a sense of purpose in life. In fact, women

have 63% greater odds of reporting a sense of purpose than men. Somewhat surprisingly,

race, income, age, educational attainment, and marital status are not significantly associ-

ated with sense of purpose in life. Students, as compared with employed individuals, are

much more likely to report having a sense of purpose. The odds of a student reporting a

sense of purpose are 4.33 times greater than the odds of an employed person doing the

same. Turning to religious tradition, we find that Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and the

religiously unaffiliated are all less likely than Evangelical Protestants to report having a

sense of purpose in life. Mainline Protestants and Catholics each have 49% lower odds of

reporting a sense of purpose, while the odds for the religiously unaffiliated are 2.17 times

lower than Evangelical Protestants.4

Model 2 includes religion measures that previous research has found to be important

predictors of well-being. We again find that women are more likely than men (by 41%) to

report having a sense of purpose in life. Race, income, educational attainment, and marital

status are again not significantly associated. As in Model 1, students are more likely (3.97

times greater odds) than employed persons to report having a sense of purpose. With the

inclusion of prayer, attendance at worship services, and congregational friends, the dif-

ferences between religious traditions become nonsignificant. Increasing levels of all three

measures are associated with a greater likelihood of reporting a sense of purpose in life.

Model 35 introduces the loving God index.6 Fit statistics suggest that model 3 is pre-

ferred over models 1 or 2. AIC and SC, which take into account the number of parameter

estimates, can be used to compare different models. Models with smaller values suggest

better model fit. Additionally, using a Chi-square test, we find a significant change in -2

log likelihood values from model 2 to model 3 (difference = 109.26, df = 1, p \ 0.0001).

In terms of associations between variables in model 3, we find that the odds of reporting a

sense of purpose for those who strongly hold a loving image of God are over two times

greater than for all others. Inclusion of the loving God measure renders the association

between attendance and purpose nonsignificant. Based on the standardized coefficients, we

also find that the loving God measure exhibits the strongest effect of any predictor in the

model. The associations of prayer and congregational friends with sense of purpose are still

4 To calculate the percent change in odds for those measures with negative odds ratios, due to their beingbounded between 0 and 1, we divide 1 by each ratio. Therefore, Mainline Protestants/Catholics =1/0.67 = 1.49; unaffiliated = 1/0.46 = 2.17.5 The r-square in model 3 is on par with other studies in the images of God research literature (see e.g.,Driskell et al. 2008; Froese and Bader 2008; Mencken et al. 2009; Unnever et al. 2010).6 As an indication of model 3’s performance, we provide the hit ratio ((correctevent ? correctnon-event)/N 9 100 = 70.9%).

32 S. Stroope et al.

123

statistically significant, although somewhat diminished. The final model also shows that the

odds for the religiously unaffiliated reporting a sense of purpose are almost two times

greater than the odds for Evangelical Protestants. We find that students are still more likely

than employed persons (4.94 times greater odds) to report a sense of purpose in life. The

difference between men and women found in model 2 becomes non-significant in model 3.

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

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE OR B SE OR B SE OR

Intercept 0.34 0.41* 0.40 0.14*** 0.43 0.09***

Female 0.134 0.13 1.63*** 0.096 0.14 1.41* 0.070 0.15 1.29

Nonwhite race 0.036 0.45 1.47 0.047 0.46 1.63 0.058 0.47 1.81

Income 0.034 0.05 1.04 0.039 0.05 1.05 0.032 0.06 1.04

Age -0.072 0.00 0.99 -0.111 0.01 0.99* -0.103 0.01 0.99*

Educational attainment 0.000 0.05 1.00 -0.032 0.05 0.96 0.015 0.05 1.02

Married -0.006 0.15 0.98 -0.031 0.16 0.89 -0.036 0.17 0.87

Employment status

Employed Reference Reference Reference

Homemaker 0.000 0.23 1.00 -0.014 0.24 0.91 -0.015 0.25 0.91

Student 0.138 0.36 4.33*** 0.135 0.38 3.97*** 0.153 0.41 4.94***

Unemployed 0.014 0.25 1.10 -0.007 0.27 0.95 -0.005 0.28 0.97

Retired 0.041 0.22 1.23 0.007 0.24 1.03 -0.002 0.25 0.99

Religious tradition

Evangelical Protestant Reference Reference Reference

Black Protestant 0.020 0.63 1.36 0.012 0.64 1.19 -0.001 0.65 0.98

Mainline Protestant -0.091 0.18 0.67* -0.026 0.20 0.89 0.002 0.20 1.01

Catholic -0.093 0.17 0.67* -0.060 0.18 0.77 -0.043 0.19 0.83

Jewish -0.037 0.46 0.63 0.034 0.52 1.56 0.062 0.55 2.40

Other -0.012 0.27 0.91 -0.015 0.29 0.89 -0.006 0.29 0.96

None -0.140 0.23 0.46*** 0.061 0.29 1.40 0.108 0.32 1.98*

Prayer 0.162 0.05 1.18** 0.120 0.06 1.13*

Church attendance 0.117 0.03 1.07* 0.093 0.04 1.06

Congregational friends 0.165 0.08 1.33*** 0.146 0.08 1.29**

Loving God 0.202 0.17 2.10***

-2 Log-likelihood 1525.124 1360.668 1251.405

AIC 1559.124 1400.668 1293.405

SC 1647.77 1503.334 1399.439

R-square 0.066 0.140 0.154

N 1,359 1,253 1,152

Data are weighted

Standarized coefficients, standard errors, and odds ratios reported

AIC Akaike information criterion, SC Schwarz criterion

* p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001 (two-tailed tests)

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 33

123

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

and race, income, education level, or marital status.7

Figure 1 displays the predicted probabilities for respondents strongly agreeing that their

lives have real purpose by the loving image of God measure.8 The probability of indi-

viduals who view God as all-loving strongly agreeing that their lives have a sense of

purpose is twice that of those individuals who do not view God as all-loving.9

7 The association between loving God and sense of purpose is also robust to the inclusion of otherpotentially relevant factors. Lim and Putnam (2010) find subjective religiosity predictive of life satisfactionand Froese and Bader (2007) find authoritative God images (a = 0.85) and engaged God images (a = 0.88)predictive of a variety of outcomes. We control for these measures in ancillary models. We also control foran index of volunteering (a = 0.65), index of church activities (a = 0.70), index of community friendships(a = 0.54), and friendships at work. None of these predictors reach statistical significance in the final model,nor do they meaningfully change the findings presented here.8 Predicted probabilities were calculated by setting age, prayer, and congregational friends to their meansand then solving for the loving image of God composite measure.9 We are grateful to a reviewer for pointing out that with a relatively large number of categorical parametersand some of the religion variables having moderate correlations with the loving God index, it is possible thata problematic influence of multicollinearity may be present. While the bivariate correlations betweenvariables do not exceed the classic cut-off point of 0.70, another way of assessing multicollinearity in binarylogistic models is to inspect variance inflation factor scores from an ordinary least squares model (Allison(2001). Using Allison’s strategy, we find that the largest VIF score in the model is 2.32646 for the churchattendance variable. All remaining VIF scores are less than 1.88667. When attendance is removed from themodel, the highest VIF becomes 1.78683, and the effect for loving images of God retains the largeststandardized beta. Since such VIF scores are generally considered non-problematic, we summarize that nostrong evidence for problems associated with multicollinearity was found. Although several of our religioncontrol variables are correlated, we elect to retain them in our models for the sake of continuity with priorresearch on the effects of images of God (Bader and Froese 2005; Bader et al. 2010; Draper 2008; Froeseand Bader 2007, 2008; Froese et al. 2008; Mencken et al. 2009; Unnever et al. 2010; Whitehead 2012,2010). In each of these studies, measures of religious affiliation, behavior, and belief are included as controlsto ensure that the association between the dependent variable and the image of God is robust.

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

34 S. Stroope et al.

123

5 Discussion and Conclusion

This study examines the relationship between loving images of God and subjective sense

of meaning using a new national sample of American adults. Findings point to a strong

positive relationship between the variables of interest. In terms of standardized effects,

loving images of God compare extremely well with the other measures. Certainly, other

factors such as family dynamics, career opportunities, and friendships are also important

(Battista and Almond 1973; Debats 1999). In this analysis, being a student is strongly

linked to sense of purpose compared with being employed. Our findings also reveal a weak

but significant relationship between purpose and age, and a notable but inconsistent

relationship between purpose and gender.

5.1 Theoretical Implications

Despite other contributing factors, these data point to the independent influence of reli-

gion. Consistent prayer, worship attendance, and congregational friends all appear to

contribute to a greater sense of purpose. It is also important to note that unaffiliated

respondents have a positive association with subjective meaning after controlling for

religious behaviors, again suggesting the importance of multidimensional models of

religiosity. Here, the dimension of religious belief stands out in that images of God are

independently associated with the outcome. The association remains robust despite our

application of a variety of model specifications, including several control variables that

have been influential in prior religion and well-being research. We are unaware of any

other national datasets that permit such an assessment by offering a comparable variety of

religion control variables along with a measure of respondents’ sense of meaning or

purpose. Our findings support the claims of sociologists of religion that the effects of

‘‘religion’’ are multifarious, and that beliefs about God’s character are uniquely salient to

mental health outcomes.

The results of this study contribute to the religion and well-being literature by clarifying

the relationship between religion and subjective meaning. As pointed out above, much

research on the relationship between religion and sense of purpose focuses on worship

attendance. Worship attendance persistently has been found to correlate with subjective

meaning, especially in studies of older adults (Krause 2003), though the specific mecha-

nism in this connection is unclear (Krause 2008). Our analysis suggests that it may be

useful in future work to take closer account of the symbolic content that worship rituals

cultivate in the minds of participants. These rituals can serve as regular reminders to

participants that God loves them, providing mental and emotional resources for navigating

daily life.

5.2 Practical Implications

The findings from this analysis suggest practical implications. Hall and Lamont (2009)

write that certain aspects of culture, including religious beliefs, work to buffer some

individuals from negative experiences by providing an overarching schema through which

life events can be interpreted and made sense of. For example, Lamont (2000) conducted

in-depth interviews with thirty randomly sampled low-status workers in the New York

area, analyzing their destigmatization strategies, including their views of self-worth in

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 35

123

comparison to others. She found an emphasis on moral values to be a common strategy for

individuals to understand themselves as equally worthy in comparison to others, and

religion was freely used as an example of moral strength in this context. For example,

workers facing stigma due to their race or low socio-economic standing pushed back,

referring to the fact that everyone is essentially equal in worth because all people are

‘‘children of God’’ (Hall and Lamont 2009, p. 159). Essentially, because of the low status

workers’ belief in God and the upright lifestyle emanating from this belief, they were

committed to the idea of being worthy people regardless of what middle- and upper-class

people might think. In this way, images of God may operate as important resources with

repercussions on reducing stress and buffering the effects of low self-esteem on well-being.

Some support groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, utilize a similar framework, with

an emphasis on finding support through belief in a ‘‘higher power’’ (Humphreys and

Kaskutas 1995). Research in this area demonstrates that religious belief increases the

chances of sobriety (Zemore and Kaskutas 2004) and is also correlated with purpose in life

(Crumbaugh 1977). Practitioners may find that it is not only belief in a higher power, but

certain conceptions of the higher power (e.g., a loving higher power), that increase indi-

viduals’ sense of purpose, likelihood of achieving and maintaining sobriety, and possibly

other salutary outcomes. Our findings suggest this possibility, but further research in

applied settings is necessary.

5.3 Implications for Future Research

Moving forward from this analysis, research may benefit from assessing the role of God

concepts in other aspects of well-being. We have focused on one particular God concept.

Others include images of God as angry/judgmental and active/engaged. If a loving image

of God helps individuals feel attached, cope with difficulties, and have a better self-image,

what are the likely effects if individuals conceive God as angry at them, or distant and

unconcerned about their lives? Other concepts of God, such as God’s perceived gender,

may also prove influential (Greeley 1988; Pevey et al. 1996; Whitehead 2012). For

instance, imagining a ‘‘maternal’’ or ‘‘paternal’’ divinity could activate cultural stereotypes

related to that divinity’s level of available intimacy with the individual, and this could

potentially have additional consequences on subjective sense of meaning. Such findings

could be assessed with reference to respondents’ gender, as well.

At least three other strategies could be taken to subject these findings to further scrutiny

with additional data. First, this line of research might benefit from examining how images

of God change over time. The present analysis is limited by the cross-sectional nature of

the data, and conclusions could be enhanced by assessing how images of God fluctuate

and, related to this, whether sense of meaning covaries accordingly.

Second, although the BRS offers a rare combination of extensive religion variables and

an important measure of well-being, additional measures of well-being would serve as

useful supplements and provide opportunities for detailed comparison. While there is some

debate among psychologists regarding the strength of certain multi-item scales of meaning

such as the Life Regard Index (Battista and Almond 1973; Debats 1998; Steger 2007), use

of such a scale could improve the ability of these findings to capture multiple facets of

subjective meaning while contributing further to interdisciplinary discourse. Future itera-

tions of the BRS, in particular, would potentially benefit from the inclusion of multi-factor

well-being scales alongside its cornucopia of religion items.

36 S. Stroope et al.

123

Finally, this research brings together three mechanisms linking images of God to

subjective purpose. Prior work on secure attachment styles, religious coping strategies, and

perceptions of the self all explicitly support this study’s guiding hypothesis. These

explanations are complementary, and we therefore do not think it benefits research in this

area to leave them discrete. Although they are not mutually exclusive, however, the large-

n survey-based approach used here does not allow for clear assessment of their relative

influence. In other words, it is possible that any one of the mechanisms tends to account for

greater or lesser variation than the others. The best way to determine the mechanisms’

relative influence would be through close observational analysis of several individual

cases, and we recommend this approach for future research.

5.4 Conclusion

Recent research in the area of health and well-being has highlighted the importance of the

relationship between religiosity and sense of meaning for the emotional and mental

resources available to individuals in coping with personal trials. Social scientists of religion

have shown that religion is a complex phenomenon with multiple dimensions. Improving

the precision with which we conceptualize and measure these dimensions permits greater

confidence in our theoretical assertions. Recognizing that mental health is a complex field

of knowledge, we present these findings as evidence that a specific way of thinking about

God is related to a prevailing understanding of personal well-being.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Joseph Baker, Kevin Dougherty, Paul Froese, and CarsonMencken for their comments on this work. The Baylor Religion Survey is supported by the John T.Templeton Foundation.

Appendix

See Table 3.

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 37

123

Ta

ble

3B

ivar

iate

corr

elat

ions

12

34

56

78

91

01

1

Fem

ale

1

No

nw

hit

e2

0.0

25

Inco

me

3-

0.0

86

**

-0

.161

**

*

Ag

e4

0.0

04

-0

.102

**

*-

0.0

15

Ed

uca

tio

nal

atta

inm

ent

5-

0.0

33

-0

.015

0.3

76

**

*-

0.0

46

Mar

ried

6-

0.0

08

-0

.118

**

*0

.389

**

*0

.100

**

*0

.09

7*

*

Em

plo

yed

7-

0.1

35

**

*-

0.0

38

0.2

67

**

*-

0.3

45

**

*0

.19

7*

**

0.1

12

**

*

Ho

mem

aker

80

.280

**

*0

.035

-0

.030

-0

.006

-0

.11

1*

**

0.0

77

**

-0

.396

**

*

Stu

den

t9

-0

.002

-0

.007

-0

.033

-0

.279

**

*-

0.0

34

-0

.222

**

*-

0.1

69

**

*-

0.0

56

Un

emp

loy

ed1

0-

0.0

69

*0

.072

*-

0.2

28

**

*-

0.0

24

-0

.11

1*

**

-0

.163

**

*-

0.2

32

**

*-

0.0

92

**

-0

.053

Ret

ired

11

-0

.016

-0

.054

-0

.119

**

*0

.562

**

*-

0.0

69

*-

0.0

17

-0

.590

**

*-

0.1

33

**

*-

0.0

76

**

-0

.12

5*

**

Evan

gel

ical

Pro

test

ant

12

0.0

46

-0

.036

-0

.107

**

*-

0.0

93

**

-0

.11

5*

**

0.0

46

0.0

01

0.0

68

*-

0.0

01

-0

.01

1-

0.0

60

*

Bla

ckP

rote

stan

t1

30

.019

0.6

48

**

*-

0.1

19

**

*-

0.0

59

*-

0.0

03

-0

.092

**

0.0

14

-0

.040

-0

.023

0.0

37

-0

.021

Mai

nli

ne

Pro

test

ant

14

-0

.027

-0

.097

**

0.0

61

*0

.152

**

*0

.05

40

.055

0.0

08

-0

.073

*-

0.0

45

-0

.06

6*

0.1

00

**

*

Cat

ho

lic

15

0.0

28

-0

.039

0.0

67

*0

.079

**

-0

.03

6-

0.0

19

-0

.040

0.0

66

*-

0.0

11

-0

.04

20

.066

*

Jew

ish

16

-0

.028

-0

.024

0.1

17

**

*-

0.0

26

0.1

29

**

*-

0.0

14

0.0

13

-0

.024

0.0

87

**

-0

.00

2-

0.0

56

Oth

er1

7-

0.0

07

-0

.021

0.0

33

-0

.062

*0

.06

4*

0.0

41

0.0

60

*-

0.0

45

0.0

30

0.0

66

*-

0.0

65

*

No

ne

18

-0

.068

*0

.000

-0

.036

-0

.088

**

0.0

57

-0

.118

**

*-

0.0

18

-0

.040

0.0

28

0.1

02

**

*-

0.0

50

Pra

yer

19

0.2

08

**

*0

.037

-0

.088

**

0.0

80

**

-0

.02

20

.045

-0

.085

**

0.0

93

**

-0

.005

0.0

10

0.0

53

Chu

rch

atte

nd

ance

20

0.1

19

**

*0

.014

-0

.026

0.0

45

0.0

54

0.1

03

**

*-

0.0

47

0.0

72

*0

.024

-0

.08

2*

*0

.078

**

Con

gre

gat

ion

alfr

ien

ds

21

0.0

73

*-

0.0

44

-0

.046

0.1

86

**

*0

.00

30

.086

**

-0

.112

**

*0

.083

**

-0

.054

-0

.03

00

.153

**

*

38 S. Stroope et al.

123

Ta

ble

3co

nti

nu

ed

12

34

56

78

91

01

1

Lo

vin

gG

od

22

0.1

21

**

*0

.066

*-

0.1

16

**

*0

.021

-0

.16

5*

**

0.0

46

-0

.097

**

*0

.125

**

*-

0.0

71

*-

0.0

21

0.0

56

Sen

seo

fm

eanin

gin

life

23

0.0

88

**

0.0

64

*-

0.0

31

-0

.094

**

0.0

00

-0

.042

-0

.059

*0

.028

**

*0

.150

**

*-

0.0

11

-0

.029

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Fem

ale

1

No

nw

hit

e2

Inco

me

3

Ag

e4

Ed

uca

tio

nal

atta

inm

ent

5

Mar

ried

6

Em

plo

yed

7

Ho

mem

aker

8

Stu

den

t9

Un

emp

loy

ed1

0

Ret

ired

11

Evan

gel

ical

Pro

test

ant

12

Bla

ckP

rote

stan

t1

3-

0.0

96

**

Mai

nli

ne

Pro

test

ant

14

-0

.394

**

*-

0.0

68

*

Cat

ho

lic

15

-0

.415

**

*-

0.0

71

*-

0.2

92

**

*

Jew

ish

16

-0

.098

**

*-

0.0

17

-0

.069

*-

0.0

73

*

Oth

er1

7-

0.1

98

**

*-

0.0

34

-0

.139

**

*-

0.1

47

**

*-

0.0

35

No

ne

18

-0

.235

**

*-

0.0

40

-0

.166

**

*-

0.1

75

**

*-

0.0

41

-0

.08

3*

*

Pra

yer

19

0.2

86

**

*0

.07

3*

-0

.108

**

*0

.00

4-

0.1

22

**

*0

.05

0-

0.3

50

**

*

Chu

rch

atte

nd

ance

20

0.2

64

**

*0

.04

5-

0.0

46

0.0

08

-0

.07

3*

0.0

13

-0

.38

5*

**

0.6

15

**

*

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 39

123

Ta

ble

3co

nti

nu

ed

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Con

gre

gat

ion

alfr

ien

ds

21

0.0

79

**

-0

.00

6-

0.0

05

0.0

86

**

-0

.04

80

.04

5-

0.2

66

**

*0

.375

**

*0

.58

5*

**

Lo

vin

gG

od

22

0.2

51

**

*0

.08

6*

*-

0.1

05

**

*0

.01

8-

0.1

27

**

*-

0.0

03

-0

.27

5*

**

0.4

21

**

*0

.37

5*

**

0.2

44

**

*

Sen

seo

fm

eanin

gin

life

23

0.0

79

**

0.0

55

-0

.055

-0

.03

90

.01

90

.01

3-

0.0

39

0.1

92

**

*0

.20

6*

**

0.1

72

**

*0

.192

**

*

40 S. Stroope et al.

123

References

Allison, P. (2001). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. New York: JohnWiley.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2008). Do response rates matter? Retrieved November23, 2010, from http://www.aapor.org.

Athens, L. (1994). The self as a soliloquy. The Sociological Quarterly, 35(3), 521–532.Bader, C. D., Desmond, S. A., Mencken, F. C., & Johnson, B. R. (2010). Divine justice: The relationship

between images of god and attitudes toward criminal punishment. Criminal Justice Review, 35(1),90–106. doi:10.1177/0734016809360329.

Bader, C. D., & Froese, P. (2005). Images of God: The effect of personal theologies on moral attitudes,political affiliation, and religious behavior. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 1, 1–24.

Bader, C. D., Mencken, F. C., & Froese, P. (2007). American piety 2005: Content and methods of the Baylorreligion survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(4), 447–463.

Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study ofInterpersonal Processes, 36(4), 409–427.

Belavich, T. G., & Pargament, K. I. (2002). The role of attachment in predicting spiritual coping with aloved one in surgery. Journal of Adult Development, 9(1), 13–29.

Berger, P. L. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion (Vol. 1). Garden City,NY: Doubleday.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology ofknowledge. New York, NY: Anchor.

Bradshaw, M., Ellison, C. G., & Flannelly, K. J. (2008). Prayer, God imagery, and symptoms of psycho-pathology. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(4), 644–659.

Bradshaw, M., Ellison, C., & Marcum, J. (2010). Attachment to God, images of God, and psychologicaldistress in a nationwide sample of presbyterians. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,20(2), 130–147. doi:10.1080/10508611003608049.

Branden, N. (1995). The six pillars of self-esteem: The definitive work on self-esteem by the leading pioneerin the field. New York, NY: Bantam.

Clark, W. H. (1958). The psychology of religion: An introduction to religious experience and behavior.New York, NY: Macmillan.

Clements, W. M., & Koenig, H. G. (1994). Aging and God: Spiritual pathways to mental health in midlifeand later years (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology: Toward an explanatory science. New York: Academic Press.Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Crumbaugh, J. C. (1977). The seeking of noetic goals test (SONG): A complementary scale to the purpose in

life test (PIL). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 900–907. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197707)33:3\900:AID-JCLP2270330362[3.0.CO;2-8.

Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. AppliedDevelopmental Science, 7(3), 119–128. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2.

Debats, D. L. (1998). Measurement of personal meaning: The psychometric properties of the life regardindex. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychologicalresearch and clinical applications (pp. 237–259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Debats, D. L. (1999). Sources of meaning: An investigation of significant commitments in life. Journal ofHumanistic Psychology, 39(4), 30–57. doi:10.1177/0022167899394003.

Dougherty, K. D., Johnson, B. R., & Polson, E. C. (2007). Recovering the lost: Remeasuring US religiousaffiliation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(4), 483–499.

Draper, S. (2008). Dogmatic Beliefs Regarding Secular and Religious Authority. Presented at the AnnualMeeting for the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Louisville, KY.

Driskell, R., Embry, E., & Lyon, L. (2008). Faith and politics: The influence of religious beliefs on politicalparticipation. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 294–314. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00533.x.

Ebersole, P., & DeVogler-Ebersole, K. (1986). Meaning in life of the eminent and the average. Journal ofSocial Behavior & Personality, 1(1), 83–94.

Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 32(1), 80–99. doi:10.2307/2136801.Ellison, C. G., Boardman, J. D., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). Religious involvement, stress, and

mental health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit area study. Social Forces, 80(1), 215–249.Ellison, C. G., & Bradshaw, M. (2009). Religious beliefs, sociopolitical ideology, and attitudes toward

corporal punishment. Journal of Family Issues, 30(3), 320–340. doi:10.1177/0192513X08326331.

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 41

123

Ellison, C. G., Burdette, A. M., & Hill, T. D. (2009). Blessed assurance: Religion, anxiety, and tranquilityamong US adults. Social Science Research, 38(3), 656–667.

Flannelly, K. J., Galek, K., Ellison, C. G., & Koenig, H. G. (2009). Beliefs about God, psychiatric symp-toms, and evolutionary psychiatry. Journal of Religion and Health, 49(2), 246–261. doi:10.1007/s10943-009-9244-z.

Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York:Random House.

Francis, L. J. (2005). God Images and self-esteem: A study among 11–18 year-olds. Research in the SocialScientific Study of Religion, 16, 105–121.

Froese, P., & Bader, C. D. (2007). God in America: Why theology is not simply the concern of philosophers.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(4), 465–481.

Froese, P., & Bader, C. D. (2008). Unraveling religious worldviews: The relationship between images of godand political ideology in a cross-cultural analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 49(4), 689–718.

Froese, P., & Bader, C. D. (2010). America’s four Gods: What we say about God and what that says aboutus. New York: Oxford University Press.

Froese, P., Bader, C., & Smith, B. (2008). Political tolerance and God’s wrath in the United States.Sociology of Religion, 69(1), 29–44. doi:10.1093/socrel/69.1.29.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. GardenCity, NY: Doubleday.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1968). The conceptualization of God as seen in adjective ratings. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion, 7(1), 56–64. doi:10.2307/1385110.

Granqvist, P., & Hagekull, B. (2001). Seeking security in the new age: On attachment and emotionalcompensation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(3), 527–545.

Greeley, A. M. (1988). Evidence that a maternal image of God correlates with liberal politics. Sociology andSocial Research, 72(3), 150–154.

Greeley, A. (1996). Religion as poetry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Greeley, A., & Hout, M. (2006). Happiness and lifestyle among conservative Christians. The truth about

conservative Christians (pp. 150–161). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Hadaway, C. K. (1978). Life satisfaction and religion: A reanalysis. Social Forces, 57(2), 636–643. doi:

10.2307/2577686.Hall, P. A., & Lamont, M. (2009). Successful societies: How institutions and culture affect health. New

York: Cambridge University Press.Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close

relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1–22.Humphreys, K., & Kaskutas, L. A. (1995). World views of alcoholics anonymous, women for sobriety, and

adult children of alcoholics/al-anon mutual help groups. Addiction Research & Theory, 3(3), 231–243.Idler, E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K., Krause, N., Ory, M. G., et al. (2003). Measuring

multiple dimensions of religion and spirituality for health research. Research on Aging, 25(4),327–365.

Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2005). Gender, religiosity, and reactions to strain among African Americans.The Sociological Quarterly, 46(2), 323–357. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00015.x.

Kellstedt, L., Green, J., Guth, J., & Smidt, C. (1996). Grasping the essentials: The social embodiment of religionand political behavior. In J. Green, J. Guth, C. Smidt, & L. Kellstedt (Eds.), Religion and the culture wars:Dispatches from the front (pp. 174–192). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Meaning in life as a mediator of ethnic identity and adjustment amongadolescents from Latin, Asian, and European American backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adoles-cence, 39(11), 1253–1264. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9475-z.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion (1st ed.). New York, NY:The Guilford Press.

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’s lives. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Krause, N. (2003). Religious meaning and subjective well-being in late life. The Journals of Gerontology:Series B, 58(3), S160.

Krause, N. (2004). Stressors arising in highly valued roles, meaning in life, and the physical health status ofolder adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(5),S287–S297.

Krause, N. (2007a). Evaluating the stress-buffering function of meaning in life among older people. Journalof Aging and Health, 19(5), 792–812. doi:10.1177/0898264307304390.

Krause, N. (2007b). Longitudinal study of social support and meaning in life. Psychology and Aging, 22(3),456–469. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.456.

42 S. Stroope et al.

123

Krause, N. (2008). The social foundation of religious meaning in life. Research on Aging, 30(4), 395–427.doi:10.1177/0164027508316619.

Krause, N. (2009a). Meaning in life and mortality. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: PsychologicalSciences and Social Sciences, 64(4), 517–527.

Krause, N. (2009b). Church-based social relationships and change in self-esteem over time. Journal for theScientific Study of Religion, 48(4), 756–773.

Ladd, K. L., & Spilka, B. (2002). Inward, outward, and upward: Cognitive aspects of prayer. Journal for theScientific Study of Religion, 41(3), 475–484.

Ladd, K. L., & Spilka, B. (2006). Inward, outward, upward prayer: Scale reliability and validation. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(2), 233–251.

Lamont, M. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class and immi-gration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Levin, J. S. (1994). Religion and health: Is there an association, is it valid, and is it causal? Social Scienceand Medicine, 38(11), 1475–1482. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90109-0.

Levin, J. S. (2002). Is depressed affect a function of one’s relationship with God?: Findings from a study ofprimary care patients. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 32(4), 379–393.

Levin, J. S. (2004). Prayer, love, and transcendence: An epidemiologic perspective. In K. W. Schaie, N.M. Krause, & A. Booth (Eds.), Religious influences on health and well-being in the elderly (1st ed.,pp. 69–95). New York: Springer.

Levin, J. S. (2009). How faith heals: A theoretical model. Explore, 5(2), 77–96.Levin, J. S. (2010). Religion and mental health: Theory and research. International Journal of Applied

Psychoanalytic Studies, 7(2), 102–115. doi:10.1002/aps.240.Lim, C., & Putnam, R. D. (2010). Religion, social networks, and life satisfaction. American Sociological

Review, 75(6), 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.Mascaro, N., & Rosen, D. H. (2006). The role of existential meaning as a buffer against stress. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology, 46(2), 168–190. doi:10.1177/0022167805283779.Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Mencken, F. C., Bader, C. D., & Embry, E. (2009). In god we trust: Images of god and trust in the United

States among the highly religious. Sociological Perspectives, 52(1), 23–38.Nonnemaker, J. M., McNeely, C. A., & Blum, R. W. (2003). Public and private domains of religiosity and

adolescent health risk behaviors: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health.Social Science and Medicine, 57(11), 2049–2054. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00096-0.

Nonnemaker, J., McNeely, C. A., & Blum, R. W. (2006). Public and private domains of religiosity andadolescent smoking transitions. Social Science and Medicine, 62(12), 3084–3095. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.052.

Pampel, F. C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Park, C. L. (2005a). Religion as a meaning-making framework in coping with life stress. Journal of Social

Issues, 61(4), 707–729. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x.Park, C. L. (2005b). Religion and meaning. Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp.

295–317). New York: Guilford.Park, C. L. (2007). Religiousness/spirituality and health: A meaning systems perspective. Journal of

Behavioral Medicine, 30(4), 319–328. doi:10.1007/s10865-007-9111-x.Park, C. L., Malone, M. R., Suresh, D. P., Bliss, D., & Rosen, R. I. (2007). Coping, meaning in life, and

quality of life in congestive heart failure patients. Quality of Life Research, 17(1), 21–26. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9279-0.

Pevey, C., Williams, C. L., & Ellison, C. G. (1996). Male god imagery and female submission: Lessons froma southern baptist ladies’ bible class. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 173–193. doi:10.1007/BF02393417.

Pollner, M. (1989). Divine relations, social relations, and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,30(1), 92–104.

Reker, G. T. (1997). Personal meaning, optimism, and choice: Existential predictors of depression incommunity and institutional elderly. The Gerontologist, 37(6), 709–716. doi:10.1093/geront/37.6.709.

Reker, G. T. (2000). Theoretical perspective, dimensions, and measurement of existential meaning. InExploring existential meaning: Optimizing human development across the life span (pp. 39–55).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Roberts, C. W. (1989). Imagining God: Who is created in whose image? Review of Religious Research,30(4), 375–386. doi:10.2307/3511298.

Salovey, P., Rothman, A. J., Detweiler, J. B., & Steward, W. T. (2000). Emotional states and physical health.American Psychologist, 55(1), 110–121.

Schieman, S., Bierman, A., & Ellison, C. G. (2010). Religious involvement, beliefs about God, and the senseof mattering among older adults. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(3), 517–535.

Images of a Loving God and Sense of Meaning in Life 43

123

Schieman, S., Pudrovska, T., Pearlin, L., & Ellison, C. G. (2006). The sense of divine control and psy-chological distress: Variations across race and socioeconomic status. Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion, 45(4), 529–549.

Silberman, I. (2005). Religion as a meaning system: Implications for the New Millennium. Journal of SocialIssues, 61(4), 641–663. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00425.x.

Singer, E. (2006). Special issue on nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5),639–810.

Smith, C., & Snell, P. (2009). Souls in transition: The religious and spiritual lives of emerging adults.New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, B. W., & Zautra, A. J. (2004). The role of purpose in life in recovery from knee surgery. Interna-tional Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11(4), 197–202. doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm1104_2.

Spilka, B., Addison, J., & Rosensohn, M. (1975). Parents, self, and God: A test of competing theories ofindividual-religion relationships. Review of Religious Research, 16(3), 154–165. doi:10.2307/3510353.

Spilka, B., Armatas, P., & Nussbaum, J. (1964). The concept of God: A factor-analytic approach. Reviewof Religious Research, 6(1), 28–36. doi:10.2307/3510880.

Stark, R., & Glock, C. (1968). American piety: The nature of religious commitment. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., & Woodberry, R. D. (2000). The measureof American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291–318.

Steger, M. F. (2007). Structural validity of the life regard index. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselingand Development, 40(2), 97–109.

Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: One link in the chain from religiousness to well-being.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 574–582. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.574.

Sternthal, M. J., Williams, D. R., Musick, M. A., & Buck, A. C. (2010). Depression, anxiety, and religiouslife: A search for mediators. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(3), 343–359. doi:10.1177/0022146510378237.

Stroope, S. (2011a). Education and religion: Individual, congregational, and cross-level interaction effectson biblical literalism. Social Science Research, 40(6), 1478–1493. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.05.001.

Stroope, S. (2011b). How culture shapes community: Bible belief, theological unity, and a sense ofbelonging in religious congregations. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(4), 568–592. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01220.x.

Stroope, S. (2011c). Hinduism in India and congregational forms: Influences of modernization and socialnetworks. Religions, 2(4), 676–692. doi:10.3390/rel20x000x.

Stroope, S. (2011d). Social networks and religion: The role of congregational social embeddedness inreligious belief and practice. Sociology of Religion. doi:10.1093/socrel/SRR052.

Stroope, S. (2012). Caste, class, and urbanization: The shaping of religious community in contemporaryIndia. Social Indicators Research, 105(3), 499–518. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9784-y.

Unnever, J. D., Bartkowski, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). God imagery and opposition to abortion andcapital punishment: A partial test of religious support for the consistent life ethic. Sociology ofReligion, 71(3), 307–322. doi:10.1093/socrel/srq046.

Whitehead, A. L. (2010). Sacred rites and civil rights: Religion’s effect on attitudes toward same-sex unionsand the perceived cause of homosexuality. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 63–79.

Whitehead, A. L. (2012). Gender ideology and religion: Does a masculine image of God matter? Review ofReligious Research.

Wong, P. T. (1998). Implicit theories of meaning life and the development of the personal meaning profile.In The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications(pp. 111–140). Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Zemore, S. E., & Kaskutas, L. A. (2004). Helping, spirituality and alcoholics anonymous in recovery.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(3), 383–391.

44 S. Stroope et al.

123

Copyright of Social Indicators Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.