J Relig Health

DOI 10.1007/s10943-013-9744-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

The Effects of Religiosity on Psychopathology

in Emerging Adults: Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic
Religiosity

Leah Power Cliff McKinney

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Recent research has suggested that religion may play an important role in
determining mental health. Although research has examined the effects of religiosity on
specific types of psychopathology, less research has examined psychopathology broadly in
the context of particular aspects of religion. Thus, the current study examined intrinsic and
extrinsic religiosity and a range of psychopathology in 486 emerging adult college stu-
dents. Results of a MANOVA indicated a main effect for intrinsic religiosity on a range of
psychopathology and an interaction effect between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on
antisocial personality problems. Implications and limitations of the current study are
discussed.

Keywords Religiosity
Psychopathology
Intrinsic religiosity
Extrinsic religiosity

Introduction

Throughout most cultures, religion is one of the most important components of an indi-
viduals life (Paloutzian and Park 2005). Religion may influence an individuals behavior,
cognition, and illness, yet mental health professionals tend to ignore or devalue this facet of
the human experience (Belzen 2000). Nonetheless, religiosity has an impact on an indi-
viduals mental health or psychopathology (Plante and Sherman 2001). However, it is
important to note that differences in types of religiosity exist and that these disparities may
yield dissimilar influences on an individuals psychopathology. Further, although prior
research has examined some areas of psychopathology including psychoticism and per-
sonality disorders, the broad range of psychopathology has not been considered simulta-
neously. Thus, the current study examines how intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity has an
impact, either negative or positive, on a broad range of psychopathology.

L. Power
C. McKinney (&)

Department of Psychology, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 6161, Mississippi State, MS 39762,
USA
e-mail: cmckinney@psychology.msstate.edu

123
 J Relig Health

Religion and Psychopathology

Historically, when examining religion broadly, research shows inconsistent results when
correlating with psychopathology (Bergin 1983; Huguelet et al. 2009; Larson et al. 1992;
Pfeifer and Waelty 1999; White et al. 1995). For example, Bergin (1983) conducted a
meta-analysis of 25 studies from 1951 to 1979 and found inconsistent results for the
relationship between religiosity and mental health. Specifically, Bergin (1983) found that
23 % of the studies reviewed demonstrated a positive relationship, 47 % demonstrated a
negative relationship, and 30 % showed no relationship between religiosity and psycho-
pathology. Similarly, Larson et al. (1992) conducted a meta-analysis on religiosity and
psychopathology and found that half of the studies reviewed indicated a negative rela-
tionship between religiosity and psychopathology. White et al. (1995) found a negative
relationship between religiosity and psychoticism but also found a weak positive rela-
tionship between religiosity and certain schizotypal traits including aberrant perceptions
and beliefs. Finally, Pfeifer and Waelty (1999) found no relationship between neuroticism
and religiosity, and Huguelet et al. (2009) found that religiosity shared a negative rela-
tionship with substance use in patients with schizophrenia.
Many of these inconsistent results may be due to different aspects of religion as well as
different types of psychopathology. To separate different aspects of religion, researchers
have examined intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity (Allport and Ross 1967; Gorsuch and
McPherson 1989; Lindenthal et al. 1970; Maltby and Day 2002). Individuals who are
intrinsically religious tend to live their daily lives the way that their religion dictates and
have a more relationship-centered religion. In other words, religion is an end unto itself.
These types of individuals do not live their religious lives to please others or gain status but
instead do it for themselves and to fulfill their relationship with their higher power
(Gorsuch and McPherson 1989). Conversely, individuals who are extrinsically religious
tend to use religion as a tool to gain personal profit and popularity. In other words, religion
is a means to some external end. For example, individuals extrinsically motivated toward
religion for personal gain may use religion as a source of comfort, such as praying for their
own relief and protection (Gorsuch and McPherson 1989). Individuals extrinsically
motivated toward religion use religion because it helps them make friends and provides
social support (Gorsuch and McPherson 1989).
In general, studies have found that intrinsic religiosity was associated negatively and
that extrinsic religiosity was associated positively with various types of psychopathology
including schizotypal personality traits, hostility, anxiety, and depression (Hackney and
Sanders 2003; Leach et al. 2008; Maltby and Day 2002; Salsman and Carlson 2005; Tix
and Frazier 1998), which refutes traditional notions that all religion is maladaptive for
mental health (Bergin 1983). A possible rationale for these findings is that intrinsically
motivated individuals may be genuine in their religious pursuits and feel supported by their
religious beliefs, thus reducing psychopathology. Conversely, individuals who are moti-
vated extrinsically toward religion may experience increased psychopathology related to
self-centeredness and guilt and/or are extrinsically motivated toward religion as an attempt
to find social support which is lacking in their lives.

Current Study

The extant research concerning religiosity and psychopathology is limited in general and
has major inadequacies. Previous studies have looked at various populations, including
homogenous clinical populations, whereas the current study will examine a heterogeneous

123
J Relig Health

population of normally functioning emerging adult college students from a large university.
Examining this population is necessary to investigate how religiosity and psychopathology
relate in college students in general as opposed to more specific, clinical populations.
Further, the extant research does not measure the broad range of psychopathology found in
the DSM-IV-TR (Pfeifer and Waelty 1999). For example, the studies described above assess
personality disorders and psychotic features and do not assess for a broad range of disorders
simultaneously, particularly more common disorders. The current study will address this
point by measuring a broad range of psychopathology including depressive, anxiety,
somatic, avoidant personality, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, and antisocial personality
problems. Additionally, many of the studies do not examine various aspects of religiosity.
For example, many of the studies described above measure religiosity on a single scale or
measure religious affiliation but do not measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for
religiosity. Similar to Gorsuch and McPherson (1989), the current study addresses this issue
by measuring intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for religion. Overall, the current study
improves on prior research by examining the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on a
broad range of psychopathology in normally functioning emerging adult college students.
Hypothesis 1 stated that participants who rate themselves higher on intrinsic religiosity
will report lower amounts of psychopathology than participants who rate themselves lower
on intrinsic religiosity. Hypothesis 2 stated that participants who rate themselves higher on
extrinsic religiosity will report higher amounts of psychopathology than participants who
rate themselves lower on extrinsic religiosity. These hypotheses were based on prior
research, suggesting that intrinsic religiosity is associated with positive outcomes and
extrinsic religiosity is associated with negative outcomes (Allport and Ross 1967; Gorsuch
and McPherson 1989; Lindenthal et al. 1970; Maltby and Day 2002).
Hypothesis 3 stated an interaction effect where participants who rate themselves higher
on intrinsic religiosity and lower on extrinsic religiosity (high intrinsic-low extrinsic or HI-
LE) were expected to have the lowest psychological problems followed by participants
who rate themselves higher on both intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity (high intrinsic-high
extrinsic or HI-HE), lower on intrinsic and higher on extrinsic religiosity (low intrinsic
high extrinsic or LI-HE), or lower on both intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity (low intrinsic
low extrinsic or LI-LE) in order. This hypothesis was based on the idea that having higher
religiosity, even if extrinsically motivated, is better than lower religiosity altogether.
Overall, it was expected that higher amounts of intrinsic religiosity would be associated
with less psychological problems, and higher amounts of extrinsic religiosity would be
associated with more psychological problems except in the case that it was the only type of
religiosity present in higher amounts.

Methods

Participants

College students attending a southeastern university and seeking credit in their psychology
courses participated in the study. Participants were part of a psychology research pool, which
consists of college students seeking required credit in their general psychology course and
careers in psychology seminar and extra credit in their other psychology courses. Students
were offered other research credit opportunities, including alternative research quizzes,
where the students could take a quiz after reading a research article. Thus, they were not
forced to participate in research. Potential participants were able to read a description of the

123
 J Relig Health

study online before deciding to participate. Participants who did not spend enough time to
respond in a valid fashion to the online survey (i.e., participants who took 1.5 standard
deviations below the mean time to complete the survey) were removed from the sample. The
sample (N = 486; 65.8 % female, 34.2 % male) consisted of emerging adults aged
1825 years (M = 18.81, SD = 1.21). Participants identified their race as Caucasian
(81 %), African-American (15.5 %), Latino (1.4 %), Asian (0.6 %), or Other (1.4 %). A
very high percentage of participants reported being Christian (92.4 %), whereas the minority
were Other (3.1 %), Atheist/Agnostic (2.9 %), Jewish (0.4 %), and Mormon (0.2 %).

Materials

Adult Self-Report (ASR)

The ASR (Rescorla and Achenbach 2004) consists of 123 statements used to assess inter-
nalizing and externalizing psychopathology over the past 6 months. Problem behaviors are
scored with 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true.
Items constitute 8 empirically based syndromes derived by factor analysis. Loading on the
internalizing problems scale are the withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed
syndrome scales. Loading on the externalizing problems scale are the rule-breaking
behavior, aggressive behavior, and intrusive syndrome scales. Other syndrome scales
include thought problems and attention problems that do not load onto a higher-order scale.
Internal consistency alphas ranged from 0.87 to 0.93 (Rescorla and Achenbach 2004). The
ASR was used to examine psychological problems including depressive, anxiety, somatic,
avoidant personality, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, and antisocial personality problems.

Religious Orientation Scale-Revised (ROS-R)

The ROS-R (Gorsuch and McPherson 1989) is a 14-item self-report scale designed to
measure intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations and is a revised version of the
Religious Orientation Scale (Allport and Ross 1967). Each item is scored on a 5-point
Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with 8 items measuring intrinsic
religiosity (a = 0.85) and 6 items measuring extrinsic religiosity (a = 0.71). The ROS-R
was used to examine intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity.

Procedure

Upon approval by the university IRB, the questionnaires above were posted to SONA
systems, an online survey system. Participants read about the study through the online
system, provided informed consent, and completed the measures described above in ran-
dom order. Participants were instructed to complete the study in regard to their current
perceptions of their religiosity and psychological problems and were treated in accordance
with the APA code of ethics.

Results

Data were analyzed using PASW 18.0. Unless otherwise specified, an alpha level of 0.05
was used. Participants intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity scores each were

123
J Relig Health

dichotomized at the median to create groups with higher and lower intrinsic and extrinsic
religiosity. Means and standard deviations for the overall sample and for groups based on
the dichotomization of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity are found in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively.
A 2 (higher vs. lower intrinsic religiosity) 9 2 (higher vs. lower extrinsic religiosity)
MANOVA was used to test the hypotheses, where the ASR depressive, anxiety, somatic,
avoidant personality, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, and antisocial personality problem
scales were used as dependent variables. Partial eta-squared (g2) served as the measure of
effect size and was interpreted within Cohens (1988) criterion in which values from 0.01
to 0.04 are considered small, 0.040.14 moderate, and [0.14 large.
In regard to intrinsic religiosity, results indicated a significant multivariate main effect
for differences between participants reporting higher and lower levels of intrinsic religi-
osity, Wilks Lambda = 0.936, F(6, 446) = 5.09, p \ .0005, partial g2 = .064. Explora-
tion of the univariate effects indicated that participants reporting higher levels of intrinsic
religiosity scored significantly lower than participants reporting lower levels of intrinsic
religiosity on depressive problems, F(1, 451) = 7.97, p = .005, partial g2 = .017; somatic
problems, F(1, 451) = 3.73, p = .05, partial g2 = .008; avoidant personality problems,
F(1, 451) = 6.92, p = .009, partial g2 = .015; attention-deficit/hyperactivity problems,
F(1, 451) = 6.96, p = .009, partial g2 = .015; and antisocial personality problems, F(1,
451) = 27.69, p \ .0005, partial g2 = .058; but no statistically significant difference was
found on anxiety problems. In regard to extrinsic religiosity, results did not indicate a
significant multivariate main effect for differences between participants reporting higher
and lower extrinsic religiosity. Exploration of univariate effects indicated that participants
reporting higher levels of extrinsic religiosity scored significantly higher than participants
reporting lower levels of extrinsic religiosity only on attention-deficit/hyperactivity
problems, F(1, 451) = 3.20, p = .037, partial g2 = .007 when using a one-tailed test.
Results also indicated a significant multivariate interaction effect, Wilks
Lambda = 0.972, F(6, 446) = 2.11, p = .050, partial g2 = .028. Exploration of univariate
effects indicated a significant interaction effect only when examining antisocial personality
problems, F(1, 451) = 6.17, p = .013, partial g2 = .013. Examination of this interaction
effect indicated that participants in the HI-LE group reported the lowest amount, partici-
pants in the HI-HE group reported the second lowest amount, participants in the LI-HE
group reported the third lowest amount, and participants in the LI-LE group reported the
highest amount of antisocial personality problems. This interaction effect is highlighted in
Fig. 1.

Table 1 Overall means and

Scale M SD
standard deviations
ROS-R intrinsic 30.13 6.61
ROS-R extrinsic 17.78 3.84
ASR depressive problems 5.29 4.50
ASR anxiety problems 5.45 2.89
ASR somatic problems 2.02 2.99
ASR avoidant personality problems 3.13 2.64
ASR attention-deficit/hyperactivity problems 7.07 4.74
ASR antisocial problems 5.40 5.31

123
 J Relig Health

Table 2 Means and standard deviations by intrinsicextrinsic religiosity

Scale HI-LE group HI-HE group LI-HE group LI-LE group

M SD M SD M SD M SD

ROS-R intrinsic 35.80 3.64 34.97 2.63 25.71 3.52 22.96 4.98
ROS-R extrinsic 14.62 2.48 20.24 2.23 20.35 2.45 14.12 2.86
ASR depressive problems 4.60 3.71 4.80 4.25 6.05 5.13 5.74 4.61
ASR anxiety problems 5.00 2.55 5.56 3.08 5.65 2.80 5.48 3.02
ASR somatic problems 1.63 2.28 1.87 2.88 2.15 3.43 2.45 3.15
ASR avoidant personality problems 2.67 2.14 2.92 2.49 3.44 2.98 3.47 2.80
ASR attention-deficit/hyperactivity problems 5.95 4.64 6.94 4.61 7.93 4.94 7.31 4.59
ASR antisocial problems 3.39 3.65 4.83 4.85 6.19 6.08 7.18 5.59

N = 99 for HI-LE; N = 149 for HI-HE; N = 124 for LI-HE; N = 102 for LI-LE

Fig. 1 Interaction effect on 8

antisocial personality problems
Antisocial Peronality Problems

2
Lower Extrinsic
1
Higher Extrinsic
0
Lower Intrinsic Higher Intrinsic

Discussion

The current study examined the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on a broad
range of psychopathology in a normal sample of emerging adult college students.
Hypothesis 1 (i.e., participants who rate themselves higher on intrinsic religiosity will
report lower amounts of psychopathology than participants who rate themselves lower on
intrinsic religiosity) was supported. Specifically, a significant multivariate main effect for
higher versus lower intrinsic religiosity was found and univariate main effects indicated
that participants reporting higher levels of intrinsic religiosity reported less depressive,
somatic, avoidant personality, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, and antisocial personality
problems compared to participants reporting lower levels of intrinsic religiosity. These
findings are consistent with past research, indicating that intrinsic religiosity is associated
with positive outcomes (Allport and Ross 1967; Gorsuch and McPherson 1989; Lin-
denthal et al. 1970; Maltby and Day 2002). Interestingly, a significant univariate main
effect of intrinsic religiosity was not found when examining anxiety problems. Although
intrinsic religiosity appears to be beneficial for a wide range of symptoms, it does not

123
J Relig Health

appear to help alleviate symptoms of anxiety in the current study. Conceivably, having a
higher intrinsic orientation toward religion may help reduce some anxiety (e.g., daily
worries and stressors) but may increase other anxiety (e.g., worries related to being a
good religious follower), thus accounting for the lack of difference in anxiety problems
between higher and lower levels of intrinsic religiosity. Cole (2000) contended that some
obsessivecompulsive traits are maintained, and even exacerbated, after a person
becomes religious because the religion is not able to lessen the anxiety-producing
symptoms. On the other hand, Bingaman (2010) asserted that anxiety is pervasive in our
culture today because of the very nature of our fast-paced and unsteady society; there-
fore, pastoral counselors need to do a better job of attending to these needs for their
religious clients.
Hypothesis 2 (i.e., participants who rate themselves higher on extrinsic religiosity will
report higher amounts of psychopathology than participants who rate themselves lower on
extrinsic religiosity) was not supported. A multivariate main effect for higher versus lower
extrinsic religiosity was not found. This finding is contrary to prior research, indicating that
extrinsic religiosity is associated with negative outcomes (Allport and Ross 1967; Gorsuch
and McPherson 1989; Lindenthal et al. 1970; Maltby and Day 2002). It may be the case
that this finding is particular to college students or individuals with opportunities for
positive social support. Specifically, college students already may have the positive social
support necessary for healthy psychological functioning. Thus, college students reporting
higher levels of extrinsic religiosity may have other sources of social support outside of
religion. In studies focusing on clinical samples, it is conceivable that those participants are
motivated extrinsically toward religion as an attempt to find social support which is lacking
in their lives.
Hypothesis 3 (i.e., HI-LE participants will have the lowest psychological problems
followed by HI-HE, LI-HE, and LI-LE participants in order) was supported when
examining antisocial personality problems only. A multivariate interaction effect for
higher versus lower intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity was found, and examination of
univariate interaction effects indicated that this effect was significant only for antisocial
personality problems. Specifically, HI-LE participants reported the lowest amount of
antisocial personality problems followed by HI-HE and LI-HE participants in order, and
LI-LE participants reported the highest amount of antisocial personality problems. The
two groups reporting higher levels of intrinsic religiosity reported the two lowest levels
of antisocial personality problems, suggesting the importance of intrinsic religiosity in
reducing antisocial tendencies. Interestingly, the LI-HE group reported less antisocial
personality problems than the LI-LE group, suggesting the importance of extrinsic
religiosity in reducing antisocial tendencies only in the absence of higher levels of
intrinsic religiosity. College students with higher levels of intrinsic religiosity may be
less likely to have antisocial personality problems due to their intrinsic religious ori-
entation. That is, these college students may follow a religious code that prohibits
violating others rights. In the absence of higher intrinsic religiosity, it may be the case
than an extrinsic motivation toward religion helps reduce antisocial tendencies in college
students. That is, college students using religion to obtain social support also may be
unlikely to violate others rights since that action would be incompatible with their goals
of obtaining social support. Thus, it may be the case that extrinsic religiosity protects
against more egregious forms of antisocial behavior (e.g., violating others rights,
harming others, etc.) and promotes more socially acceptable forms of antisocial behavior
(e.g., using others to obtain a goal).

123
 J Relig Health

Implications for Practice

These findings suggest the importance for individuals, most of whom have some type of
religious beliefs, to examine their own religiosity. By doing so, individuals may come to a
better understanding of how they are motivated toward religion (e.g., intrinsically or
extrinsically) as well as how those characteristics may be related to their psychological
problems. Practitioners who strive to improve the mental health of their clients are
encouraged to explore aspects of their clients religiosity. In fact, incorporating clients
religiosity into treatment has been shown to have ameliorative effects on client adjustment
especially when religiosity is important to the client (Weisman de Mamani et al. 2010). By
incorporating religiosity, not only will clinicians gain insight into their clients, but they
also may be able to investigate their clients psychological problems and develop possible
treatment plans incorporating religiosity.

Limitations and Future Research

The findings of this study must be viewed in the context of its limitations. One limitation
may be the generalizability of the findings. The sample consisted of emerging adult college
students who were predominantly Caucasian and African-American. Although this sample
was specifically selected to examine the effects of religiosity in normally functioning
individuals, caution must be taken when generalizing to other samples that are dissimilar to
the current sample. For example, research has shown that Caucasians and Hispanics sig-
nificantly differ on scores of religious orientation (Merrill et al. 2012); therefore, different
ethnicities should be examined due to the differing religious outcomes. Also, emerging
adults in college may experience religion differently than people from other age groups,
possibly because of social factors which may influence the assumptions of traditional
worldviews (Longest and Smith 2011). Furthermore, the study involved an overwhelming
majority of participants who identified themselves as Christian. Studies have shown that
although there are some similarities between religious and mental health outcomes
between different religions and regions of the world, there are also some key differences
(Hill and Pargament 2003; Klanjsek et al. 2012; Koenig et al. 2012). Additionally, future
research may examine whether different denominations exhibit different religious orien-
tations. Future research should use a broader sample of individuals from various ages,
regions, and religious affiliations. In addition, the current study did not examine individuals
who describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or spirituals. It may be interesting for future
research to examine peoples spirituality in general as opposed to religiosity specifically.
Another limitation of the current study is its design. Differential in nature, this study is
unable to determine causation. Also, all self-report measures may be subject to bias, but
religion and spirituality measures may be especially subject to social desirability biases
(Batson et al. 1993). Furthermore, many other factors not studied here may influence
religiosity and mental health. Future research also is encouraged to explore the findings of
the current study in greater detail. Specifically, exploring why intrinsic religiosity did not
have a main effect on anxiety problems is of interest. Examining sources that cause and
ameliorate anxiety may be helpful in investigating this finding further. Additionally, the
finding that extrinsic religiosity did not have a main effect on psychological problems also
should be explored further, particularly given that this finding is contrary to past research.
Social support may be an important variable for future research to consider when exam-
ining effects of extrinsic religiosity.

123
J Relig Health

References

Allport, G., & Ross, J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 5(4), 432443.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological
perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Belzen, J. A. (2000). Aspects in context: Studies in the history of psychology of religion. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Bergin, A. (1983). Religiosity and mental health: A critical re-evaluation and meta-analysis. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 170184.
Bingaman, K. A. (2010). A pastoral theological approach to the new anxiety. Pastoral Psychology, 59(6),
659670. doi:10.1007/s11089-009-0269-8.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cole, A. R. (2000). A spirit in need of rest: Luthers melancholia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and
religiosity. Pastoral Psychology, 48(3), 169190.
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E revised and single-items
scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348354.
Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and mental health: A meta-analysis of recent studies.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 4355.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and
spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist, 58, 6474.
Huguelet, P., Borras, L., Gillieron, C., Brant, P.-Y., & Mohr, S. (2009). Influence of spirituality and
religiousness on substance misuse in patients with schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorder. Sub-
stance Use and Misuse, 44, 502513.
Klanjsek, R., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Trejos-Castillo, E. (2012). Religious orientation, low self-control, and
deviance: Muslims, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox-, and Bible Belt Christians. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 35(3), 671682.
Koenig, H. G., Zaben, F., & Khalifa, D. (2012). Religion, spirituality and mental health in the West and the
Middle East. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 5(2), 180182.
Larson, D. B., Kimberly, A. S., Lyons, J. S., Craigie, F. C., Thielman, S. B., Greenworld, M. A., et al.
(1992). Associations between dimensions of religious commitment and mental health reported in the
American Journal of Psychiatry and Archives of General Psychiatry 19781989. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 149, 557559.
Leach, M. M., Berman, M. E., & Eubanks, L. (2008). Religious activities, religious orientation, and
aggressive behavior. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(2), 311319.
Lindenthal, J. J., Myers, J. K., Pepper, M. P., & Stern, M. S. (1970). Mental status and religious behavior.
Scientific Study of Religion, 9, 143149.
Longest, K. C., & Smith, C. (2011). Conflicting or compatible: Beliefs about religion and science among
emerging adults in the United States. Sociological Forum, 26(4), 846869.
Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Religious experience, religious orientation and schizotypy. Mental Health,
Religion, and Culture, 5, 163174.
Merrill, R. M., Steffen, P., & Hunter, B. D. (2012). A comparison of religious orientation and health
between Whites and Hispanics. Journal of Religion and Health, 51(4), 12611277. doi:
10.1007/s10943-010-9432-x.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, C. L. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Pfeifer, S., & Waelty, U. (1999). Anxiety, depression, and religiositya controlled clinical study. Mental
Health, Religion, and Culture, 2, 3545.
Plante, T. G., & Sherman, A. C. (Eds.). (2001). Faith and health: Psychological perspectives. New York:
Guilford Press.
Rescorla, L., & Achenbach, T. (2004). The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA)
for ages 18 to 90 years. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning
and outcomes assessment, Volume 3: Instruments for adults (3rd ed., pp. 115152). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Salsman, J. M., & Carlson, C. R. (2005). Religious orientation, mature faith, and psychological distress:
Elements of positive and negative associations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(2),
201209.
Tix, A. P., & Frazier, P. A. (1998). The use of religious coping during stressful life events: Main effects,
moderation, and mediation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 411422.

123
 J Relig Health

Weisman de Mamani, A., Tuchman, N., & Duarte, E. A. (2010). Incorporating religion/spirituality into
treatment for serious mental illness. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 17(4), 348357.
White, J., Joseph, S., & Neil, A. (1995). Religiosity, psychoticism, and schizotypal traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 19, 847851.

123