Locus of control as a mediator of the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction: Age,...

This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 30 October 2014, At: 15:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mental Health, Religion & CulturePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmhr20

Locus of control as a mediator of therelationship between religiosity andlife satisfaction: Age, race, and genderdifferencesKatherine L. Fiori a , Edna E. Brown b , Kai S. Cortina a & Toni C.Antonucci aa University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI, USAb University of Nashville , Tennessee, TN, USAPublished online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Katherine L. Fiori , Edna E. Brown , Kai S. Cortina & Toni C. Antonucci (2006)Locus of control as a mediator of the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction:Age, race, and gender differences, Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 9:03, 239-263, DOI:10.1080/13694670600615482

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13694670600615482

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmhr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13694670600615482

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13694670600615482

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Mental Health, Religion & CultureJune 2006; 9(3): 239–263

Locus of control as a mediator of the relationshipbetween religiosity and life satisfaction: Age, race,and gender differences

KATHERINE L. FIORI1, EDNA E. BROWN2, KAI S. CORTINA1,& TONI C. ANTONUCCI1

1University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, and 2University of Nashville,

Tennessee, TN, USA

AbstractResearch indicates that religiosity is associated with better psychological health. However,some studies have shown negative effects of religiosity on psychological health. It washypothesized that these contradictory findings may be due to the fact that different lociof control beliefs affect psychological health differently. The purpose of this paper istwofold: (1) to verify a model in which locus of control mediates the relationshipbetween religiosity and life satisfaction, and (2) to examine whether this model variesby age, gender, and race. Using Structural Equation Modelling to analyze Wave 1 of theAmericans’ Changing Lives dataset, this study confirms the mediation model andsuggests that the relationship between religiosity and locus of control varies by genderand age.

Introduction

Research indicates that religion has implications for psychological health and lifesatisfaction (Ellison, 1991; Idler & George, 1998; Idler & Kasl, 1997; Krause &Ellison, 2003; Krause, Ingersoll-Dayton, & Ellison, 1999; Laurencelle, Abell, &Schwartz, 2002; McFadden, 1995; Pargament et al., 1988; Seybold & Hill,2001). Although many of these implications are positive (e.g., Ellison, 1991;McFadden, 1995), some are negative (e.g., Seybold & Hill, 2001). The negativeeffects are often linked to the ways in which people view their relationship to God.Religion can help or hinder an individual’s psychological health depending on theindividual’s attributions or interpretations (Dein & Stygal, 1997; Pargament &Hahn, 1986). One way in which people’s religious attributions vary may stemfrom differing loci of control (Spilka, Shaver, & Kirkpatrick, 1985). Thus, one

Correspondence: Katherine L. Fiori, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research,426 Thompson Street, Bay 5080, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2321, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 1367-4676 print/ISSN 1469-9737 online � 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13694670600615482

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

mechanism by which religiosity may differentially impact life satisfaction isthrough locus of control. The current study examines the links among religiosity,locus of control, and life satisfaction in order to better understand whetherand how locus of control mediates the relationship between religiosity and lifesatisfaction. Because of our interest in subgroup variations, we conduct subgroupanalyses to investigate how the links among these variables might vary by age,gender, and race.

Religiosity and life satisfaction

The present study defines religiosity in terms of both objective religiosity (e.g.,religious attendance) and subjective religiosity (e.g., importance of religiousbeliefs) (cf. Krause, 1992). Both forms of religiosity are associated with lifesatisfaction. Religiosity may be positively related to life satisfaction through theenjoyment of attending services, the presence of clergy, a social support group,encouragement of health-related behaviors, and positive attributions (e.g., seeingthe world as meaningful; Idler & George, 1998). Strong religious faith may causenegative life events to be seen as opportunities for spiritual growth (Ellison,1991), and religion may act as a stress buffer (McFadden, 1995). Furthermore,religion can aid in problem-solving (Pargament et al., 1988) and can protectagainst depression (Idler & Kasl, 1997). However, depending on one’s beliefs,religiosity may also be negatively associated with life satisfaction. The negativeeffects of religiosity may be linked to the ways in which people view theirrelationship to God and how spirituality or religion is used as a coping resource.According to Seybold and Hill (2001), using a deferral-to-God problem-solvingstrategy can be an unhealthy by-product of religion. Pargament and Brant (1998)describe other harmful forms of religious coping, such as reframing a religiousevent in terms of a punishment from God. Finally, some specific religious beliefsmight actually become manifested in psychopathologies in times of stress orillness (e.g., the expectations of obedience in the Mormon religion may lead toinappropriate guilt or even obsessive-compulsiveness; Barlow & Bergin, 1998).

Locus of control and life satisfaction

The traditional distinction between internal and external control is that peoplewith an external locus of control believe that rewards are largely determined byexternal forces such as fate, luck, chance, the government, or powerful others,whereas those with an internal locus of control believe that their own responseslargely determine the amount and nature of the rewards they receive (Rotter,1966). An internal locus of control is often equated with a perceived sense ofpersonal control, which is a learned, generalized expectation that outcomes arecontingent on one’s own choices and actions (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003). Internaland external locus of control orientations represent generalized views of personalcontrol (Krause, 1986). Although many researchers have treated these two loci ofcontrol as lying on a continuum (from ‘‘low personal control’’ (external control)to ‘‘high personal control’’ (internal control)), locus of control has not always

240 Katherine L. Fiori et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

been found to lie on a continuum (e.g., Parkes, 1985). In the present study, forboth theoretical and empirical reasons, we treat internal and external loci ofcontrol as orthogonal. From a theoretical standpoint, recent lifespan researchwith implications for the present study suggests that sense of control becomesmore domain-specific with age (Lachman, 1986); this implies that older adultsin particular, may feel both externally controlled and internally controlling,depending on the domain examined. From an empirical standpoint, a factoranalysis of the present data revealed two distinct and orthogonal factors ratherthan a single factor lying on a continuum.Although we treat loci of control as orthogonal in the present study, due to the

prevalence in the literature of the concept of a continuum of ‘‘personal control,’’some of the implications of control for life satisfaction are discussed from theperspective of a unidimensional measure of control. For example, according toMirowsky and Ross (2003), those who believe that they have little or no controlover their own lives generally feel more distressed than others, and are thereforelikely to have a lower life satisfaction. A greater sense of personal control isthought to lead to greater self-assurance and hope, whereas the sense of not beingin control of the outcomes in one’s life is not only demoralizing in its ownright, but also may diminish the will and motivation to solve and avoid problems(Mirowsky & Ross, 2003). People with an external locus of control may bemore susceptible to feelings of helplessness (Perlmuter & Monty, 1977).We hypothesize that some of the variation in religiosity’s impact on lifesatisfaction may be due to variations in locus of control.

Religiosity and locus of control

Researchers often equate external control with relying on fate or God. However,dependence on fate and dependence on God are not synonymous if the latterinvolves some degree of mutuality (Jackson & Coursey, 1988). Unlike fatalism,for which an external locus of control is the clearest underlying psychologicalmechanism, religion has a more nuanced relationship with locus of control.Religion may increase external control, but at the same time a reliance on Godmay actually improve one’s sense of internal control and thereby improvepsychological outcomes (Pargament & Hahn, 1986). In a qualitative studyexamining religious turning points in a sample of 30 older adults, Fiori, Hays, andMeador (2004) noted an interesting comment made by one of the participants,recalling his fight with prostate cancer: ‘‘I asked the good Lord to give mestrength to accept my fate.’’ Thus, this participant interpreted his cancer ascaused by fate, and the ‘‘good Lord,’’ his means of strength to accept it and copewith the disease. This combination of internal and external loci of controlexemplifies the complicated relationship between religiosity and locus of control.The idea of ‘‘collaborative control’’ encapsulates this balance between internaland external loci of control; with this type of control, individuals work togetherwith others (Krause, 2003) or, more specifically, with God (Pargament et al.,1988; Schieman, 2003), to jointly influence their problems.

Religiosity, locus of control, and life satisfaction 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

How might a belief in God be related to internal control? Two areas of researchin particular may offer some insight into this question: namely, research onreligious coping and research on attribution theory. According to Pargament et al.(1988), when an individual sees God as a partner in the process of coping, controlis achieved through the relationship between the individual and God. Thiscollaborative approach has been associated with better outcomes than otherreligious coping approaches, such as the deferring approach in which theindividual relinquishes personal responsibility to God. More recently, Cole andPargament (1999) have developed the idea of spiritual surrender as a paradoxicalpathway to control in the process of coping. According to these researchers,spiritual surrender is very different from the deferring style of religious copingbecause surrender involves self-transcendence and is therefore characterizedby ‘‘an enhanced state of being’’ (p. 185). Furthermore, ‘‘a greater sense ofcontrol may ensue from the act of surrender to the sacred’’ (p. 186). Bysurrendering to God in a situation in which personal control is not feasible, theindividual may be better able to adapt to reality and may enhance the abilityto take constructive action.Attribution theories assume that people seek to make sense of their experiences

in order to find meaning in the world, but also to attempt to control and predictevents and to maintain and/or enhance self-esteem (Spilka, Shaver, &Kirkpatrick, 1985). The particular attribution selected on a given occasiondepends on its ability to restore meaning-seeking, control, and self-esteem tosatisfactory levels. According to Spilka et al. (1985), depending on its salienceto an individual, both the objective aspects of religiosity (such as execution ofprescribed rituals) and the more subjective religious attributions (such as thebelief that if one trusts in God and has faith, then things will turn out well) canoffer this satisfaction and thus influence one’s internal locus of control.Many religious systems may enable an individual to reinterpret potentiallydiscouraging events as further evidence for the truth of the system and for theefficacy of appropriate religious action, thereby possibly increasing a sense ofinternal control (Proudfoot & Shaver, 1976).

Differences in religiosity and locus of control by age

Although formal religious participation declines with age due to health problems,informal participation increases slightly (Ainlay, Singleton, & Swigert, 1992).Levin, Taylor, and Chatters (1994) and Taylor, Mattis, and Chatters (1999),using several national surveys, found that older respondents were more religiousthan were younger respondents. Religion and spirituality may be especiallyimportant as the elderly face their own morbidity and mortality (McCue, 1995;McFadden, 1995). Furthermore, according to Mirowsky and Ross (2003), olderadults have a lower sense of personal control than do young or middle-agedadults. Many of the losses that accompany the aging process (such as loss ofrelationships, work productivity, and financial strain) are brought on by factors


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

external to most older adults and over which they may feel they have little orno control (Fry, 2000).Studying locus of control as a mediator in the relationship between religion and

life satisfaction may be especially important in older adults. Several researchershave suggested the importance of this mediator among older adults (e.g., Ellison,Hummer, Cormier, & Rogers, 2000). Lachman (1986) posits that although olderadults acknowledge external sources of control (such as God), they may be betterable than younger adults to also maintain a sense of internality. This ability maybe due at least in part to the reorganization in thinking that occurs in adultsin which rational, analytical modes of thinking are integrated with more concreteand contextually embedded thoughts and feelings (Labouvie-Vief, 1984). Thus,we hypothesize that age may act as a moderator in our model. More specifically,as compared with younger adults, older adults may be better able to integratetheir belief in an external source of control (God) with a sense of internal control.

Differences in religiosity and locus of control by race

Many studies have shown race differences in levels of religiosity. For instance,in Levin et al.’s (1994) study and Taylor et al.’s (1999) study using five nationalsamples, black respondents had higher levels of religiosity than did whiterespondents. Furthermore, research generally finds that minority group members,such as African Americans, have a lower average sense of personal control than dowhite Americans (Mirowksy & Ross, 2003), likely reflecting a history ofdiscrimination and restricted opportunities.Shaw and Krause (2001) found that a higher degree of religiosity was

associated with a lower sense of personal control (measured on a continuum)among both blacks and whites. However, some studies indicate that therelationships among religiosity, locus of control, and life satisfaction may differby race. In a study by Neff and Hoppe (1993), fatalism combined with religiosityactually decreased depressive symptoms in a study of African Americans,implying that although a belief in external control (fatalism) may be negativefor African Americans, such beliefs in combination with religiosity (which mayprovide some sense of internal control) may have positive effects on lifesatisfaction. Furthermore, Jackson and Coursey’s (1988) study of AfricanAmericans demonstrated that a high degree of attribution to God as an activecausal agent was correlated with a high internal locus of control, unlike what isshown in most studies using only white participants. Thus, race may moderatethe relationship among religiosity, locus of control, and life satisfaction.Specifically, for African Americans religiosity may be more likely to be positivelyassociated with both external and internal control than with white Americans,for whom religiosity may only be positively associated with external control.

Differences in religiosity and locus of control by gender

According to Levin et al. (1994), females display higher levels of religiosity thando men, and locus of control also appears to differ by gender. Based on a history


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

of economic dependency, restricted opportunities, and role overload, the theoryof personal control predicts that women have a lower sense of control than domen (in other words, women have a stronger external locus of control). However,the difference between men and women in loci of control may depend on age(Mirowsky & Ross, 2003). Given that women display higher levels of religiosityand lower levels of internal control (at least at certain points in the lifespan) thando men, it may be the case that women are more likely to use religiosity toincrease their sense of internal control. Thus, control may play different rolesin the lives of religious men and women, and therefore this study includes genderas a moderator. More specifically, for women religiosity may be more likely to bepositively associated with both external and internal control as compared withmen, for whom religiosity may be only positively associated with an external locusof control.

Research questions and hypotheses

The present study examines whether locus of control mediates the well-documented relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction. More specifi-cally, it is predicted that a belief in external control contributes to a negativerelationship between these variables, whereas a belief in internal controlcontributes to a positive relationship. Although the design of our study is cross-sectional, and the data are therefore correlational, we hypothesize causalpathways based on the theoretical and empirical evidence cited above concerningthe relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction (e.g., Idler & George,1998), the relationship between locus of control and life satisfaction (e.g.,Mirowsky & Ross, 2003), and the relationship between religiosity and locus ofcontrol (e.g., Pargament & Hahn, 1986). Because we do not claim that locus ofcontrol is a full mediator, we include the pathway between religiosity and lifesatisfaction in our final model. Based on the above-mentioned researchsuggesting that the relationship between religiosity and internal control isdependent on age, race, and gender, we make the conservative assumption thatfor the overall sample, the relationship between religiosity and internal controlwill not be significant, and hypothesize for our entire sample that:

(1) Locus of control will mediate the relationship between religiosity and lifesatisfaction; specifically, religiosity will be positively associated with externalcontrol, which will in turn be negatively related to life satisfaction, butreligiosity will not be related to internal control, whereas internal control willbe positively related to life satisfaction.

Based on the above discussion of age, race, and gender differences, we expectgroups to differ from the overall sample and from each other only on the pathwayfrom religiosity to internal control (all other pathways are hypothesized to remainthe same as for the overall sample, and mediation is also expected for all groups):

(2) Among older adults, religiosity will be positively associated with internalcontrol; for younger adults, religiosity will not be related to internal control.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

(3) Among individuals in the sample self-identified as black, the associationbetween religiosity and internal control is expected to be positive ascompared with non-blacks, for whom religiosity will not be related tointernal control.

(4) For females, the association between religiosity and internal control will bepositive, and this pathway will not be significant for males.

Given the fact that socio-economic status (SES) and specific components of SES(including income, education, and employment) have consistently been found tocorrelate positively with an internal sense of control (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003),we included a measure of SES as a covariate in our structural equation models.Because we were interested in age, gender, and race differences, these variableswere not included as covariates. For reasons of theoretical and statistical clarity,in the event that age, race, or gender differences were found, we examined‘‘subgroups’’ (e.g., older males and females). This subgroup analysis allowsfor a more precise examination of group differences than would an inclusion ofcovariates. We did not make any predictions regarding these subgroupdifferences.

Method

Design and sample

Data for the present study come from the first wave of a longitudinal panel study,Americans’ Changing Lives (ACL) (House, 1995). The data were collectedby the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan on a stratified,multistage, area probability sample of noninstitutionalized persons aged 25 andover and living in the coterminous United States. African Americans and personsage 60 and over were sampled at twice the rate of non-African Americans andpersons under the age of 60. Initial face-to-face interviews lasting 86min onaverage were completed in the homes of 3,617 respondents between May andOctober of 1986. The response rate was 70% among sampled households and68% among sampled individuals.All data were weighted. The weights reflect differential response rates and

variation in probabilities of selection into the sample (since African Americansand adults over age 60 were oversampled). Eleven percent (n¼ 397) of the sampleidentified themselves as black. The average age of the sample was 47.11(SD¼ 16.45), with a range of 24–96 years. Approximately 52.9% (n¼ 1914)of the participants were female.

Measures

Sociodemographics. Gender and race were established from dichotomousvariables (1¼male, 2¼ female; 1¼black, 2¼non-black). Age was determinedby a quartile split to form two groups, with the top 25% representing ‘‘olderadults’’ (n¼ 862) and the bottom 25% representing ‘‘younger adults’’ (n¼ 922),


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

so that age would also be a dichotomous variable (0¼ younger adults [ages24–33], 1¼ older adults [ages 60–96]). Our measure of socio-economic statuswas a factor score created from a principal-components analysis with Varimaxrotation using the following variables: family income (ranging on a scale from1 [<$5,000] to 10 [>$80,000]), education (ranging from 1 [0–8 years] to6 [17þ years]), and occupational prestige for the participant’s current or lastemployment (from the Duncan SEI [Socio-economic Index], for which scoresrange from 0 to 99 based on occupational prestige rankings from US NationalOpinion Polls; Duncan, 1961).

Religiosity. To assess religiosity, both subjective measures (a self-report ofreligiousness and receiving spiritual comfort from religion) and objectivemeasures (organizational and non-organizational) were used. Although theoriginal intention of the authors was to separate objective and subjectivereligiosity into two different factors, a preliminary factor analysis did notdiscriminate these two concepts in this particular sample. Thus, due tomulticollinearity, objective and subjective religiosity were combined into onereligiosity factor. The appropriate items were reverse-coded such that higherscores represent more religiosity. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient forthese variables was 0.82. See Table I, Panel A for the items, as well as theirranges, means, and standard deviations.

Control beliefs. The two items that make up the internal control measure comefrom the Pearlin Mastery Model Scale (Pearlin, Menghan, Lieberman, & Mullan,1981) (Table I, Panel B). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was 0.53.The three items that make up the external control measure can be found inTable I, Panel C. Although these items constitute three of the four itemsoriginally intended as an index of ‘‘fatalism’’ in the ACL data, the fourth item(‘‘Everything is a part of God’s plan’’) was omitted because of its religiousovertones. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72. For both measures, the appropriateitems were reverse-coded so that higher scores represent higher control (internalor external).

Life satisfaction

To assess life satisfaction, three items were used. The appropriate items werereverse-coded such that higher scores indicate a higher life satisfaction (Table I,Panel D). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.60.

Results

Preliminary analyses

The bivariate Pearson correlations among all of the variables used in the study areshown in Table II. Indicators within constructs (shown in boldface) were highlyto modestly related to one another. Also noteworthy in the pattern


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

of intercorrelations is the positive relationship between age and religiosity and ageand external control. This same pattern is found for sex and race: like olderadults, women and blacks tend to be more religious and have a higher externalcontrol. In order to determine if these sociodemographic differences weresignificant, we performed a series of t-tests. These results are reported inTable III. From the table, it can be seen that older adults score consistently andsignificantly higher than younger adults on measures of religiosity and externalcontrol. They score significantly lower than younger adults on two items relatingto internal control but are significantly less likely than younger adults to reportfeeling ‘‘pushed around in life.’’ Older adults score significantly higher thanyounger adults on all life-satisfaction items.

Structural equation modeling

Mediation was tested using LISREL 8.50 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001). Althoughthe paths in our theoretical model imply causality, they are correlational due to

Table I. Study measures.

Range M SD

Panel A: Religiosity items1. ‘‘How important are religious or spiritualbeliefs in your day-to-day life?’’

(1) Very important–(4) not at allimportant (reverse-coded)

3.27 0.88

2. ‘‘How often do you seek spiritual comfortand support when faced with personaldifficulties?’’ (reverse-coded)

(1) Almost always–(5) never 3.25 1.48

3. ‘‘How often do you usually attend religiousservices?’’ (reverse-coded)

(1) More than once aweek–(6) never

3.31 1.80

4. ‘‘How often do you read religious books orother materials?’’ (reverse-coded)

(1) More than once aweek–(6) never

3.37 1.89

Panel B: Internal control items1. ‘‘Sometimes I feel that I am being pushedaround in life.’’

(1) Strongly agree–(4) stronglydisagree

2.94 0.99

2. ‘‘There is really no way I can solve theproblems I have.’’


3.35 0.91

Panel C: External control items1. ‘‘When bad things happen, we are notsupposed to know why. We are just supposedto accept them.’’ (reverse-coded)


2.49 1.09

2. ‘‘People die when it is their time to die, andnothing can change that.’’ (reverse-coded)


3.16 1.03

3. ‘‘If bad things happen, it is because theywere meant to be.’’ (reverse-coded)


2.50 1.07

Panel D: Life satisfaction items1. ‘‘Now please think about your life as awhole. How satisfied are you with it?’’

(1) Completely–(5) not at allsatisfied (reverse-coded)

3.77 0.88

2. ‘‘As I look back on my life I am fairlywell-satisfied.’’ (reverse-coded)


3.26 0.76

3. ‘‘My life could be happier than it is now.’’ (1) Strongly agree–(4) stronglydisagree

2.20 0.91


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Table II. Bivariate Pearson correlation matrices for study variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Sociodemographics1. SES 1.02. Age group0¼ young1¼ old �0.33** 1.0

3. Sex1¼male2¼ female �0.11** 0.08** 1.0

4. Race1¼Black2¼non-Black 0.17** 0.03 �0.03 1.0

Subjective religiosity5. Religiosity 1 �0.21** 0.20** 0.19** �0.18** 1.06. Religiosity 2 �0.11** 0.15** 0.24** �0.13** 0.61** 1.0

Objective religiosity7. Religiosity 3 �0.03 0.14** 0.10** �0.11** 0.53** 0.50** 1.08. Religiosity 4 �0.11** 0.20** 0.15** �0.14** 0.59** 0.58** 0.63** 1.0

Internal control9. Int Control 1 0.10** 0.22** �0.03 0.05** �0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 1.010. Int Control 2 0.28** �0.19** �0.10** 0.06** �0.09** �0.09** �0.04* �0.03 0.36** 1.0

External control11. Ext Control 1 �0.33** 0.27** 0.13** �0.04* 0.26** 0.21** 0.21** 0.22** 0.00 �0.18** 1.012. Ext Control 2 �0.28** 0.08** 0.08** �0.12** 0.14** 0.09** 0.06** 0.06** �0.04* �0.07** 0.41** 1.013. Ext Control 3 �0.32** 0.14** 0.10** �0.12** 0.20** 0.10** 0.07** 0.05** �0.07** �0.16** 0.46** 0.50** 1.0

Life satisfaction14. Life Sat 1 0.04* 0.13** 0.02 0.07** 0.06** 0.06** 0.14** 0.07** 0.24** 0.17** 0.11** 0.07** 0.08** 1.015. Life Sat 2 0.13** 0.08** �0.02 0.12** �0.02 �0.07** 0.05** 0.00 0.26** 0.25** �0.01 �0.01 �0.03 0.38** 1.016. Life Sat 3 0.02 0.21** 0.02 0.02 0.09** 0.05** 0.12** 0.06** 0.22** 0.10** 0.10** 0.06** 0.09** 0.40** 0.21** 1.0

Note: Indicators within constructs are boldfaced. Pairwise deletion used.* p<0.05; ** p<0.01 (two-tailed).

248

Katherin

eL.Fiori

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Table III. Means, standard deviations, and t-tests for the measured variables by group.

Item Male Female t (df ) Blacks Non-Blacks t (df ) Young Older t (df )

ReligiositySpiritual comfort 2.87

(1.46)3.58(1.42)

�14.87(3,615)***

3.79(1.30)

3.18(1.49)

7.74(3,615)***

3.03(1.46)

3.46(1.49)

�6.38(1,866)***

Importance 3.09(0.95)

3.42(0.77)

�11.64(3,615)***

3.70(0.61)

3.21(0.89)

10.53(3,615)***

3.09(0.91)

3.44(0.80)

�8.87(1,866)***

Attendance 3.12(1.77)

3.48(1.80)

�5.95(3,614)***

3.88(1.68)

3.24(1.80)

6.76(3,614)***

3.07(1.74)

3.56(1.83)

�5.94(1,865)***

Religious books 3.06(1.84)

3.64(1.89)

�9.39(3,610)***

4.12(1.83)

3.27(1.87)

8.47(3,610)***

2.96(1.78)

3.72(1.93)

�8.78(1,865)***

Internal controlPushed around in life 2.97

(0.95)2.92(1.02)

1.49(3,597)

2.79(1.06)

2.96(0.98)

�3.14(3,597)**

2.76(0.95)

3.20(0.97)

�9.80(1,850)***

No way to solve problems 3.44(0.84)

3.26(0.96)

5.78(3,580)***

3.19(0.97)

3.36(0.90)

�3.67(3,580)***

3.50(0.77)

3.16(1.02)

8.07(1,838)***

External controlNot supposed to know why 2.35

(1.11)2.62(1.06)

�7.60(3,600)***

2.61(1.15)

2.48(1.08)

2.30(3,600)*

2.30(1.07)

2.89(1.03)

�11.95(1,857)***

Die when time to die 3.07(1.09)

3.23(0.96)

�4.66(3,602)***

3.50(0.87)

3.12(1.04)

6.96(3,602)***

3.18(0.99)

3.33(0.95)

�3.35(1,857)**

Meant to be 2.34(1.06)

2.60(1.06)

�6.03(3,588)***

2.85(1.06)

2.46(1.06)

6.96(3,588)***

2.45(1.02)

2.73(1.07)

�5.89(1,849)***

Life satisfactionSatisfaction on the whole 3.76

(0.85)3.79(0.90)

�0.90(3,599)

3.60(0.94)

3.80(0.87)

�4.20(3,599)***

3.73(0.82)

3.96(0.93)

�5.60(1,856)***

Satisfaction looking back 3.25(0.73)

3.28(0.80)

�1.21(3,602)

3.22(0.80)

3.27(0.76)

�1.13(3,602)

3.13(0.74)

3.45(0.71)

�9.31(1,855)***

Life could be happier 2.22(0.89)

2.19(0.93)

0.90(3,593)

1.89(0.91)

2.24(0.91)

�7.19(3,593)***

2.15(0.89)

2.30(1.01)

�3.32(1,853)**

Note: Significantly higher values are presented in boldface.* p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001.

Religiosity,

locusof

control,

andlife

satisfa

ction249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

the cross-sectional design of our study. However, the ordering of the variablesfollows the theoretical framework we have proposed. Table IV presents the itemloading coefficients for the latent factors in our model, and Table V presents thecorrelations among the latent variables. In order to assess fit, in addition to theGoodness of Fit Index (GFI), we used the maximum-likelihood based indicesand cutoff values suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) as necessary to establisha good fit between hypothesized models and observed data: the Comparative FitIndex (CFI) and the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), each with a cutoff value closeto 0.95, the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), with a cutoff valueclose to 0.08, and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), witha cutoff value close to 0.06.In the first structural model we freed the hypothesized pathways (from

religiosity to internal control and external control, and from internal control andexternal control to life satisfaction), as well as the correlation between thedisturbances in the latent constructs of internal control and external control, butwe kept the pathway from religiosity to life satisfaction set to zero in order to test

Table V. Correlations of latent variables.

Latent variables 1 2 3 4 5

1. SES 1.002. Internal control 0.34 1.003. External control �0.45 �0.23 1.004. Religiosity �0.16 �0.07 0.26 1.005. Life satisfaction 0.09 0.53 0.14 0.11 1.00

Table IV. Item loading coefficients for the latent factors.

Items Loadings

Internal controlPushed around in life 0.55No way to solve problems 0.65

External controlNot supposed to know why 0.66Die when time to die 0.64Meant to be 0.72

ReligiositySpiritual comfort 0.74Importance 0.77Attendance 0.72Religious books 0.80

Life satisfactionSatisfaction on the whole 0.74Satisfaction looking back 0.51Life could be happier 0.52


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

for mediation. This model had a �2 of 899.87 (57, n¼ 3480, p<0.01), a GFIof 0.96, a CFI of 0.93, an IFI of 0.93, and an SRMR of 0.051. The RMSEAwas 0.067. According to Browne and Cudek (1993), an RMSEA less than 0.08 isconsidered an adequate model fit. This adequate model fit gives evidence formediation.In the next structural model, which is the model used for all subsequent group

analyses, we also freed the direct pathway from religiosity to life satisfaction, giventhe established relationship between these two variables. Because we do notclaim that locus of control is the only possible mediator between religiosity andlife satisfaction, opening this pathway is conceptually more sound. The finalstructural model, shown in Figure 1, had a �2 of 887.82 (56, n¼ 3480, p<0.01),a GFI of 0.96, a CFI of 0.94, an IFI of 0.94, an SRMR of 0.05, and an RMSEAof 0.067. Thus, this model also fit the data adequately well. Standardizedregression coefficients are presented, with significances determined with t values.As can be seen in Figure 1, religiosity had a significant positive effect on externalcontrol ( p<0.05), and internal control had a significant positive effect on lifesatisfaction ( p<0.01), as predicted. In addition, there was no significant effect ofreligiosity on internal control, as hypothesized. However, although the pathwayfrom external control to life satisfaction was significant (p<0.01), it was in thepositive direction (contrary to our prediction). Finally, religiosity had a small butsignificantly positive effect on life satisfaction.

Group comparisons

In order to test whether the model works differently for older adults and youngeradults, we tested the model for the two groups in LISREL. First, we createda baseline model in which all parameters, except for the error terms of theindicators, were constrained. We then compared this model to one in whichthe pathways among the latent variables were freed. For the baseline model, theglobal goodness of fit was: �2 (135)¼ 593.00, p<0.01 (Table VI, Panel A). Forthe model in which the pathways were allowed to vary, the �2 (126)¼ 568.77,p<0.01. The chi-square-difference test (�2 [9]¼ 24.23) was significant( p<0.01), indicating that allowing the pathway coefficients to vary improvedthe fit of the model. This final model had a GFI of 0.94, a CFI of 0.92, an IFIof 0.92, an SRMR of 0.062, and an RMSEA of 0.064, indicating a fairly good fit(see Figure 2). As predicted, the groups differed from the overall sample onlyin the pathway between religiosity and internal control. Furthermore, thispathway was negative for younger adults and positive for older adults, althoughit was only significant for the older group (as hypothesized). In order to testwhether this is the pathway that is driving the trend towards an age difference, weperformed another chi-square-difference test. First, we constrained this pathwayto equality (�2 [127]¼ 575.41), and then compared this model to the one inwhich all path coefficients were allowed to vary (Table VI, Panel A). Theresulting chi-square-difference test (�2 [1]¼ 6.64) was significant at the p<0.025level, indicating that the fit of the model did indeed significantly worsen when


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

the pathway from religiosity to internal control was constrained to be equal acrossyounger and older adults. Thus, it is the pathway from religiosity to internalcontrol that is driving the difference between younger and older adults.The sample was also split by gender (males, n¼ 1635; females, n¼ 1845) and

a similar analysis was conducted (Table VI, Panel B). The chi-square-differencetest was significant at the p<0.05 level, indicating that the groups are different(see Figure 3). For the best-fitting model in which the pathways between

31 2

1

2

4

31

2

3

SES

1

1

21

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

111

InternalControl

Religiosity

ExternalControl

LifeSatisfaction

1

1

−0.010.58**

0.27**0.20*

0.08*

−0.16*

−0.42**

0.34**

0.03

Figure 1. Structural model of religiosity, external and internal control, and life satisfaction for theentire sample (n¼ 3480). The correlation between the disturbances in internal control and externalcontrol is not shown for purposes of clarity. Standardized regression coefficients are presented.* p<0.05; ** p<0.01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Table VI. Structural equation groups and subgroups analysis. ns¼not significant.

Model �2 df �2-difference df difference p

Panel A: Older adults (n¼ 862) and younger adults (n¼ 922)Baseline model 593.00 135 – – –Paths between latent constructs allowed to vary 568.77 126 24.23 9 <0.01Path from religiosity! internal control constrained 575.41 127 6.64 1 <0.025

Panel B: Males (n¼ 1635) and Females (n¼ 1,845)Baseline model 1,056.27 135 – – –Pathways between latent constructs allowed to vary 1,039.18 126 17.09 9 <0.05Path from religiosity! internal control constrained 1,048.48 127 9.3 1 <0.01

Panel C: Blacks (n¼ 372) and non-Blacks (n¼ 3,108)Baseline model 1,039.16 135 – – –Pathways between latent constructs allowed to vary 1,026.52 126 12.64 9 ns

Panel D: Younger Males (n¼ 457) and Younger Females (n¼ 465)Baseline model 566.11 135 – – –Pathways between latent constructs allowed to vary 527.46 126 38.65 9 <0.001Path from religiosity! internal control constrained 535.37 127 7.91 1 <0.005

Panel E: Older males (n¼ 355) and older females (n¼ 507)Baseline model 234.09 135 – – –Pathways between latent constructs allowed to vary 228.07 126 6.02 9 ns

Panel F: Younger males (n¼ 457) and older males (n¼ 355)Baseline model 414.22 135 – – –Pathways between latent constructs allowed to vary 383.27 126 30.95 9 <0.001Path from religiosity! internal control constrained 392.83 127 9.56 1 <0.005

Panel G: Younger females (n¼ 465) and older females (n¼ 507)Baseline model 396.96 135 – – –Pathways between latent constructs allowed to vary 380.82 126 16.14 9 ns

Religiosity,

locusof

control,

andlife

satisfa

ction253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

the latent constructs were allowed to vary between males and females, the fitindices were as follows: GFI, 0.95; CFI, 0.92; IFI, 0.92; SRMR, 0.058; andRMSEA, 0.065. The pathway from religiosity to internal control was significantand negative for males. For females, the coefficient was in the predicted positivedirection but was not significant. Furthermore, Table VI, Panel B shows that thefit of the model significantly worsened when the pathway from religiosity tointernal control was constrained to be equal across males and females.Finally, the sample was split by race and entered as two groups in LISREL

(blacks, n¼ 372; non-blacks, n¼ 3108) (see Table VI, Panel C). As can beseen in this table and contrary to our hypothesis, the chi-square-difference testwas not significant, indicating that the model works similarly for blacks andnon-blacks in the sample. The fit statistics for the model in which the pathwaysbetween the latent constructs were not allowed to vary between blacks andnon-blacks were as follows: GFI, 0.96; CFI, 0.94; IFI, 0.94; SRMR, 0.053;and RMSEA, 0.063.

31 2

1

2

4

31

2

1 2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

111

Internal Control

Religiosity

External Control

Life Satisfaction

1

1

−0.05/0.13* 0.54**/0.61**

0.18**/0.20**0.25**/0.16**

0.12*/0.12*

Figure 2. Structural model of religiosity, external and internal control, and life satisfaction foryounger (n¼ 922) and older (n¼ 862) adults. SES is omitted from the model for simplicity.Standardized regression coefficients are presented for younger adults (in bold, before the slash) andolder adults (after the slash) when the equality constraints in the group analysis were relaxed.* p<0.05; ** p<0.01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Subgroup comparisons

In order to examine more closely the age and gender differences that were foundin the SEM multiple group comparisons, we broke the sample down intosubgroups for further comparisons. First, we split the sample by age and genderto obtain groups of younger males (n¼ 457) and younger females (n¼ 465), andconducted an identical analysis to those above. The chi-square-difference test wassignificant at the p<0.001 level, indicating that the groups are indeed different(Table VI, Panel D). For the best-fitting model in which the pathways betweenthe latent constructs were allowed to vary between younger males and youngerfemales, the fit indices were as follows: GFI, 0.92; CFI, 0.90; IFI, 0.90; SRMR,0.07; and RMSEA, 0.082. As shown in Figure 4, all of the pathway coefficientsfor both subgroups, with the exception of the coefficients between religiosity andinternal control and religiosity and life satisfaction, were similar to those found forthe entire sample. The pathway from religiosity to internal control was negativefor the younger males but positive for the younger females, and the direct pathwayfrom religiosity to life satisfaction was significantly positive for younger females

31 2

1

2

4

31

2

1 2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

111

Internal Control

Religiosity

ExternalControl

LifeSatisfaction

1

1

−0.07/0.09* 0.55**/0.62**

0.26**/0.27**0.18**/0.17**

0.08*/0.07*

Figure 3. Structural model of religiosity, external and internal control, and life satisfaction formales (n¼ 1635) and females (n¼ 1845). SES is omitted from the model for simplicity.Standardized regression coefficients are presented for males (in bold, before the slash) and females(after the slash) when the equality constraints in the group analysis were relaxed. *p <0.05;** p<0.01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

and not significant for younger males. The fit of the model worsened when thepathway from religiosity to internal control was constrained to be equal acrossthese two groups (Table VI, Panel D). Another chi-square-difference test showedthat these two groups did not significantly differ on the direct pathway fromreligiosity to life satisfaction.Next, we compared older males (n¼ 355) to older females (n¼ 507) and

performed a similar analysis (Table VI, Panel E). The chi-square-difference testwas not significant, indicating that the model fits equally well for older males andolder females. The fit statistics for the model in which the pathways betweenthe latent constructs were not allowed to vary between older males and olderfemales were as follows: GFI, 0.96; CFI, 0.95; IFI, 0.95; SRMR, 0.056; andRMSEA, 0.042.We then compared younger males (n¼ 457) to older males (n¼ 355). As can

be seen in Table VI, Panel F, the chi-square-difference test was significant,indicating that the groups are different. For the best-fitting model in which the

31 2

1

2

4

31

2

1 2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

111

Internal Control

Religiosity

External Control

Life Satisfaction

1

1

−0.13*/0.14*

0.27**/0.18**

0.41**/0.72**

0.17**/0.21**

0.00/0.16*

Figure 4. Structural model of religiosity, external and internal control, and life satisfaction foryounger males (n¼ 457) and younger females (n¼ 465). SES is omitted from the model forsimplicity. Standardized regression coefficients are presented for younger males (in bold, beforethe slash) and younger females (after the slash) when the equality constraints in the group analysiswere relaxed. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

pathways between the latent constructs were allowed to vary between youngermales and older males, the fit indices were as follows: GFI, 0.95; CFI, 0.92;IFI, 0.92; SRMR, 0.064; and RMSEA, 0.07. The pathway from religiosity tointernal control was significant for both groups, but the coefficient was negativefor the younger males and positive for the older males (see Figure 5).Furthermore, the direct pathway from religiosity to life satisfaction wassignificantly positive for older males but not significant for younger males. Thefit of the model significantly worsened when the pathway from religiosity tointernal control was constrained to equality across these two groups (Table VI,Panel F). Another chi-square-difference test showed that these two groups did not

significantly differ on the direct pathway from religiosity to life satisfaction.Finally, we compared younger females (n¼ 465) to older females (n¼ 507).

The chi-square-difference test was not significant, indicating that the model fitsequally well for younger females and older females (Table VI, Panel G). The fitstatistics for the model in which the pathways between the latent constructs were

31 2

1

2

4

31

2

1 2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

111

Internal Control

Religiosity

External Control

Life Satisfaction

1

1

−0.16*/0.18* 0.37**/0.59**

0.16**/0.22**0.28**/0.14*

0.02/0.18*

Figure 5. Structural model of religiosity, external and internal control, and life satisfaction foryounger males (n¼ 457) and older males (n¼ 355). SES is omitted from the model for simplicity.Standardized regression coefficients are presented for younger males (in bold, before the slash)and older males (after the slash) when the equality constraints in the group analysis were relaxed.* p<0.05; ** p<0.01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

not allowed to vary between younger females and older females were as follows:GFI, 0.96; CFI, 0.92; IFI, 0.92; SRMR, 0.06; and RMSEA, 0.064.

Discussion

The present study assessed whether locus of control mediates the well-documented relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction. In addition,age, race, and gender were hypothesized to be moderators of the relationshipamong religiosity, locus of control, and life satisfaction. As predicted, mediationwas found: internal and external loci of control mediated the relationship betweenreligiosity and life satisfaction.Interesting age and gender differences emerged. The pathway driving these

differences was that between religiosity and internal control, which was notsignificant for younger adults but was positive for older adults (as predicted).In accordance with Labouvie-Vief’s (1984) theory concerning a reorganization inthinking among adults, perhaps with age and experience, older adults can betterintegrate the rational belief in, and need for, personal control with morecontextually embedded religious beliefs. This is consistent with Lachman’s(1986) speculation that although older adults acknowledge external sources ofcontrol (such as God), they may be better able than younger adults to maintaina sense of internality. This integration of internal control and an external sourceof control (God) may be made easier by the fact that sense of control seems tobecome more domain-specific with age (Lachman, 1986); perhaps older adultsare better able than younger adults at relinquishing control to God in someaspects of their lives but maintaining a more internal sense of control for otheraspects. It should also be noted that ‘‘relinquishing control to God’’ mayparadoxically increase internal control, consistent with Cole and Pargament’s(1999) ‘‘spiritual surrender.’’ Thus, it may be that older adults are more pronethan younger adults to interpret such ‘‘relinquishing’’ as a purposeful, control-inducing act.A similar difference was found between males and females, with the pathway

from religiosity to internal control negative for males and positive for females.Given that women display higher levels of religiosity and lower levels of control(at least at certain points in the lifespan) than do men, it may be the case thatwomen are more likely to use religiosity to increase their sense of internal control.In other words, religiosity may act as a means through which women maintaina sense of internal control in spite of economic dependency, restrictedopportunities, and role overload.When these differences were further explored, we found that it was actually

younger males and younger females, as well as younger males and older males,who differed in the pathway from religiosity to internal control. Specifically,whereas this pathway was significantly negative for younger males, it wassignificantly positive for younger females and older males. Why might youngermale adults stand out? Although we did not measure coping in this particularstudy, it is useful to consider the coping literature to address this question.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

According to a study conducted by Feldman, Fisher, Ranson and Dimiceli(1995), turning to religion was one type of coping behavior used duringadolescence that predicted poor young adult adaptation among boys but goodadaptation among girls. Blanchard-Fields and Irion (1988) found that agemoderates the relationship between sense of control and coping. They found thata belief in powerful others’ control over life circumstances was positively relatedto planful problem-solving and self-controlling coping mechanisms among olderadults but negatively related to these strategies among younger adults. Althoughthey did not find further moderation by gender in their particular sample, it ispossible that gender could act as a moderator in certain samples, such as religiousones. For older men, the relationship between religiosity and internal control maybe positive for the same reason that it is positive for both younger and olderwomen. As men (especially religious men) grow older and experience declines inan internal sense of control due to failing health and retirement, they may then

begin to turn to religiosity as a source of empowerment that religious women havebeen using all their lives.Interestingly, we did not find any significant group differences in the direct

pathway from religiosity to life satisfaction. Rather, it was the pathway betweenreligiosity and internal control that was significantly different for the groups andsubgroups in our sample. The lack of an association between religiosity and lifesatisfaction found for the younger men in our sample may simply be due to thesignificantly negative association between religiosity and internal control in thisgroup. Equally interesting is the lack of significant race differences, which wepredicted based on Jackson and Coursey’s (1988) study. However, their studydiffered from our study in several ways: they had a much smaller sample, they didnot have a white comparison group, and they were testing the relationshipbetween attribution to God and internal locus of control, rather than an entiremediation model.

Limitations

The unexpected positive association between external control and life satisfactionmay be a measurement artefact. Although we attempted to avoid thismeasurement artefact by excluding the item that specifically mentioned God,the external control items may nonetheless be interpreted by some respondents asassessing religiosity. For instance, individuals who responded to the externalcontrol item, ‘‘If bad things happen, it is because they were meant to be,’’ mayhave inferred religious meaning. Furthermore, this bias may also explain thesignificant positive relationship found between religiosity and external control.Rather than representing a positive association between religiosity and externalcontrol, this significant positive pathway may simply represent an associationamong different religiosity variables. This measurement bias is an unfortunateconsequence of the fact that the only scale available in this dataset does not clearlydistinguish among religiosity, external control, and fatalism. An extension of thislimitation is the fact that we had to devise our own recognizable constructs


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

of religiosity, internal control, and external control, using only the availablemeasures in the existing dataset. Clearly, however, using standardized measuresof the concepts would improve reliability and construct validity. Future researchusing standardized measures (such as religious orientation) to assess theseconstructs is warranted.Although, in the literature, the importance of religious attributions and control

appears to be most prominent in the context of coping, information about currentlife stressors and coping was not available in this dataset. Furthermore, moststudies examining religion (including the present study) use primarily participantswith a Jewish or Christian background and do not distinguish denominations.Studying distinctions in denominations within the Jewish or Christian tradition orother religions entirely would likely reveal interesting differences. In addition,although we assumed certain causal pathways in our model, due to the cross-sectional design we cannot exclude the possibility of reverse directional effects.In other words, it may be that low life satisfaction leads individuals to becomemore religious; however, this would not explain why religiosity was relatedto a greater internal locus of control for some individuals, since it could beassumed that lower life satisfaction would lead to a greater external locus ofcontrol. Furthermore, our theoretical framework was based on researchindicating that religiosity affects both locus of control and life satisfaction, andthat locus of control appears to influence life satisfaction. Thus, the directionalityof our model is supported by past empirical and theoretical research.There is also the possibility of third variable effects in our model. For instance,

it may be that there is some third variable affecting religiosity, locus of control,and life satisfaction that we were not able to include in our model. Finally, there isthe possibility of cohort effects in the present study, since the data were collectedin 1986. For example, there has been a trend since the late 1980s towardsstronger religious beliefs, and younger generations are also becoming much morereligious as they age (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2003).These changes in the American religious landscape over the past several decadesmay limit the generalizability of the present findings. In spite of these limitations,this study offers preliminary evidence of the importance of locus of control inrelation to the impact of religiosity on life satisfaction.

Implications and future research

This study has important implications for the way in which a healthy sense ofcontrol should be promoted among religious individuals. In such a population,a delicate psychological balance exists between a protective relinquishing ofcontrol and problematic passivity. This may be especially salient among olderadults as personal control begins to decline, and for young religious males whoseem to be at a particular risk for falling into a problematic passivity. From a lifespan developmental perspective, the findings from this study are intriguing.Both control and religion are highly salient concepts as older adults facechallenges such as disease, loss of friends, retirement, and imminent death.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Perhaps religiosity is one way for people to be agents in their own lives whenthings are otherwise out of their control. Thus, it is especially important toconduct research in which both religiosity and control are examined over time inorder to understand how the two constructs interact across the life span.Although future studies with longitudinal data and/or the inclusion of middle-aged adults are needed to further understand developmental changes in theassociation among religiosity, locus of control, and life satisfaction, the currentstudy has demonstrated the importance of locus of control in relation to religiosityand life satisfaction, and how the associations among these variables may differby age and gender.

References

Ainlay, S. C., Singleton, R., & Swigert, V. (1992). Aging and religious participation: Reconsideringthe effects of health. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 175–188.

Barlow, S. H., & Bergin, A. E. (1998). Religion and mental health from the Mormon perspective.In H. G. Koenig (Ed.), Handbook of religion and mental health (pp. 225–243). San Diego:Academic Press.

Blanchard-Fields, F., & Irion, J. C. (1988). The relation between locus of control and coping in twocontexts: Age as a moderator variable. Psychology and Aging, 3, 197–203.

Browne, M., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long(Eds), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cole, B. S., & Pargament, K. I. (1999). Spiritual surrender: A paradoxical path to control.In W. R. Miller (Ed.), Integrating spirituality into treatment: Resources for practitioners

(pp. 179–198). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Dein, S., & Stygal, J. (1997). Does being religious help or hinder coping with chronic illness?

A critical literature review. Palliative Medicine, 11, 291–298.Duncan, O. D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In A. Reiss Jr (Ed.), Occupations

and social status (pp. 109–138). New York: Free Press.Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 32, 80–99.Ellison, C. G., Hummer, R. A., Cormier, S., & Rogers, R. G. (2000). Religious involvement and

mortality risk among African American adults. Research on Aging, 22, 630–667.Feldman, S. S., Fisher, L., Ransom, D. C., & Dimiceli, S. (1995). Is ‘‘what is good for the goose

good for the gander?’’ Sex differences in relations between adolescent coping and adultadaptation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 333–359.

Fiori, K. L., Hays, J. C., & Meador, K. G. (2004). Spiritual turning points and perceivedcontrol over the life course. International Journal of Aging and Human Development,59, 391–420.

Fry, P. S. (2000). Religious involvement, spirituality and personal meaning for life: Existentialpredictors of psychological wellbeing in community-residing and institutional care elders.Aging and Mental Health, 4, 375–387.

House, J. S. (1995). Americans’ changing lives: Waves I and II, 1986 and 1989. Ann Arbor, MI:Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Idler, E. I., & George, L. K. (1998). What sociology can help us understand about religion andmental health. In H. G. Koenig (Ed.), Handbook of religion and mental health (pp. 51–62).San Diego: Academic Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Idler, E., & Kasl, S. (1997). Religion among disabled and nondisabled persons II: Attendance atreligious services as a predictor of the course of disability. The Journals of Gerontology,52B, S306–S316.

Jackson, L. E., & Coursey, R. D. (1988). The relationship of God control and internal locus ofcontrol to instrinsic religious motivation, coping and purpose in life. Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, 27, 399–410.Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.50. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Krause, N. (1986). Stress and coping: Reconceptualizing the role of locus of control beliefs. Journal

of Gerontology, 41, 617–622.Krause, N. (1992). Stress, religiosity, and psychological well-being among older blacks. Journal of

Aging and Health, 4, 412–439.Krause, N. (2003). The social foundations of personal control in late life. In S. H. Zarit,

L. I. Pearlin, & K. W. Shaie (Eds), Personal control in social life course contexts: Societal impact on

aging (pp. 45–70). New York: Springer.Krause, N., & Ellison, C. G. (2003). Forgiveness by God, forgiveness of others, and psychological

well-being in late life. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 77–93.Krause, N., Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Ellison, C. G. (1999). Aging, religious doubt, and

psychological well-being. Gerontologist, 39, 525–533.Labouvie-Vief, G. (1984). Logic and self-regulation from youth to maturity: A model.

In M. Commons, F. Richards & C. Armon (Eds), Beyond formal operations (pp. 158–180).New York: Praeger.

Lachman, M. E. (1986). Locus of control in aging research: A case for multidimensional anddomain-specific assessment. Psychology and Aging, 1, 34–40.

Laurencelle, R. M., Abell, S. C., & Schwartz, D. J. (2002). The relation between intrinsic religiousfaith and psychological well-being. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,12, 109–123.

Levin, J. S., Taylor, R. J., & Chatters, L. M. (1994). Race and gender differences in religiosityamong older adults: Findings from four national surveys. Journal of Gerontology,149, S137–S145.

McCue, J. (1995). The naturalness of dying. Journal of the American Medical Association,273, 1039–1042.

McFadden, S. (1995). Religion and well-being in aging persons in an aging society. Journal of SocialIssues, 51, 161–175.

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2003). Education, social status, and health. Series Title: Social

institutions and social change. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Neff, J. A., & Hoppe, S. K. (1993). Race/ethnicity, acculturation and psychological

distress: Fatalism and religiosity as cultural resources. Journal of Community Psychology,21, 3–20.

Pargament, K. I., & Brant, C. R. (1999). Religion and coping. In H. G. Koenig (Ed.), Handbook of

religion and mental health (pp 111–128). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Pargament, K. I., & Hahn, J. (1986). God and the just world: Causal and coping attributions to

God in health situations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 25, 193–207.Pargament, K. I., Kennell, J., Hathaway, W., Grevengoed, N., Newman, J., & Jones, W. (1988).

Religion and the problem-solving process: Three styles of coping. Journal for the Scientific Studyof Religion, 27, 90–104.

Parkes, K. R. (1985). Dimensionality of Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale: An application of the‘‘very simple structure’’ technique. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 115–119.

Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. G., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337–356.

Perlmuter, L. C., & Monty, R. A. (1977). The importance of perceived control: Fact or fantasy?American Scientist, 65, 759–765.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2003, November). The 2004 political landscape:

Evenly divided and increasingly polarized. Washington, DC.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Proudfoot, W., & Shaver, P. (1976). Attribution theory and the psychology of religion. Journal forthe Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 317–330.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcements.Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.

Schieman, S. (2003). Perceived, generalized, and learned aspects of personal control. In S. H. Zarit,L. I. Pearlin, & K. W. Shaie (Eds), Personal control in social life course contexts: Societal impact on

aging (pp. 45–70). New York: Springer.Seybold, K. S., & Hill, P. C. (2001). The role of religion and spirituality in mental and physical

health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 21–24.Shaw, B. A., & Krause, N. (2001). Exploring race variations in aging and personal control.

The Journals of Gerontology, 56B, S119–S124.Spilka, B., Shaver, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1985). A general attribution theory for the psychology

of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24, 1–20.Taylor, R. J., Mattis, J., & Chatters, L. M. (1999). Subjective religiosity among African Americans:

A synthesis of findings from five national samples. Journal of Black Psychology, 25, 524–543.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Locus of control as a mediator of the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction: Age,...

Documents

Transcript of Locus of control as a mediator of the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction: Age,...