Personality and Individual Dierences 38 (2005) 11931202

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Religious orientation, religious coping and happiness

among UK adults
Christopher Alan Lewis
a

a,*

, John Maltby b, Liz Day

School of Psychology, University of Ulster at Magee College, Londonderry BT48 7JL, Northern Ireland, UK
b
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 association
the present work examined the relationship between religiosity and happiness within the context of the distinction between subjective and psychological well-being. One hundred and thirty eight UK adults completed two measures of both religiosity (the Age Universal Religious Orientation Scale [Intrinsic and
Extrinsic 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 signicant 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 consistent 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.
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).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.002

1194

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

1. Introduction
Within the psychology of religion there is renewed empirical interest in examining the relationship between religion and happiness. Previous research has employed a variety of dierent measures of both religiosity, including measures of religious attitude, behaviour and practice, and
happiness, 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 religion
and happiness among various populations by employing the Francis Scale of Attitude toward
Christianity and the Oxford Happiness Inventory (Argyle, Martin, & Crossland, 1989). Results
among samples of 360 undergraduates in the UK (Robbins & Francis, 1996), 212 undergraduates
in the USA (Francis & Lester, 1997), 100 undergraduates in the UK (French & Joseph, 1999), 994
1516-year-olds in England (Francis, Jones, & Wilcox, 2000), 456 rst-year undergraduate students attending one institution in Wales (Francis et al., 2000), 496 members of a branch of the
University 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 undergraduate
students in Wales (Francis, Robbins, & White, 2003a), have demonstrated a signicant positive
association between scores on the Oxford Happiness Inventory and scores on the Francis Scale
of Attitude toward Christianity. However, Francis, Ziebertz, and Lewis (2003b) did not report
a signicant correlation among 331 undergraduate students in Germany. Two related studies, reported by Francis and Katz (2002) and by Francis, Katz, Yablon, and Robbins (in press), administered the Hebrew translation of the Oxford Happiness Inventory together with the Katz-Francis
Scale of Attitude toward Judaism (Francis & Katz, 2002) to samples of 298 Hebrew-speaking female and 203 Hebrew-speaking male undergraduates in Israel. After taking into account individual dierences in personality, these data demonstrated a signicant association between religiosity
and 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 (Joseph & Lewis, 1998; McGreal & Joseph, 1993) among various populations. Results among samples of 154 Northern Irish undergraduate students (Lewis, Lanigan, Joseph, & de Fockert, 1997),
64 English Anglican priests (Lewis, Maltby, & Burkinshaw, 2000) and 70 English congregational
members of the Anglican Church (Lewis et al., 2000) have demonstrated no signicant association
between scores on the DepressionHappiness Scale and scores on the Francis Scale of Attitude
toward Christianity. However, French and Joseph (1999) did report a signicant association
among 100 undergraduates in the UK. In addition, related research by Lewis (2002) among a
sample of 154 Northern Irish university students demonstrated a positive association between
scores 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 that
there is strong evidence for the high correlation between the two measures of happiness (French
& Joseph, 1999; Hills & Argyle, 2002; Joseph & Lewis, 1998).

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

1195

One explanation can be gained from the comparison of the items of the two scales based on a
theoretical and empirical distinction between subjective well-being and psychological well-being
highlighted by Keyes, Shmotkin, and Ry (2002). Within this distinction, subjective well-being
is 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 individual
development and the existential challenges within life (Keyes et al., 2002). The two scales may differentiate in the way that they measure happiness. Whereas for the DepressionHappiness Scale
items 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 by
reecting reections on a longer period of time (e.g. I am completely satised about everything
in my life [item 12, 3], and All past events seem extremely happy [item 18]). Therefore, the
items seem to reect a greater and more general contentment with ones life. Therefore the scores
on 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 ShortForm. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form also contains no time reference, and
contains items that may measure global aspects of happiness reecting reections on a longer period of time (e.g. I feel that life is very rewarding [item 3] and I am well satised about everything in my life [item 12]). Initial work by Hills and Argyle (2002) has demonstrated that the two
measures are very strongly correlated 0.80.
At present no study has examined the relationship between a measure of religiosity, the DepressionHappiness Scale and either the Oxford Happiness Inventory or the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire. Given the writings of Keyes et al. (2002), it is proposed that the present research should
seek to encompass the theoretical and empirical distinction between subjective and psychological
well-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 within the psychology of religion and well-being literature. The rst dominant construct within contemporary psychology of religion relates to religious orientation. Individuals described as having
an intrinsic orientation toward religion are described as wholly committed to their religious beliefs, and the inuence of religion is evident in every aspect of their life (Allport, 1966). On the
other hand, those who demonstrate an extrinsic orientation toward religion have been described
as using religion to provide participation in a powerful in-group (Genia & Shaw, 1991), protection, 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 investigating the extrinsic orientation toward religion (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989; Gorsuch &
Venable, 1983; King & Hunt, 1969; Leong & Zachar, 1990; Maltby, 1999), there is the strong suggestion that the extrinsic orientation towards religion comprises two dimensions, extrinsic-personal (protection, consolation) and extrinsic-social (religious participation, social status).
Gorsuch (1988) argues that this distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic orientations to religion has been the most useful to the research on the relationship between religiosity and wellbeing.

1196

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

The second dominant perspective is that of religious coping (Pargament, 1997). This theoretical
perspective 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 model
might better explain the relationship between religiosity and psychological well-being. He argues
that such a theoretical model would address the complex and continuous process by which religion 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
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 factor
in the relationship between religious orientation and psychological well-being. Pargament and
his colleagues have developed a number of measures of religious coping, ranging from those that
concentrate on problem areas of religious coping to identication of a number of dimensions of
specic 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 stressful
life events; positive and negative religious coping. This model of coping encompasses a number of
positive and negative religious coping styles including religious forgiveness, collaborative religious
coping, spiritual connection, and religious purication. These authors report that positive coping
is associated with fewer symptoms of psychological distress, while negative religious coping is
associated 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 examining
the relationship between either religious orientation and happiness or religious coping and happiness, particularly considering dierent measures of happiness within the context of subjective and
psychological well-being. Therefore, contrasting ndings across the two series of studies described
above illustrate that the relationship between religiosity and happiness varies according to the precise measure of happiness used (Robbins & Francis, 1996). Furthermore, it is argued that there is
a requirement for a continued examination of the relationship between religiosity and happiness
using additional measures of religiosity and happiness to augment previous research and to help
identify 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 the
Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form, and measures of religious orientation and religious
coping.

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 of
workplaces and community groups in the North of England. Participants were selected from those
willing to be respondents from the workplaces and community groups visited.

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

1197

2.2. Questionnaires
All respondents completed a questionnaire booklet containing:
The DepressionHappiness Scale (Joseph & Lewis, 1998; McGreal & Joseph, 1993). This is a 25item 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, item
1). Items concerning negative feelings are reverse scored so that lower scores on the scale indicate
a lower frequency of positive feelings and a higher frequency of negative feelings. Respondents are
asked to think about how they have felt in the past seven days and to rate the frequency of each
item on a 4-point scale: Never (0); Rarely (1); Sometimes (2); and Often (3). Scores range between
0 and 75, with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of positive feelings and a lower frequency 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 (Argyle
et al., 1989; Hills & Argyle, 2002). The short-form of the scale was devised for use when time
and 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 fully
mentally alert [item 21]. Responses to items are scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale: Strongly
Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (6). Scores range from 8 to 48 with higher scores indicating a measure of broad happiness.
The Age-Universal I-E Scale12 (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983; Maltby, 1999). This scale is a derived, 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 to
improve psychometric condence in the measurement of the intrinsic and extrinsic religious constructs. 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 intrinsic
orientation towards religion is a constant feature of religious orientation, while an extrinsic orientation 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 Orientation
Scale (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983), which adopts items suggested by Gorsuch and McPherson
(1989), and changes to the response format (Maltby & Lewis, 1996). Maltby (1999) reports among
3300 USA, English and Irish adults, psychometric condence in combining these suggestions to
measure an intrinsic orientation towards religion (6 items; e.g., It is important to me to spend
time 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 [item
8]), and an extrinsic-social orientation towards religion (3 items; e.g., I go to church because
it 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 scores
range from 3 to 9 on both the extrinsic orientation scales. With each scale, higher scores indicate a
higher 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. Positive coping items include (I looked for a stronger connection with God [item 1], Focused on

1198

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

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 [item
14]). The scale demonstrates adequate reliability and validity (Pargament, 1997; Pargament
et al., 1998). Responses to items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree
to 5 = Strongly Agree). On both scales, scores range from 7 to 35 with higher scores indicating a
higher level of each religious coping style.
2.3. Data Analysis
The data were analysed by the SPSS statistical package, using the reliability, descriptive, correlation and regression routines (SPSS Inc, 1988).

3. Results
Satisfactory levels of internal reliability (Cronbach, 1951) were found for the DepressionHappiness Scale (a = 0.92), Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form (a = 0.74), the Religious
Orientation 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 reported 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 religiosity measures. However, males were found to score signicantly higher than females on both the
happiness 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 the
Religious Orientation Intrinsic Scale, Religious Orientation Extrinsic Personal Scale, Religious
Orientation Extrinsic Social Scale, Religious Coping Negative Scale, and the Religious Coping
Positive Scale. Similarly, no signicant associations were found between scores on the Oxford
Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form and scores on the Religious Orientation Extrinsic Personal
Scale, Religious Orientation Extrinsic Social Scale, and the Religious Coping Negative Scale.
Table 1
Mean scores (standard deviation) of all the measures by sex
Scale

Men (n = 55)

Women (n = 83)

DepressionHappiness Scale
Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (Short-Form)
Intrinsic
Extrinsic-personal
Extrinsic-social
Positive religious coping
Negative religious coping

49.74
29.80
09.86
04.95
03.86
10.97
08.20

42.38 (13.8)
27.20 (5.3)
09.92 (3.7)
05.18 (2.0)
04.18 (1.6)
11.08 (6.0)
08.980 (2.7)

*p

< 0.05;

**p

< 0.01;

***p

< 0.001.

(12.2)
(5.0)
(3.8)
(2.3)
(1.4)
(6.4)
(1.9)

t
3.66***
3.29**
0.10
0.71
1.35
0.91
1.64

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

1199

Table 2
Pearson product moment correlation between all the variables with sex and age partialled out
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
*p

DepressionHappiness Scale
Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form
Intrinsic
Extrinsic-personal
Extrinsic-social
Positive religious coping
Negative religious coping

< 0.05;

**p

< 0.01;

***p

0.76**

0.02
0.22**

0.10
0.03
0.69***

0.07
0.01
0.60***
0.35***

0.09
0.32***
0.66***
0.55***
0.21**

0.07
0.08
0.33***
0.31***
0.19*
0.60***

< 0.001.

However, there were signicant associations between the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire ShortForm and scores on the Religious Orientation Intrinsic Scale and the Religious Coping Positive
Scale (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 multiple
regression was performed to examine which of the two variables contributed unique variance
in scores on the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form. The regression statistic (r) was signicantly dierent from zero (F(4,164) = )10.42, p < 0.001; r = 0.35, r2 = 0.12, Adj (r2 = 0.11). For
Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form scores, positive religious coping accounted for unique 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 conceptualised and operationalised by the DepressionHappiness Scale and the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form, and measures of religious orientation and religious coping. From the
present data four points are worthy of comment.
First, there was no signicant association between measures of religiosity and happiness, when
religiosity was measured in terms of religious orientation and religious coping, and when happiness was measured with the DepressionHappiness Scale. This nding is consistent with previous
work 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 associated
with the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form, positive religious coping accounted for
unique variance in scores on the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form. This latter nding

1200

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

suggests that any happiness that results from religiosity may be the result of successful optimistic
religious coping strategies, as measured by positive religious coping.
Third, there was a strong association between the two measures of happiness (0.76). This nding attests to the convergent validity of the two measures, and is consistent with previous work
using the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form, as well as the measure from which it is
derived, 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 religiosity measures is not consistent with the gender dierences usually found, whereby females score
higher than males (Francis, 1997). However previous studies among English samples have not reported signicant gender dierences on religiosity measures (Maltby, Lewis, & Day, 1999). The
nding, that females and males did dier in terms of scores on the happiness measures, is not consistent with the literature on either the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form or the
DepressionHappiness 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 Happiness Inventory (and Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form), across a number of religiosity measures, is more related to of the type of happiness measure used, rather than the
precise measurement of religiosity. The explanation for these ndings is based on a theoretical
and empirical distinction between subjective well-being and psychological well-being (Keyes
et al., 2002). Though there is no data to directly support such a view, as direct measures of subjective and psychological well-being were not included in the present study, in terms of other measures
of subjective and psychological well-being it does provide an explanation of why religiosity may be
related to one aspect of happiness and not another. Therefore, it can be suggested that intrinsic
religiosity and positive religious coping is related to psychological well-being happiness (Oxford
Happiness Questionnaire) but not subjective well-being happiness (DepressionHappiness Scale).
Intrinsic religious orientation and positive religious coping are thought to reect a positive, committed, long-term and adaptive involvement in religiosity, in which religion is thought to help and
equip the individual to make sense of the world, and enable the individual to respond positively in
the appraisal and coping of stressful events over longer periods of time. Therefore, it is these adaptive 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 present
ndings are important, because they clarify the precise nature of the relationship between religiosity and happiness and clearly rearm the view that the relationship between religiosity and happiness varies according to the precise measures used. This work readily ts into recent calls to
emphasise the theoretical context of positive psychology to understand religiosity, particularly
when considering positive outcomes (Maltby & Day, 2003; Tsang & McCullough, 2003). Future
work should therefore continue to examine the relationship between religiosity and happiness
using established measures of happiness such as the DepressionHappiness Scale and the Oxford
Happiness Questionnaire alongside various measures of religiosity, including attitudinal and
behavioural measures (Hill & Hood, 1999), as well as other indices of positive psychology subjective well-being and psychological well-being.

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

1201

In conclusion, the present ndings, among a sample of UK adults, demonstrates that the relationship between religiosity and happiness varies according to the precise measure of happiness
used, and suggests that when religiosity is related to happiness, it is related to psychological
well-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 Study
of Religion, 12, 181197.
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. Jr., (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
Hills, 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 of
Religion and Health, 20, 817.

1202

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

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 and
two 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.
Lewis, 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.