the present work examined the relationship between religiosity and happiness within the context of the dis-

Keywords: Religiosity; Religious orientation; Religious coping; Happiness; Well-being

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 28 7137 5315; fax: +44 28 7137 5493.

E-mail address: ca.lewis@ulst.ac.uk (C.A. Lewis).

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 119312020191-8869/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.tinction between subjective and psychological well-being. One hundred and thirty eight UK adults com-

pleted two measures of both religiosity (the Age Universal Religious Orientation Scale [Intrinsic andExtrinsic subscales] and the Religious Coping Scale [Positive and Negative subscales]) and happiness

(the DepressionHappiness Scale and the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form). In general, no sig-nicant associations were found between religiosity scores and happiness scores. However, both higher

intrinsic orientation scores and positive religious coping were signicantly associated with higher scores

on the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form. It is proposed that these dierential ndings are con-

sistent with the theoretical distinction between subjective and psychological well-being. It is suggested that

when religiosity is related to happiness, it is related to psychological well-being, which is thought to reect

human development, positive functioning and existential life challenges.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Religious orientation, religious coping and happinessamong UK adults

Christopher Alan Lewis a,*, John Maltby b, Liz Day c

a School of Psychology, University of Ulster at Magee College, Londonderry BT48 7JL, Northern Ireland, UKb School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK

c Psychology Subject Group, Sheeld Hallam University, UK

Received 25 September 2003; received in revised form 25 June 2004; accepted 4 August 2004

Available online 6 November 2004

Abstract

It has been demonstrated that the relationship between religiosity and happiness varies according to the

precise measures used and the samples studied. To examine further the generalisability of this associationdoi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.002

1. Introduction

Within the psychology of religion there is renewed empirical interest in examining the relation-ship between religion and happiness. Previous research has employed a variety of dierent meas-ures of both religiosity, including measures of religious attitude, behaviour and practice, andhappiness, including both single item and multi-item scales, among a variety of dierent samples.The results of these studies have largely been equivocal (for an overview see Robbins & Francis,1996) and are dicult to integrate due to the divergent methodologies employed.In contrast, two sets of recent studies have employed more systematic methodologies and have

both utilised the same measure of religiosity, the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity(Francis & Stubbs, 1987). One series of studies has examined the relationship between religionand happiness among various populations by employing the Francis Scale of Attitude towardChristianity and the Oxford Happiness Inventory (Argyle, Martin, & Crossland, 1989). Resultsamong samples of 360 undergraduates in the UK (Robbins & Francis, 1996), 212 undergraduatesin the USA (Francis & Lester, 1997), 100 undergraduates in the UK (French & Joseph, 1999), 9941516-year-olds in England (Francis, Jones, & Wilcox, 2000), 456 rst-year undergraduate stu-dents attending one institution in Wales (Francis et al., 2000), 496 members of a branch of theUniversity of the Third Age in the south of England (Francis et al., 2000), 295 UK individuals,ranging in age from late teens to late seventies (Francis & Robbins, 2000), and 89 undergraduatestudents in Wales (Francis, Robbins, & White, 2003a), have demonstrated a signicant positiveassociation between scores on the Oxford Happiness Inventory and scores on the Francis Scaleof Attitude toward Christianity. However, Francis, Ziebertz, and Lewis (2003b) did not reporta signicant correlation among 331 undergraduate students in Germany. Two related studies, re-ported by Francis and Katz (2002) and by Francis, Katz, Yablon, and Robbins (in press), admin-istered the Hebrew translation of the Oxford Happiness Inventory together with the Katz-FrancisScale of Attitude toward Judaism (Francis & Katz, 2002) to samples of 298 Hebrew-speaking fe-male and 203 Hebrew-speaking male undergraduates in Israel. After taking into account individ-ual dierences in personality, these data demonstrated a signicant association between religiosityand happiness.In contrast to this body of work, a smaller series of studies has employed the Francis Scale of

Attitude toward Christianity (Francis & Stubbs, 1987) and the DepressionHappiness Scale (Jo-seph & Lewis, 1998; McGreal & Joseph, 1993) among various populations. Results among sam-ples of 154 Northern Irish undergraduate students (Lewis, Lanigan, Joseph, & de Fockert, 1997),64 English Anglican priests (Lewis, Maltby, & Burkinshaw, 2000) and 70 English congregationalmembers of the Anglican Church (Lewis et al., 2000) have demonstrated no signicant associationbetween scores on the DepressionHappiness Scale and scores on the Francis Scale of Attitudetoward Christianity. However, French and Joseph (1999) did report a signicant associationamong 100 undergraduates in the UK. In addition, related research by Lewis (2002) among asample of 154 Northern Irish university students demonstrated a positive association betweenscores on the DepressionHappiness Scale and frequency of church attendance.The dierential associations of the Oxford Happiness Inventory and the DepressionHappiness

Scale with the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity, is somewhat surprising given thatthere is strong evidence for the high correlation between the two measures of happiness (French

1194 C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202& Joseph, 1999; Hills & Argyle, 2002; Joseph & Lewis, 1998).

One explanation can be gained from the comparison of the items of the two scales based on atheoretical and empirical distinction between subjective well-being and psychological well-beinghighlighted by Keyes, Shmotkin, and Ry (2002). Within this distinction, subjective well-beingis seen as an evaluation of life as an aspect of the balance between positive and negative aect,while psychological well-being is viewed as the outcome of the engagement with wider individualdevelopment and the existential challenges within life (Keyes et al., 2002). The two scales may dif-ferentiate in the way that they measure happiness. Whereas for the DepressionHappiness Scaleitems are centered around simple statements based on the last seven days I felt cheerful [item 6],I felt happy [item 12], and may reect subjective well-being, the Oxford Happiness Inventory,although it contains the same time reference, it may measure global aspects of happiness byreecting reections on a longer period of time (e.g. I am completely satised about everythingin my life [item 12, 3], and All past events seem extremely happy [item 18]). Therefore, theitems seem to reect a greater and more general contentment with ones life. Therefore the scoreson the Oxford Happiness Inventory seem to reect psychological well-being.Recently Hills and Argyle (2002) have developed a psychometrically improved version of the

Oxford Happiness Inventory, entitled the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire along with a Short-Form. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form also contains no time reference, andcontains items that may measure global aspects of happiness reecting reections on a longer per-iod of time (e.g. I feel that life is very rewarding [item 3] and I am well satised about every-thing in my life [item 12]). Initial work by Hills and Argyle (2002) has demonstrated that the twomeasures are very strongly correlated 0.80.At present no study has examined the relationship between a measure of religiosity, the Depres-

sionHappiness Scale and either the Oxford Happiness Inventory or the Oxford Happiness Ques-tionnaire. Given the writings of Keyes et al. (2002), it is proposed that the present research shouldseek to encompass the theoretical and empirical distinction between subjective and psychologicalwell-being.Additionally, some attention may be needed in regards to the particular religiosity measure

used. Although religiosity can be conceptualised and operationalised in a variety of dierent ways(see Hill & Hood, 1999 for a review), there are presently two dominant research perspectives with-in the psychology of religion and well-being literature. The rst dominant construct within con-temporary psychology of religion relates to religious orientation. Individuals described as havingan intrinsic orientation toward religion are described as wholly committed to their religious be-liefs, and the inuence of religion is evident in every aspect of their life (Allport, 1966). On theother hand, those who demonstrate an extrinsic orientation toward religion have been describedas using religion to provide participation in a powerful in-group (Genia & Shaw, 1991), protec-tion, consolation, and social status (Allport & Ross, 1967), religious participation (Fleck,1981), and an ego defence (Kahoe & Meadow, 1981). However, due to a number of studies inves-tigating the extrinsic orientation toward religion (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989; Gorsuch &Venable, 1983; King & Hunt, 1969; Leong & Zachar, 1990; Maltby, 1999), there is the strong sug-gestion that the extrinsic orientation towards religion comprises two dimensions, extrinsic-per-sonal (protection, consolation) and extrinsic-social (religious participation, social status).Gorsuch (1988) argues that this distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic orientations to reli-gion has been the most useful to the research on the relationship between religiosity and well-

C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202 1195being.

a number of ways, be it in terms of using religious coping to appraise the causes of stressful events,using religious coping to cope with stressful events, or using religious coping to come to terms

with critical life events. Furthermore, Pargament views religious coping as a mediating factorin the relationship between religious orientation and psychological well-being. Pargament andhis colleagues have developed a number of measures of religious coping, ranging from those thatconcentrate on problem areas of religious coping to identication of a number of dimensions ofspecic coping processes (Pargament et al., 1992; Pargament, 1996). However, Pargament, Smith,Koenig, and Perez (1998) suggest a two-factor model of religious coping in response to stressfullife events; positive and negative religious coping. This model of coping encompasses a number ofpositive and negative religious coping styles including religious forgiveness, collaborative religiouscoping, spiritual connection, and religious purication. These authors report that positive copingis associated with fewer symptoms of psychological distress, while negative religious coping isassociated with higher levels of depression and reporting of psychological symptoms.Despite the dominance of research employing the constructs of both religious orientation and

religious coping within the psychology of religion, there is a paucity of previous work examiningthe relationship between either religious orientation and happiness or religious coping and happi-ness, particularly considering dierent measures of happiness within the context of subjective andpsychological well-being. Therefore, contrasting ndings across the two series of studies describedabove illustrate that the relationship between religiosity and happiness varies according to the pre-cise measure of happiness used (Robbins & Francis, 1996). Furthermore, it is argued that there isa requirement for a continued examination of the relationship between religiosity and happinessusing additional measures of religiosity and happiness to augment previous research and to helpidentify which components of happiness are related to which aspects of religiosity.The aim of the present study was therefore to examine the relationship between happiness,

as conceptualised and operationalised by both the DepressionHappiness Scale and theOxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form, and measures of religious orientation and religiouscoping.

2. Method

2.1. Sample

The sample comprised of 138 (55 male and 83 female) UK adults: ages ranged from 17 to 39,with a mean age of 24.05 years (SD = 4.82 years). Respondents were obtained from a number ofworkplaces and community groups in the North of England. Participants were selected from thoseThe second dominant perspective is that of religious coping (Pargament, 1997). This theoreticalperspective views religion as a coping process (Pargament, 1990, 1996, 1997; Pargament et al.,1992; Pargament & Park, 1995). Pargament (1990, 1997) suggests that a religious coping modelmight better explain the relationship between religiosity and psychological well-being. He arguesthat such a theoretical model would address the complex and continuous process by which reli-gion interlocks with an individuals life and allows them to deal with stresses in life. Pargament(1997) uses and extends coping theory by arguing that religion may enter the coping process in

1196 C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202willing to be respondents from the workplaces and community groups visited.

2.2. Questionnaires

All respondents completed a questionnaire booklet containing:The DepressionHappiness Scale (Joseph & Lewis, 1998; McGreal & Joseph, 1993). This is a 25-

item scale designed to measure positive aect. It contains 12 items concerned with positive feelings(e.g., I felt happy, item 12) and 13 items concerned with negative feelings (e.g., I felt sad, item1). Items concerning negative feelings are reverse scored so that lower scores on the scale indicatea lower frequency of positive feelings and a higher frequency of negative feelings. Respondents areasked to think about how they have felt in the past seven days and to rate the frequency of eachitem on a 4-point scale: Never (0); Rarely (1); Sometimes (2); and Often (3). Scores range between0 and 75, with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of positive feelings and a lower fre-quency of negative feelings.The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form (Hills & Argyle, 2002). The 8-item scale has

been revised down from a well-established, reliable and valid longer 29-item version (Argyleet al., 1989; Hills & Argyle, 2002). The short-form of the scale was devised for use when timeand space is limited, and its correlation with the full-length scale is .90 (Hills & Argyle, 2002).Sample items include; I am well satised with everything in my life [item 12], and I feel fullymentally alert [item 21]. Responses to items are scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale: StronglyDisagree (1) to Strongly Agree (6). Scores range from 8 to 48 with higher scores indicating a meas-ure of broad happiness.The Age-Universal I-E Scale12 (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983; Maltby, 1999). This scale is a de-

rived, revised, and amended measure of the Religious Orientation Scale (Allport & Ross, 1967).Since the inception of the Religious Orientation Scale, a number of suggestions have been made toimprove psychometric condence in the measurement of the intrinsic and extrinsic religious con-structs. Suggestions have included item changes, changes in response format, and scoring methods(Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989; Gorsuch & Venable, 1983; King & Hunt, 1969; Leong & Zachar,1990; Maltby & Lewis, 1996). In the main, consideration of such changes suggest that the intrinsicorientation towards religion is a constant feature of religious orientation, while an extrinsic ori-entation towards religion represents two separate factors; extrinsic-social and extrinsic-personal.The present scale administered is a 12-item version of the Age-Universal Religious OrientationScale (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983), which adopts items suggested by Gorsuch and McPherson(1989), and changes to the response format (Maltby & Lewis, 1996). Maltby (1999) reports among3300 USA, English and Irish adults, psychometric condence in combining these suggestions tomeasure an intrinsic orientation towards religion (6 items; e.g., It is important to me to spendtime in private thought and prayer [item 5]), an extrinsic-personal orientation towards religion(3 items; e.g., What religion oers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow [item8]), and an extrinsic-social orientation towards religion (3 items; e.g., I go to church becauseit helps me make friends [item 2]). Responses to items are scored on a 3-point scale: No (1),Do not know (2), Yes (3). Scores range from 6 to 18 on the intrinsic orientation scale, and scoresrange from 3 to 9 on both the extrinsic orientation scales. With each scale, higher scores indicate ahigher level of that religious orientation.The brief RCOPE (Pargament et al., 1998). This religious coping measure is a 14-item indicator

of a 2-factor model (comprising seven items each) of Positive and Negative Religious Coping. Pos-

C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202 1197itive coping items include (I looked for a stronger connection with God [item 1], Focused on

religion to stop worrying about my problems [item 7]), and Negative Religious Coping items(Wondered whether God had abandoned me [item 8], Questioned the power of God [item14]). The scale demonstrates adequate reliability and validity (Pargament, 1997; Pargamentet al., 1998). Responses to items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagreeto 5 = Strongly Agree). On both scales, scores range from 7 to 35 with higher scores indicating ahigher level of each religious coping style.

2.3. Data Analysis

The data were analysed by the SPSS statistical package, using the reliability, descriptive, cor-relation and regression routines (SPSS Inc, 1988).

Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form and scores on the Religious Orientation Extrinsic PersonalScale, Religious Orientation Extrinsic Social Scale, and the Religious Coping Negative Scale.

1198 C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202Table 1

Mean scores (standard deviation) of all the measures by sex

Scale Men (n = 55) Women (n = 83) t

DepressionHappiness Scale 49.74 (12.2) 42.38 (13.8) 3.66***

Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (Short-Form) 29.80 (5.0) 27.20 (5.3) 3.29**

Intrinsic 09.86 (3.8) 09.92 (3.7) 0.10Extrinsic-personal 04.95 (2.3) 05.18 (2.0) 0.71Extrinsic-social 03.86 (1.4) 04.18 (1.6) 1.35Positive religious coping 10.97 (6.4) 11.08 (6.0) 0.91

Negative religious coping 08.20 (1.9) 08.980 (2.7) 1.643. Results

Satisfactory levels of internal reliability (Cronbach, 1951) were found for the DepressionHap-piness Scale (a = 0.92), Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form (a = 0.74), the ReligiousOrientation Intrinsic Scale (a = 0.87), the Religious Orientation Extrinsic Personal Scale(a = 0.83), the Extrinsic Social Scale (a = 0.87), the Religious Coping Positive Scale (a = 0.94),and the Religious Coping Negative Scale (a = 0.78). These ndings are consistent with those re-ported by the authors of the measures.A series of t-tests compared the mean scores and standard deviations for all the scales by sex

(see Table 1). No signicant dierences were found between men and women for any of the relig-iosity measures. However, males were found to score signicantly higher than females on both thehappiness measures.For the total sample, partial correlations, with the eects of gender and age removed, showed

no signicant associations between scores on the DepressionHappiness Scale and scores on theReligious Orientation Intrinsic Scale, Religious Orientation Extrinsic Personal Scale, ReligiousOrientation Extrinsic Social Scale, Religious Coping Negative Scale, and the Religious CopingPositive Scale. Similarly, no signicant associations were found between scores on the Oxford*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

in scores on the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form. The regression statistic (r) was sig-nicantly dierent from zero (F(4,164) = )10.42, p < 0.001; r = 0.35, r

2 = 0.12, Adj (r2 = 0.11). For

C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202 1199Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form scores, positive religious coping accounted for un-ique variance (B = 0.26, b = 0.33, Sr2 = 0.11, p < 0.01) whilst intrinsic religious orientation did not(B = 0.05, b = 0.04, p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between happiness, as conceptu-alised and operationalised by the DepressionHappiness Scale and the Oxford Happiness Ques-tionnaire Short-Form, and measures of religious orientation and religious coping. From thepresent data four points are worthy of comment.However, there were signicant associations between the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form and scores on the Religious Orientation Intrinsic Scale and the Religious Coping PositiveScale (see Table 2).Due to the positive association of two of the religious variables (intrinsic religious orientation

and positive religious coping) and the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form, a multipleregression was performed to examine which of the two variables contributed unique variance

Table 2

Pearson product moment correlation between all the variables with sex and age partialled out

2 3 4 5 6 7

(1) DepressionHappiness Scale 0.76** 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.07(2) Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form 0.22** 0.03 0.01 0.32*** 0.08(3) Intrinsic 0.69*** 0.60*** 0.66*** 0.33***

(4) Extrinsic-personal 0.35*** 0.55*** 0.31***

(5) Extrinsic-social 0.21** 0.19*

(6) Positive religious coping 0.60***

(7) Negative religious coping

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.First, there was no signicant association between measures of religiosity and happiness, whenreligiosity was measured in terms of religious orientation and religious coping, and when happi-ness was measured with the DepressionHappiness Scale. This nding is consistent with previouswork using the DepressionHappiness Scale alongside both an attitudinal measure of religiosity(Lewis et al., 1997, 2000) and a behavioural measure (Lewis, 2002).Second, there was a signicant association between measures of religiosity and happiness, when

religiosity was measured in terms of intrinsic religious orientation, and positive religious coping,and when happiness was measured through the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form.These results are consistent with previous research using the related Oxford Happiness Inventory(Francis & Lester, 1997; Francis & Robbins, 2000; Francis et al., 2000, 2003a, 2003b; French &Joseph, 1999; Robbins & Francis, 1996). Further, of the two measures of religiosity associatedwith the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form, positive religious coping accounted forunique variance in scores on the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form. This latter nding

suggests that any happiness that results from religiosity may be the result of successful optimisticreligious coping strategies, as measured by positive religious coping.Third, there was a strong association between the two measures of happiness (0.76). This nd-

ing attests to the convergent validity of the two measures, and is consistent with previous workusing the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form, as well as the measure from which it isderived, the Oxford Happiness Inventory (French & Joseph, 1999; Hills & Argyle, 2002; Joseph& Lewis, 1998).Fourth, the nding that males and females did not dier in terms of scores on the religio-

sity measures is not consistent with the gender dierences usually found, whereby females scorehigher than males (Francis, 1997). However previous studies among English samples have not re-ported signicant gender dierences on religiosity measures (Maltby, Lewis, & Day, 1999). Thending, that females and males did dier in terms of scores on the happiness measures, is not con-sistent with the literature on either the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form or theDepressionHappiness Scale (Hills & Argyle, 2002; Joseph & Lewis, 1998; McGreal & Joseph,1993).The present ndings provide clear evidence that the dierential relationship found between

religiosity and happiness, as measured by the DepressionHappiness Scale and the Oxford Hap-piness Inventory (and Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form), across a number of religi-osity measures, is more related to of the type of happiness measure used, rather than theprecise measurement of religiosity. The explanation for these ndings is based on a theoreticaland empirical distinction between subjective well-being and psychological well-being (Keyeset al., 2002). Though there is no data to directly support such a view, as direct measures of subjec-tive and psychological well-being were not included in the present study, in terms of other measuresof subjective and psychological well-being it does provide an explanation of why religiosity may berelated to one aspect of happiness and not another. Therefore, it can be suggested that intrinsicreligiosity and positive religious coping is related to psychological well-being happiness (OxfordHappiness Questionnaire) but not subjective well-being happiness (DepressionHappiness Scale).Intrinsic religious orientation and positive religious coping are thought to reect a positive, com-mitted, long-term and adaptive involvement in religiosity, in which religion is thought to help andequip the individual to make sense of the world, and enable the individual to respond positively inthe appraisal and coping of stressful events over longer periods of time. Therefore, it is these adap-tive approaches to religiosity, which lead to a longer-term happiness.These distinctions, using dierent denitions of well-being, seem to begin to explain some of the

inconsistencies previously noted in the religious and happiness literature. Therefore, the presentndings are important, because they clarify the precise nature of the relationship between religi-osity and happiness and clearly rearm the view that the relationship between religiosity and hap-piness varies according to the precise measures used. This work readily ts into recent calls toemphasise the theoretical context of positive psychology to understand religiosity, particularlywhen considering positive outcomes (Maltby & Day, 2003; Tsang & McCullough, 2003). Futurework should therefore continue to examine the relationship between religiosity and happinessusing established measures of happiness such as the DepressionHappiness Scale and the OxfordHappiness Questionnaire alongside various measures of religiosity, including attitudinal andbehavioural measures (Hill & Hood, 1999), as well as other indices of positive psychology subjec-

1200 C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202tive well-being and psychological well-being.

of Religion, 12, 181197.

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. Jr., (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202 1201Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of

psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Dierences, 33, 10731082.

Joseph, S., & Lewis, C. A. (1998). The DepressionHappiness Scale: reliability and validity of a bipolar self-report scale.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 537554.

Kahoe, R. D., & Meadow, M. J. (1981). A developmental perspective on religious orientation dimensions. Journal ofIn conclusion, the present ndings, among a sample of UK adults, demonstrates that the rela-tionship between religiosity and happiness varies according to the precise measure of happinessused, and suggests that when religiosity is related to happiness, it is related to psychologicalwell-being happiness and not subjective well-being happiness.

References

Allport, G. W. (1966). Religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion, 5, 447457.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 5, 432433.

Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In J. P.

Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: an international perspective (pp. 189203). North

Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coecient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychomterika, 16, 297334.

Fleck, J. R. (1981). Dimensions of personal religion: a trichotomous view. In J. R. Fleck & J. D. Carter (Eds.),

Psychology and Christianity (pp. 6680). New York: Harper Row.

Francis, L. J. (1997). The psychology of gender dierences in religion: a review of the empirical research. Religion, 27,

8196.

Francis, L. J., Jones, S. H., & Wilcox, C. (2000). Religiosity and happiness: during adolescence, young adulthood and

later life. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19, 245257.

Francis, L. J., & Katz, Y. J. (2002). Religiosity and happiness: a study among Israeli female undergraduates. Research

in the Social Scientic Study of Religion, 13, 7586.

Francis, L.J., Katz, Y.J., Yablon, Y., & Robbins, M. (in press). Religiosity, personality, and happiness: a study among

Israeli male undergraduates. Journal of Happiness Studies.

Francis, L. J., & Lester, D. (1997). Religion, personality and happiness. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 12, 8186.

Francis, L. J., & Robbins, M. (2000). Religion and happiness: a study in empirical theology. Transpersonal Psychology

Review, 4, 1722.

Francis, L. J., Robbins, M., & White, A. (2003a). Correlation between religion and happiness: a replication.

Psychological Reports, 92, 5152.

Francis, L. J., & Stubbs, M. T. (1987). Measuring attitudes towards Christianity: from childhood to adulthood.

Personality and Individual Dierences, 8, 741743.

Francis, L. J., Ziebertz, H.-G., & Lewis, C. A. (2003b). The relationship between personality and religion among

undergraduate students in Germany. Archiv Fur Religionpsychologie, 24, 307313.

French, S., & Joseph, S. (1999). Religiosity and its association with happiness, purpose in life, and self-actualisation.

Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 2, 117120.

Genia, V., & Shaw, D. G. (1991). Religion, intrinsicextrinsic orientation, and depression. Review of Religious Research,

32, 274283.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 201221.

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/Extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-item scales. Journal

for the Scientic Study of Religion, 28, 348358.

Gorsuch, R. L., & Venable, G. D. (1983). Development of an Age-Universal IE scale. Journal of the Scientic StudyReligion and Health, 20, 817.

Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ry, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 10071022.

King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1969). Measuring the religious variables: amended ndings. Journal for the Scientic Study

of Religion, 8, 321323.

Leong, F. T. L., & Zachar, P. (1990). An evaluation of Allports Religious Orientation Scale across one Australian andtwo United States samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 359368.

Lewis, C. A. (2002). Church attendance and happiness among Northern Irish undergraduate students: no association.

Pastoral Psychology, 50, 191195.

1202 C.A. Lewis et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202Lewis, C. A., Lanigan, C., Joseph, S., & de Fockert, J. (1997). Religiosity and happiness: no evidence for an association

among undergraduates. Personality and Individual Dierences, 22, 119121.

Lewis, C. A., Maltby, J., & Burkinshaw, S. (2000). Religion and happiness: still no association. Journal of Beliefs and

Values, 21, 233236.

Maltby, J. (1999). The internal structure of a derived, revised, and amended measure of the religious orientation scale:

the Age-Universal I-E Scale-12. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 407412.Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2003). Religious orientation, religious coping and appraisals of stress: assessing cognitive factors

in the relationship between religiosity and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Dierences, 34,

12091224.

Maltby, J., & Lewis, C. A. (1996). Measuring intrinsic and extrinsic orientation toward religion: amendments for its use

among religious and non-religious samples. Personality and Individual Dierences, 21, 937946.

Maltby, J., Lewis, C. A., & Day, L. (1999). Religion and psychological well-being: the role of personal prayer. British

Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 363378.

McGreal, R., & Joseph, S. (1993). The DepressionHappiness Scale. Psychological Reports, 73, 12791282.

Pargament, K. I. (1990). God help me: toward a theoretical framework of coping for the psychology of religion.

Research in the Social Scientic Study of Religion, 2, 195224.

Pargament, K. I. (1996). Religious methods of coping: resources for the conservation and transformation of

signicance. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 215239). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: theory, research and practice. London: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I., Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Falgout, K., Ensing, D. S., & Vanhaitsma, K. (1992). God Help Me (2): the

relationship of religious orientations to religious coping with negative life-events. Journal for the Scientic Study of

Religion, 31, 504513.

Pargament, K. I., & Park, C. L. (1995). Merely a defence? The varieties of means and ends. Journal of Social Issues, 51,

1332.

Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative religious coping

with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion, 37, 710724.

Robbins, M., & Francis, L. J. (1996). In Are religious people happier a study among undergraduates. In L. J. Francis, W.

K. Kay, & W. S. Campbell (Eds.). Research in religious education (pp. 207217). Leominster: Gracewing.

SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSSX users guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tsang, J., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Measuring religious constructs: a hierarchical approach to construct

organization and scale selection. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: a handbook

of models and measures (pp. 345360). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Religious orientation, religious coping and happiness among UK adultsIntroductionMethodSampleQuestionnairesData Analysis

ResultsDiscussionReferences