ORI GIN AL PA PER

Religiousness and Social Support: A Study in SecularNorway

Marianne Nilsen Kvande •

Randi Johansen Reidunsdatter • Audhild Løhre •

Michael E. Nielsen • Geir Arild Espnes

Received: 19 August 2013 / Accepted: 30 April 2014

� Religious Research Association, Inc. 2014

Abstract Previous research has shown that religiousness is related to social

support, but most studies on this subject have been conducted in highly religious

contexts. In the secular culture of Norway, we investigated the level of perceived

social support among religious and non-religious individuals using the scale from

the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey. Of the 3,000 randomly

selected persons aged 18–75 years, 653 (22 %) participated in this cross-sectional

postal questionnaire study in 2009. The results showed that the association between

religiousness and social support differed by age, and was moderated by gender and

by one’s view of life enrichment. Among older adults (60–75 years), non-religious

people reported higher levels on all five dimensions of social support compared to

religious people, and for affectionate support, positive social interaction and tan-

gible support this relationship depended on high view of life enrichment. In contrast,

no differences in social support were seen among middle aged adults (40–59 years).

Gender differences in social support were found in the younger adults

(18–39 years), as religious men reported more tangible and emotional support

compared to non-religious men, while the opposite was found for women. Results

are discussed based on previous empirical findings on religiousness and social

support, as well as the role of religiousness in society.

M. N. Kvande (&) � R. J. Reidunsdatter � A. Løhre � G. A. Espnes

Research Centre for Health Promotion and Resources, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

e-mail: marianne.n.kvande@svt.ntnu.no

M. N. Kvande � A. Løhre � G. A. Espnes

Department of Social Work and Health Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Trondheim, Norway

R. J. Reidunsdatter

Department of Radiography, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway

M. E. Nielsen

Department of Psychology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA

123

Rev Relig Res

DOI 10.1007/s13644-014-0171-4

Keywords Social support � Religious � Non-religious � View of life � Secular

context � Norway

Introduction

Social support refers in a broad sense to the beneficial resources, psychological and

material, that may be influential and available to the individual when coping with

stress (Cohen 2004). Through conversations and shared activities with others,

individuals get help to regulate their emotions, thoughts and actions that may

influence health outcomes (Lakey and Orehek 2011). Structural support, as distinct

from functional support, concerns aspects of the social network such as its size and

strength. Functional support, on the other hand, reflects how interpersonal

relationships fill an individual’s needs, such as emotional support, tangible support,

information, appraisal, and social companionship (Sherbourne and Stewart 1991).

Empirical research shows that different psychological factors have been related to

social support and beneficial health outcomes, such as greater self-esteem (Symister

and Friend 2003) and less depression (Russell and Cutrona 1991). Social support is

also proposed as an important mediating factor to explain the relationship between

religiousness and different health outcomes (Koenig et al. 2012). Both the quantity

and quality of social networks have been linked to religiousness, as have better mental

and physical health outcomes (George et al. 2002; Koenig et al. 2012). In general,

church attendance rates seem to be an important factor for predicting social support

(Hill et al. 2008; Krause 2002; Lim and Putnam 2010; Strawbridge et al. 2001;

Szaflarski 2001). This may be explained by highly homogeneous congregations in

terms of values, interests and activities that may increase the size of existing networks

(Ellison and George 1994). However, there is reason to believe that cultural

differences between countries and regions may influence the facilitating role of

religiousness on social support. For instance, in a study based on data from 154

different nations, the results showed that the positive relationship between importance

of religion, frequency of church attendance and well-being was more likely in highly

religious nations, and that social support was a significant mediator for the relationship

between religiousness and well-being (Diener et al. 2011). In nations where

religiousness was less prevalent and people had more favorable living conditions,

religious and non-religious individuals had same levels of well-being. In these

circumstances, religiousness did not seem to be beneficial for producing social support

(Diener et al. 2011).

Norway is characterized by high standards of living (OECD 2013), but ranks low

in frequency of church attendance. European Social Survey (2010) shows that 11 %

of the Norwegian population attends church monthly, including about 5 % who

attends church weekly or more often. From 1991 to 2008 the monthly church

attendance rate seemed to gradually decline from 11 to 7 % (Botvar 2010).

However, from 2008 to 2010 the church attendance rate returned back to 1991

figures of 11 %. Despite this increase, the church attendance rates (attending church

three times or more per month) are substantially lower in Norway (11 %) than in

USA (43 %) (Gallup 2010). Based on this information, religiousness would be

Rev Relig Res

123

expected to have little to no association with higher levels of social support for

Norwegians. However, studies have shown that level of church attendance does not

solely associate with more social support, but other dimensions of religiousness may

have an influence as well. For instance, in a US study examining the mediating role

of social support and optimism to the relationship between religiousness/spirituality

and psychological adjustment, results showed that both social support and optimism

were significant mediators (Salsman et al. 2005). Religiousness and spirituality were

operationalized by using the Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religiousness Scale and the

Spiritual Transcendence Scale and the study focused on the individuals’ perception

of social support, as opposed to received social support. Perceived social support

functions in ways similar to that of optimism and well-being in association to

favorable mental health outcomes (Salsman et al. 2005). In another study, Pirutinsky

et al. (2011) found that intrinsic religiousness was associated with social support for

the non-orthodox Jews, but not for the orthodox Jews. Following this, the authors

suggested that intrinsic religiousness may be important for facilitating social support

in groups that value collectivist social religiousness more, and value religious

mental states less (Pirutinsky et al. 2011). Although the latter study was based on a

sample from members of Jewish communities in the US, and consequently deviates

from dominant Lutheran denominations in Norway, it illustrates that different

dimensions of religiousness may in various degrees be related to social support

depending on cultural context.

The western cultural shift described by Heelas and Woodhead (2005) may be a

good description of Norway, although 35 % of the Norwegian population would

define themselves as either somewhat or very religious (Botvar 2010). The essense

of the cultural shift is the decline of ‘‘life- as’’ forms of the sacred, while

‘‘subjective- life’’ forms of the sacred is growing. This means that rather than to

live lives in conformity to external principles, the unique source of significance,

meaning and authority is to be found within the subjectivities of each person. The

change from ‘‘life- as’’ to ‘‘subjective-life’’ has also been called a spiritual

revolution (Heelas and Woodhead 2005). What may be similar to spirituality, but

however a bit broader is the Scandinavian concept of view of life. View of life may

be described as someone’s assumptions about the world and humans to develop

their system of values (Jeffner 1982), and it represents a basic attitude of hope and

trust or despair and pessimism (Stifoss-Hanssen and Kallenberg 1998). Further-

more, view of life is defined by a search for meaning and an attempt to establish a

moral relationship with life, other people, and the universe, and it may be founded

on religious teachings as well as on secular principles (Zahl and Furman 2005). By

this definition, all people may be represented on a ‘‘continuum of vertical

transcendence’’ including both atheists and agnostics (Schnell and William 2011).

In other words, view of life allows people to be on different levels of the

transcendence continuum.

Church attendance rates are quite low in Norway with only 11 % of the

population attending church monthly or more often (European Social Survey 2010).

Nevertheless, a larger proportion seems to report more private forms of religious-

ness. For instance, a study on religion and health with 18,770 participants living in

Oslo, the capital of Norway, found that 1/3 reported gaining strength and comfort

Rev Relig Res

123

from a religious faith, but only 16 % of this group attended a religious meeting at

least once a month (Sørbye et al. 2006). In another study based on data from Nord-

Trøndelag Health Study’s third wave (HUNT3) conducted from 2006 to 2008, the

researchers found that nearly half of the participants often or sometimes sought

God’s help when in need of strength and solace (Sørensen et al. 2011). Based on this

information, and in order to encompass a wider range on the transcendence

continuum, we have included in our study both the concept of religiousness and

view of life. We think people may have a view of life based on the above definition

of the concept, but the importance of this view of life may vary. A person could for

instance identify with being a non-religious person, but his or her non-religious view

of life could still be of great enrichment to the life of this person. In other words,

people identifying with being religious or non-religious could experience more or

less enrichment from their view of life. Because the word ‘‘religion’’ is in a

Norwegian context often associated with dogma, rituals, and the community in

which religious practices unfold (Zahl and Furman 2005), applying the concept of

view of life gives the opportunity to implement a more culture-specific approach to

studies on religion and world views.

Several empirical findings support a positive correlation between religiousness/

spirituality and age (Dalby 2006; Wink and Dillon 2002; Argue et al. 1999). In a

Norwegian context, the pattern of older individuals being more religious than

younger ones was also supported by Høeg (2010) who used data from three waves

(1991, 1998 and 2008) of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP 2008).

In addition to the general trend of a positive association between age and religiosity,

results showed that the oldest age group (55–79 years) had the largest proportionate

decrease on most indicators of religiousness (e.g. church attendance, prayer, and

belief in God) in the period from 1991 to 2008. Høeg (2010) explains that this

finding may be due to a time with political changes around 1968, especially related

to criticism of religion.

Religiousness is also found to differ among men and women. For instance,

Stark (2002) found that in 48 out of 49 countries with Christianity being the

majority religion, as well as in 35 out of 36 countries in non-Christian countries,

women were more religious than men. The universal agreement of this difference

is also mentioned by others (Freese 2004; Miller and Hoffmann, 1995), and varies

across all dimensions of religiousness (Batson et al. 1993). Women are found to

be more orthodox in their beliefs as well as more involved in church activity

(Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle 1997). These gender differences were also found in a

Norwegian population sample. Sørbye et al. (2006) reported that within the groups

of people born in 1924/1925, women were both more intrinsic and extrinsic

religious compared to men.

Based on the above, a greater proportion of Norwegians engage in private forms

of religiousness as opposed to institutional practices. In addition, both secular and

religious views of life may in many ways be a source to enrichment. We believe

grouping the participants in terms of self-rated religiousness and view of life

enrichment would be more informative than using only frequency of church

attendance. We acknowledge that view of life may be religious or non-religious and

that people may have a perception of their view of life to be more or less enriching

Rev Relig Res

123

to them. We have no specific hypotheses on the direction of associations between

religiousness, view of life enrichment and social support. However, in knowing that

the older age groups are more religious than the younger age groups (Høeg 2010;

Dalby 2006; Wink and Dillon 2002; Argue et al. 1999), we differentiated between

age groups in our study. The aims of the present study were thus to examine the

association of perceived social support with religiousness, and to examine whether

the effect of religiousness on social support depends on view of life enrichment and

gender.

Method

Procedure and Sample

Cross-sectional data were selected randomly from the general population aged

18–75 years in the Norwegian registry. The sampling and the final working sample

is presented in Fig. 1. Sampling was done by EDB Business Partner.1 First, 2,500

individuals aged 18–75 years were drawn; then 500 individuals aged 60–75 years

were drawn to increase the number of elderly participants. The questionnaires were

sent by mail and returned by prepaid post (postal questionnaire study). One

reminder was sent 4 weeks after the emission. The total response rate was 22 %,

equal to 653 returned forms of the 3,000 invitations. Of those who responded, 415

(64 %) were under the age of 60 and 238 (36 %) were 60 years or older. Responders

were significantly older than non-responders; mean age (SD) = 50 (16.2) versus 48

(17.1) years, t (1,043) = -3.44, p = .001. No significant gender differences were

found, v2 (1, N = 2,347) = 3.33, p = .068, between responders (345 women, 299

men) and non-responders (1,162 women, 1,185 men).

Measures

Demographics included questions on gender, age, education, church membership,

service attendance, prayer and religious coping. For education there were three

choices: (1) primary school, (2) high school, (3) and college/university. Religious

affiliation was measured by asking people ‘‘are you member of a religious

community’’ with eight response options: (1) Church of Norway, (2) Evangelical

Lutheran Free Church, (3) Roman Catholic Church, (4) Pentecostal movement, (5)

Islamic community, (6) Norwegian Humanist Association, (7) No membership, (8)

Other membership (open-ended question). These denominations constitute the

largest religious communities in Norway in 2008 (Statistics Norway 2013). To

measure level of church attendance we used one item from the King and Hunts

(1972) subscale on Congregational Involvement. We asked ‘‘During the last year,

how many Sundays on average per month have you attended service?’’ with

response options: (1) none, (2) one, (3) two, (4) three, (5) four, (6) not applicable.

1 EDB Business Partner is the name of the company that performed the sampling. EDB is an abbreviation

of ‘‘Electronic Data Processing’’.

Rev Relig Res

123

The response options were further collapsed into four categories being none, one-

two, at least three times, and not applicable. Prayer was assessed by one item from

Edwards (1976) revised version of the Religious Experience Questionnaire (see Hill

and Hood 1999). Participants were asked to rate the question ‘‘I pray privately in

places other than church’’ rated from 1 to 8: (1) never, (2) almost never, (3) rarely,

(4) occasionally, (5) often, (6) almost always, (7) always and (8) not applicable. The

response options were further grouped in three categories being Pray Low (never,

almost never, rarely, occasionally) and Pray High (often, almost all the time,

always), and Not Applicable. Religious coping was measured by asking ‘‘I seek

God’s help when in need of strength and solace’’ with response options: (1) never,

(2) almost never, (3) rarely, (4) occasionally, (5) often, (6) almost always, (7)

always and (8) not applicable. The response options were grouped in three

Invited to participate(N=3000)

n=2500 (18-75 years)n=500 (60-75 years)

RespondentsN = 653(22%)

…religious person(included)

n=206

ReligiousnessN = 594

…convinced atheist(included)

n=21

…non- religious person(included)

n=243

Working sampleN=470

n=297< 60 yearsn=158 60 years

Missing responsesa

(excluded)n=47

Outliersb

(excluded)n=12

…don’t know(excluded)

n=124

Fig. 1 Flowchart of study sample. Note. aMissing responses on ‘‘Religiousness’’ (4.5%) or ‘‘view of lifeenrichment’’ (2.8%). bUnivariate or multivariate outliers on one or several social support domains

Rev Relig Res

123

categories being Coping Low (never, almost never, rarely, occasionally), Coping

High (often, almost always, always), and Not Applicable. This religious coping item

has earlier been used in a large population-based study in Nord-Trøndelag

(HUNT3), Norway, although with different response options (Sørensen et al. 2011,

2012a).

Long-standing health problems were assessed by the following question ‘‘Do you

suffer from any long-standing (at least 1 year) limiting somatic or psychiatric

illness, disease or disability?’’ with a dichotomous response option (Yes, No). The

item has been used in international studies (Ayis et al. 2003), as well as in

population-based studies in Norway (Krokstad et al. 2002; Løhre et al. 2012). In the

present study, long-standing health problems had 8.5 % missing responses that were

replaced by the median.

Religiousness was assessed by asking participants ‘‘Independent of membership

in a religious community and participation in religious activities, would you define

yourself as ‘‘a religious person, a non-religious person, convinced atheist, or don’t

know?’’ Atheists were included in the non-religious group. Those who reported

‘‘don’t know’’ (n = 124) were excluded from the analyses. The group responding

‘‘don’t know’’ consisted of more women than men (60 vs. 40 %), most had high

school level of education (48 %) and most of the participants said they experienced

‘‘not at all’’ or ‘‘very little’’ view of life enrichment (89 %).

Twenty-nine (4.5 %) of the total sample (N = 653) did not respond to the item

on religiousness.

View of life Enrichment was assessed by the following question ‘‘Do you find

your view of life enriching?’’ rated on a four-point scale: not at all, a little, a lot,

quite a lot. View of life was dichotomized into low (not at all, a little) versus high (a

lot, quite a lot) enrichment from view of life. Of the total sample (N = 653), view of

life enrichment had eighteen (2.8 %) missing responses.

In the questionnaire, the items on religiousness and view of life enrichment

were placed under a section with headline ‘‘Your view of life: what do you

believe in?’’ The introducing question (not applied in this study) was ‘‘Which

view of life is closest to your own?’’ with categories ‘‘Christian view of life’’,

‘‘Humanistic view of life’’, ‘‘Atheistic view of life’’, and ‘‘Other view of life’’ (open

ended). The item on religiousness was placed second, whereas the view of life

enrichment item came next, as the third and individual item. A literal translation

from Norwegian to English of the view of life enrichment item would be ‘‘Is your

view of life enriching for your life?’’ meaning to reflect a degree of significance

and importance of the view of life (religious or non-religious) the participants

might have.

Social support was assessed using (the scales in) the Medical Outcomes Study

Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS) (Sherbourne and Stewart 1991). Functional

support was covered by four subscales and 19 items rated on a five-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more support: (1) never, (2)

rarely, (3) occasionally, (4) often, (5) very often. The four subscales of functional

support are: emotional/informational support (feedback, guidance and information,

8 items); tangible support (material, aid and assistance, four items); positive social

interaction (entertaining activities with others, four items); and affectionate support

Rev Relig Res

123

(love and affection, three items). The MOS-SSS has shown good psychometric

properties when validated in chronically ill and healthy populations (Griep et al.

2005; Robitaille et al. 2011; Sherbourne and Stewart 1991; Soares et al. 2011; Yu

et al. 2004). This study confirmed the robust internal consistency for the four

subscales with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .88 to .95 and acceptable

dimensionality with inter-scale correlations ranging from .69 to .73. Structural

support was assessed by one item asking the participants ‘‘About how many close

friends and relatives do you have (people you feel at ease with and can talk to about

what is on your mind)?’’. Before the main analysis, the five dimensions of social

support were examined for accuracy of data entry, missing values and outliers.

Little’s MCAR test showed that the missing responses pattern was missing

completely at random (p = .238).

Sample Characteristics Compared to Population Data

Of the 653 participants, 470 (72 %) were included in the present study. Compared to

Norwegian population data of the age group 18–75 years in 2009 (Statistics Norway

2013), the present sample had higher levels of education (college/university) (47 vs.

28 %2), more women (53 vs. 49 %) and higher proportions of older people

(60–75 years) (35 vs. 20 %). Levels on long-standing health problems were quite

similar between the present sample and the population (29 vs. 26 %) (Eurostat

2013).3 Furthermore, the sample was fairly similar to the population in 2009 in

terms of membership in the Church of Norway (76 vs. 81 %), minority

denominations (13 vs. 9 %), and no membership (11 vs. 10 %) (Statistics Norway

2013). Compared to the population survey ISSP (2008), the sample had a higher

level of regular church attendance (25 vs. 15 %), but same levels of praying

regularly (26 vs. 27 %). Furthermore, a larger proportion of Norwegians report to be

religious (35 %) versus non-religious (29 %) (ISSP 2008). An opposite pattern was

found for the present sample where a larger proportion reported to be non-religious

(44 %) compared to religious (35 %).

Statistics

Mean and standard deviation was calculated for the continuous variables (age and

social support), and Student t test was performed to test for differences in means.

Frequencies was used for categorical variables (age groups, gender, education, long

standing health problems, church membership, service attendance, prayer and

religious coping), and Pearson‘s Chi square was used to calculate for significant

differences between groups of religiousness and view of life enrichment.

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted using General Linear Models

(GLM). The main and interaction effects of religiousness, view of life enrichment,

and gender were tested for younger adults (18–39 years), middle aged

2 Numbers are based on total proportions of the Norwegian population 16 years and older.3 Numbers are from 2009, based on total proportions of the Norwegian population aged 16–64 years.

Rev Relig Res

123

(40–59 years) and older adults (60–75 years). Further, for each of the social support

variables, a separate 2 (religious vs. non- religious) 9 2 (high vs. low enriching

view of life) 9 2 (women vs. men) ANCOVA was conducted. In all ANCOVAs,

education and long-standing health problems were included as covariates. p values

\.05 were considered significant for all analyses. All statistical analyses were

carried out using the SPSS version 20.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, US).

Ethics

The study was approved by the regional committees for medical and health research

ethics in Sør-Trøndelag County (REC Central) and the collection of data was

approved by The Norwegian Data Inspectorate.

Results

Sample Descriptives

The participants were highly educated; about four in ten had a high school education

and nearly five in ten had college or university education (Table 1). A majority of

71 % reported no long-standing health problems. In terms of affiliation, 76 % were

members of the Church of Norway, and 5 % were members of the Humanist

Association. Service attendance once a month or more was reported by 25 % of the

participants and 27 % reported that they often or more sought God’s help. A greater

proportion of the religious (53 %) versus the non-religious (25 %) reported to have

high view of life enrichment (not displayed).

Of the 470 participants, women (53 %) were significantly more religious than

men (48 %), but there were no significant differences across gender on view of life

enrichment. Significant differences on religiousness were also found across the three

age groups where a larger proportion of the oldest adults (60–75 years) were

religious compared to a smaller proportion of the youngest adults (18–39 years). No

differences across age groups were found for view of life enrichment.

Religiousness, View of Life Enrichment and Social Support

Compared to non-religious individuals, religious individuals scored significantly

lower on tangible support, (M = 4.12 vs. 4.31), t (466) = -2.39, p = .017, and

positive social interaction, (M = 4.24 vs. 4.39), t (413) = -2.35, p = .019

(Table 2). There was no statistically significant difference between neither religious

and non-religious responders or responders with low versus high view of life

enrichment on any other domain of social support.

For each of younger (18–39 years), middle aged (40–59 years), and older adults

(60–75 years) we conducted a separate 2 (religious vs. non- religious) 9 2 (high vs.

low enriching view of life) 9 2 (women vs. men) ANCOVA for each of the five

dimensions of social support. Significant findings are reported and presented in

Figs. 2, 3, 4 and in the following sections of the results.

Rev Relig Res

123

Table 1 Sample characteristics (mean, SD, n (%)) by religiousness and view of life enrichment

Religiousness P value* View of life

enrichment

P value* Total

sample

Religious Non-

religious

Low High

n = 206 n = 264 n = 294 n = 176 N = 470

Age \.001 .083

Mean age (SD) 53.3

(16.0)

47.1

(16.1)

48.8

(16.1)

51.6

(16.7)

49.8

(16.3)

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Age groups \.001 .209

18–39 42 (21) 94 (36) – 90 (31) 46 (27) – 136 (30)

40–59 68 (35) 93 (36) – 106 (37) 55 (33) – 161 (35)

60–75 87 (44) 71 (28) – 91 (32) 67 (40) – 158 (35)

Gender .001 .971

Women 126 (62) 119 (45) – 153 (52) 92 (53) – 245 (53)

Men 79 (39) 143 (55) – 139 (48) 83 (47) – 222 (48)

Educational level \.001 .172

Primary/secondary

school

36 (18) 16 (6) – 31 (11) 21 (12) – 52 (11)

High school 84 (41) 109 (42) – 130 (45) 63 (36) – 193 (42)

College/university 84 (41) 136 (52) – 129 (45) 91 (52) – 220 (47)

Long- standing health

problemsa.316 .799

Yes 60 (29) 72 (27) – 80 (27) 52 (30) – 132 (29)

No 146 (71) 192 (73) – 214 (73) 124 (71) – 319 (71)

(Non-) religious

memberships

\.001 \.001

Church of Norway 159 (78) 187 (75) – 240 (84) 106 (63) – 346 (76)

Evangelical lutheran

free church

2 (1) 2 (1) – 2 (1) 2 (1) – 4 (1)

Roman catholic

church

5 (3) 1 (-) – 2 (1) 4 (2) – 6 (1)

Pentecostal

movement

9 (4) – 3 (1) 6 (4) – 9 (2)

Islamic community 2 (1) 2 (1) – 1 (-) 3 (2) – 4 (1)

Norwegian humanist

association

1 (1) 22 (9) – 13 (5) 10 (6) – 23 (5)

Other 14 (7) – – 1 (-) 13 (8) – 14 (3)

Not member 11 (5) 37 (15) – 23 (8) 25 (15) – 48 (11)

Religious service

attendance

\.001 \.001

None 96 (48) 173 (67) – 194 (68) 75 (43) – 269 (59)

1–2 Times pr. month 66 (33) 20 (8) – 37 (13) 49 (28) – 86 (19)

At least three times

pr. month

28 (14) 1 (-) – 7 (3) 22 (13) – 29 (6)

Rev Relig Res

123

Main Effects of Religiousness on Social Support

The non-religious within the group of older adults (60–75 years) reported

significantly more perceived support on all five dimensions of social support than

the religious group of older participants (Fig. 2). The effect of religion on

tangible support was significant, with religious individuals reporting lower levels

of tangible support (M = 3.88) than non-religious individuals (M = 4.29),

F (1,111) = 8.03, p = .005. For positive social interaction, religious individuals

reported lower levels (M = 4.11) than non-religious individuals (M = 4.35),

F (1, 111) = 4.58, p = .035. Furthermore, religious individuals reported lower

levels (M = 4.18) of emotional support than non-religious individuals

(M = 4.32), F (1, 111) = 4.17, p = .043. The same pattern was shown for

affectionate support where religious individuals reported lower levels (M = 4.18)

than non-religious individuals (M = 4.32), F (1, 111) = 5.25, p = .024. Finally,

a significant effect of religiousness on structural support was found

F (1,102) = 4.04, p = .047, where religious individuals scores lower

(M = 7.56) on structural support compared to the non-religious individuals

(M = 9.17).

Among younger adults (18–39 years) the pattern was opposite than that for older

participants regarding structural support. Religious participants reported higher

Table 1 continued

Religiousness P value* View of life

enrichment

P value* Total

sample

Religious Non-

religious

Low High

n = 206 n = 264 n = 294 n = 176 N = 470

Not applicable 9 (5) 65 (25) – 47 (17) 27 (16) – 74 (16)

Prayer \.001 \.001

Lowb 90 (45) 146 (56) – 185 (64) 51 (29) – 236 (51)

Highc 108 (54) 11 (4) – 31 (11) 88 (51) – 119 (26)

Not applicable 4 (2) 106 (40) – 74 (26) 36 (21) – 110 (24)

Religious coping \.001 \.001

Lowb 82 (41) 147 (56) – 182 (64) 47 (27) – 229 (50)

Highc 115 (57) 9 (4) – 31 (11) 93 (54) – 124 (27)

Not applicable 5 (3) 102 (40) – 73 (26) 34 (20) – 107 (23)

*Comparisons were made using a 2-sided independent samples t-test for the continuous variable (age),

and Pearson’s chi-squared test were used for categorical variables (age groups, gender, education, long

standing health problems, church membership, service attendance, prayer and religious coping)a At least 1 yearb Never, almost never, rarely, occationallyc Often, almost all the time, always

Rev Relig Res

123

Ta

ble

2M

ean

sco

res

(95

%C

I)o

ffi

ve

dim

ensi

on

so

fso

cial

sup

po

rtb

yg

rou

ps

of

reli

gio

usn

ess,

vie

wo

fli

feen

rich

men

t,an

dto

tal

sam

ple

Dim

ensi

on

sR

elig

iou

sN

on

-rel

igio

us

Pv

alue*

Lo

wv

iew

of

life

enri

chm

ent

Hig

hv

iew

of

life

enri

chm

ent

Pv

alu

e*T

ota

lsa

mp

le

n=

20

6n

=2

64

n=

29

4n

=1

76

n=

47

0

Mea

n9

5%

CI

Mea

n9

5%

CI

Mea

n9

5%

CI

Mea

n9

5%

CI

Mea

n9

5%

CI

Em

oti

on

alsu

pp

ort

a4

.12

4.0

1–

4.2

34

.19

4.1

–4

.28

.32

24

.12

4.0

3–

4.2

14

.23

4.1

2–

4.3

4.1

25

4.1

64

.09

–4

.23

Tan

gib

lesu

pp

ort

a4

.12

3.9

9–

4.2

44

.31

4.2

1–

4.4

1.0

17

4.2

34

.13

–4

.33

4.2

24

.08–

4.3

5.8

82

4.2

34

.15

–4

.30

Posi

tive

soci

alin

tera

ctio

na

4.2

44

.14

–4

.34

4.3

94

.31–

4.4

7.0

19

4.3

14

.23

–4

.39

4.3

64

.25–

4.4

6.4

74

4.3

34

.26

–4

.39

Aff

ecti

onat

esu

pport

a4

.34

4.2

3–

4.4

44

.45

4.3

6–

4.5

4.1

09

4.3

74

.29

–4

.46

4.4

44

.33–

4.5

5.3

37

4.4

04

.33

–4

.47

Str

uct

ura

lsu

pp

ort

b7

.82

7.1

8–

8.4

77

.78

7.1

9–

8.3

8.9

32

7.6

07

.07

–8

.13

8.1

47

.37–

8.9

1.2

43

7.8

07

.37

–8

.24

*In

dep

end

ent

sam

ple

st-

test

sw

ere

use

dto

com

par

eg

rou

pm

eans;

reli

gio

us

ver

sus

no

n-r

elig

iou

san

dlo

wv

ersu

sh

igh

vie

wo

fli

feen

rich

men

t.S

ign

ifica

nt

pv

alues

of\

.05

are

inb

old

face

aD

imen

sio

ns

are

sco

red

on

asc

ale

fro

m1

to5

wit

hh

igh

nu

mb

ers

indic

atin

gm

ore

sup

po

rtb

Dim

ensi

on

sar

esc

ore

do

na

scal

efr

om

0to

20

wit

hh

igh

nu

mb

ers

ind

icat

ing

more

clo

sefr

ien

ds

Rev Relig Res

123

levels of structural support (M = 9.26) compared to non-religious participants

(M = 7.73), F (1,103) = 5.41, p = .022.

There were no significant associations between religiousness and the five

dimensions of social support in the middle aged group (40–59 years).

3.884.29

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

vel

of s

uppo

rt (s

cale

1-

5)Tangible supportAge 60-75 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .005

4.11 4.35

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

vel

of s

uppo

rt (s

cale

1-5

)

Positive social interactionAge 60-75 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .035

3.88 4.15

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

vel

of s

uppo

rt (s

cale

1-

5)

Emotional supportAge 60-75 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .043

4.18 4.32

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

vel

of s

uppo

rt (

scal

e 1-

5)

Affectionate support Age 60-75 years

Religious Non-religious

p = .024

7.569.17

13579

1113151719

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of

fri

ends

(sc

ale

1-20

)

Structural supportAge 60-75 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .047

9.26 7.73

13579

1113151719

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of

fri

ends

(sc

ale

1-20

)

Structural supportAge 18-39 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .022

Fig. 2 Bar graphs (mean, 95% CI, p value) of the statistically significant differences in dimensions ofsocial support between religious and non-religious participants by age groups

4.064.70 4.30 4.28

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

vel

of s

uppo

rt (s

cale

1-

5)

Affectionate support Age 60-75 years

Religious Non-religious

p = .035

High Enrichment

Low Enrichment

3.954.61 4.27 4.20

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

ve o

f au

ppor

t (sc

ale

1-5)

Positive social interactionAge 60-75 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .025

High Enrichment

Low Enrichment

3.794.56

3.98 4.14

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

vel o

f su

ppor

t (sc

ale

1-5)

Tangible supportAge 60-75 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .045

HighEnrichment

Low Enrichment

Fig. 3 Bar graphs (mean, 95% CI, p value) on the statistically significant interaction effects ofreligiousness (religious versus non-religious) and view of life enrichment (high versus low) found to threedimensions of social support

Rev Relig Res

123

Interaction Effects Between Religiousness and View of Life Enrichment

Within the group of older adults (60–75 years), religiousness interacted with

view of life enrichment in the case of affectionate support, F (1,111) = 4.55,

p = .035, positive social interaction, F (1,111) = 5.13, p = .025, and tangible

support, F (1,111) = 4.10, p = .045 (Fig. 3). Among the older people

reporting high levels of view of life enrichment, mean levels of affectionate

support, positive social interaction, and tangible support were significantly

higher for non-religious people than for religious. However, among the older

people with low view of life enrichment, no differences in social support

between religious and non-religious individuals were evident. Further, no

significant interaction effects between religiousness and view of life enrich-

ment were found within the youngest (18–39 years) or middle aged (40–59)

groups.

Interaction Effects Between Religiousness and Gender

Finally, within the youngest age group (18–75 years), an interaction effect was

found between level of religiousness and gender in terms of tangible support,

F (1, 106) = 7.00, p = .009, and emotional support, F (1, 106) = 4.61,

p = .034 (Fig. 4). Religious men reported higher levels of tangible and

emotional support than non-religious men, while religious women reported

higher levels of tangible support and equal mean levels of emotional support

compared to non-religious women. No significant interaction effects between

religiousness and gender were found for the middle aged (40–59 years) or older

(60–75 years) age groups.

4.044.48 4.80

4.21

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

vel o

f su

ppor

t (sc

ale

1-5)

Tangible support Age 18-39 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .009

Women Men

4.33 4.43 4.754.25

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n le

vel o

f su

ppor

t (sc

ale

1-5)

Emotional supportAge 18-39 years

Religious Non- religious

p = .034

Women Men

Fig. 4 Bar graphs (mean, 95% CI, p value) on the statistically significant interaction effects ofreligiousness (religious versus non-religious) and gender found to two dimensions of social support

Rev Relig Res

123

Discussion

The present study sought to examine the relationship between religiousness and

social support in the secular context of Norway. Research has shown that the

frequency of church attendance is less prevalent than private forms of religiousness

(Sørbye et al. 2006; Sørensen et al. 2011; European Social Survey 2010).

Furthermore, the concept of view of life extends beyond religiousness and includes

the whole continuum of spiritual, religious or secular perspectives which may be

more or less enriching to people. Based on this perspective, we chose to examine if

religiousness associates with social support, and if this association depends on the

level of view of life enrichment or gender. Since we know that religiousness may

function differently for younger and older individuals, we examined the relationship

between religiousness, view of life enrichment, and gender within three different

age groups. Several important findings emerged from our study. First, within the

oldest age group, religious people reported less social support on all five dimensions

of social support compared to non-religious people. For affectionate support,

positive social interaction and tangible support, the differences between religious

and non-religious groups depended on high levels of view of life enrichment.

Second, within the middle aged group (40–59 years), no differences on the level of

social support were found. And finally, for younger adults (18–39 years), the

influence of religiousness on tangible and emotional support was different for men

and women. For tangible support, religious women reported less support while

religious men reported more support, respectively compared to non-religious

women and men. For emotional support, religious men experienced more emotional

support than non-religious men, while religious women were equal to non-religious

women on the level of emotional support.

Religiousness and Context

Our results showed that within the oldest age group, non-religious individuals felt

loved and wanted and received help from others more often than religious

individuals. They reported a higher frequency of having someone to spend time with

and someone with whom they could share their problems and worries, and they had

a larger number of friends and relatives who were close to them. Our findings do not

support previous studies linking religiousness to higher levels of social support (Hill

et al. 2008; Krause 2002; Lim and Putnam 2010; Strawbridge et al. 2001; Szaflarski

2001). The reason may be that those studies were undertaken in contexts with great

religious dominance. A recent study showed that when the majority of people in a

country has religious beliefs, engages in religious practices and reflects positive

attitudes toward religion, religiousness associates more positively with well-being

(Stavrova et al. 2013). Others have found no significant differences between groups

on social support when atheists, agnostics and religious people were included in a

US study (Horning et al. 2011). Zuckerman (2009) reviewed a range of studies on

religious and non-religious groups and concluded that both religiousness and non-

religiousness seemed to be positively related to life satisfaction and well-being.

Rev Relig Res

123

On the other hand, Diener et al. (2011) found that in secular contexts with

favorable living conditions, religion does not appear to be a benefit for producing

social support. This is in line with our results suggesting that non-religious older

people in secular Norway not only have a level of social support similar to religious

people, but actually experience more social support. Following this, our findings

clearly add to this literature demonstrating the relevance of context in which studies

are conducted.

Religiousness, Age, Culture, and Society

Our results showing an increase of religiousness across age is in line with other

findings from Norway (Høeg 2010), as well as other countries (Dalby 2006; Wink

and Dillon 2002; Argue et al. 1999). All the same, a decrease on most indicators on

religiousness has been observed in Norway from 1991 to 2008 among people aged

55–79 years (Høeg 2010). The decrease could be due to a period effect of political

changes around 1968, as suggested by Høeg (2010). The oldest participants in our

study were 19–39 years in 1968, fairly similar to that of Høeg, being 15–39 years in

1968. Only within our oldest age group did non-religious people report higher levels

of social support than the religious. Thus, we could presume that the higher scores

on social support by non-religious compared to religious people were mainly

evident for the baby boomers after the Second World War. Based on this finding it

may be that the perception of social support in this age-group was influenced by the

political and social conditions in their youth.

There were great variations in the associations of religiousness with social

support across age in our study. One possible reason for this may be due to higher

levels of anti-religiosity among young adults in 1968. One study examining anti-

religiosity in fourteen Western European countries including Norway found that the

older cohort (55 years and older in 2008) had significantly higher levels of anti-

religiosity compared to the younger generations in nations with low levels of church

attendance (Ribberink et al. 2013). The researchers explain this finding as a support

of the deprivatization hypothesis; a perspective focusing on the influence of religion

in defining the normal and the deviant. The younger generations thus differ from the

older generations in that they have grown up in a secular context, without having to

oppose against the influence of religious institutions in culture and politics

(Ribberink et al. 2013). Since our findings showed that the influence of religiousness

on social support differs among age-groups, increased anti-religiosity among the

non-religious in the older generation could be one factor causing differences

between the age groups on perceived social support.

Our findings showing a lack of associations between religiousness and social

support for the middle aged (40–59 years) could be due to the same reasons as our

findings for the oldest age group. Assuming that anti-religiousness is more prevalent

among the oldest age-group (Ribberink et al. 2013), the younger age-groups would

nevertheless socialize with peers being more accepting of religion, and where

religiousness is less deviant from the secular majority.

Within the youngest age-group (18–39 years), the results from this study showed

that religious men experienced more tangible and emotional support compared to

Rev Relig Res

123

non-religious men. For women, the pattern was opposite, at least for tangible

support showing a higher level for non-religious women. A great number of studies

find women to be more religious than men (Stark 2002; Freese 2004; Miller and

Hoffmann 1995; Batson et al. 1993; Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle 1997), and to

experience the greatest benefit to health compared to men, including longevity, self-

rated health, and happiness (Koenig et al. 1999; Oman et al. 2002; Ellison and Fan

2008; McCullough and Laurenceau 2005). However, other studies find the

association between religiousness and health to be stronger for men. For instance,

high levels of religious involvement were related to increased levels of self-esteem

and optimism, and decreased symptoms of depression for men, but not for women

(McFarland 2009). Furthermore, a Norwegian study supported the greater impor-

tance of religious practice for men compared to women. Sørensen and colleagues

examined the moderating role of church attendance on depression after the death of

a family member and reported that less frequent religious attendance for women as

opposed to more frequent religious attendance for men had strongest association to

less symptoms of depression (Sørensen et al. 2012b). Although we may not

determine any reasons for the gender differences, neither in the study by Sørensen

et al. (2012b) nor in the present study, it could be that religion has a particular

functional role for men. Contrary to men, women may experience emotional support

in a wider range of social contexts. Women tend to report more people in their

primary network, have greater satisfaction from their close relationships and have

more benefit of support from family and friends in terms of buffering the effects of

stress (Fuhrer and Stansfeld 2002; Walen and Lachman 2000). Following this,

women seem to have many sources to develop close emotional bonds to others

people, whereas men have fewer. Thus it would be particularly interesting to further

explore if religiousness could be a source of emotional bonds for men especially,

and to examine which mechanisms are involved in this relationship.

The Influence of View of Life Enrichment

Within the oldest age group, the higher level of affectionate support, positive social

interaction and tangible support perceived by non-religious people depended on

high view of life enrichment. Among those with high view of life enrichment, the

non-religious reported higher levels of social support than the religious people. This

is an important finding because it highlights a group of people with a high level of

importance of their beliefs, but without a religious content. Further studies should

first of all seek in-depth knowledge on what constitutes a non-religious view of life

causing high levels of enrichment. Knowing that the word religion in a Norwegian

context is associated with dogma, rituals and community, it is especially relevant to

determine if, and to what extent non-religious people relate to the transcendent by

their own definition or if any relationship to the transcendent is absent (Zahl and

Furman 2005). Interestingly, in regards to our findings, one study showed that being

confident in ones beliefs was a key factor related to well-being: When confidently

religious or non-religious people were compared to groups of agnostics or those

being unsure, the latter groups had significantly lower levels of well-being (Galen

and Kloet 2011). However, this finding is not fully consistent with the present study

Rev Relig Res

123

since religious people with high view of life enrichment reported the lowest level of

social support compared to all other groups in our study.

Therefore, it appears urgent to ask why religious people with high view of life

enrichment experience less social support than others. As argued above, it is

possible that the older cohorts in our study grew up in a period of time with more

anti-religious attitudes compared to later periods (Ribberink et al. 2013). Following

the deprivatization of religion in society with an opposition against religion in

culture and politics it is stressed that the process of an increased privatized form of

religion cannot be rejected (Roeland et al. 2011). Thus, older religious people with

high view of life enrichment may be experiencing both a rejection from the majority

at the societal level and a de-socialization/deprivation within the group of religious

people since religiousness is becoming increasingly privatized. Our findings show

that approximately half of the religious group never attends service. Following this,

it may be that a large proportion of people with a religious identity lack a

community where they can practice religion and share their beliefs. Thus, the older

religious cohorts with high view of life enrichment may be challenged by a more

pronounced anti-religiousness at the societal level, and combined with a more

privatized religiousness it may jeopardize important psychological functions of

religion—namely social support.

An increasingly privatized religiousness is challenging (Hunt 2003), which can

be illustrated through Saroglou’s (2011) four factor model of religiousness.

Religious beliefs, bonding, behaving and belonging vary across cultures and within

religions, denominations, and groups in terms of content and meaning. Regardless

of these variations, a functional equivalence of the dimensions is seen across

cultures and perceived as universal (Saroglou 2011). For instance, psychological

functions of belonging facilitate self-esteem and in-group identification. Collective

rituals may complement people’s psychological needs in terms of self-transcen-

dence, avoiding an isolation of the self (Saroglou 2011). Others have argued that

some level of interconnection between these four domains is especially beneficial;

both at the societal and individual levels (Hunt 2003; Okulicz-Kozaryn 2009;

Paloutzian and Janigian 1986). Thus lacking any of the four domains may create a

new challenge for institutions and communities to accommodate the needs of

personalized religiousness. For religious individuals to experience profoundly

meaningful interactions it may be important to share ones beliefs and practices with

someone who shares their view of life. Our findings that the oldest group of

religious individuals experience less social support than non-religious individuals

may be partly due to their lack of meaningful interactions with others. This is even

more pronounced for the religious individual with high levels of enrichment and

may be an expression of the significance of religion in a person’s life and the greater

need to have an interconnected religiousness, including somewhere to belong.

Strengths and Limitations

The strengths of our study are the general population-based sample data. The use of

population sample data is important to gauge the general magnitude of possible

Rev Relig Res

123

associations. The response rate of 22 % is low, and large proportions of nonresponse

may result in a biased sample. People may have different reasons for choosing not to

participate in a study, and the threats to a representative sample are jeopardized only

when the reasons for not participating becomes nonrandom. The present sample was

shown to be reasonable accurate compared to the population in representing groups

different in age, gender, level of education, and long-standing health problems. In

regards to religious affiliation and proportions of religious and non-religious

responders, the distribution in the sample and population was about the same. Also,

when comparing responders to non-responders there were no significant gender

differences, but the responders were significantly older than non-responders. The

age difference was however quite minimal with only 2 years in mean difference.

These shown similarities between the sample and the population, and between

responders and non-responders is an important strength of this study, especially in

regards to our low response rate. Both secular and religious individuals were

included in this study and compared on several well-known dimensions of social

support. Both of these aspects heighten the relevance of the study within the field

and stimulate to further investigations concerning different dimensions of social

support and view of life. Few studies explicitly compare secular and religious

individuals on social support in a secular general population context. This has

implications for the role of religiousness in association with several aspects of social

support in a wide context.

Some limitations of the study should be noted. We found that all dimensions of

social support had ceiling effects, meaning that the sample as a whole experienced

high levels of social support. Although there were statistically significant

differences between the groups, it is important to note that none of the groups

could be described as being low on social support. Furthermore, we used self-

categorization to group the participants as either religious or non-religious. When

doing so, it is difficult to determine what dimensions of view of life, religious or not,

specifically associate with social support. Finally, although random population

sampling has advantages, it may limit our possibilities to generalize our findings to

religious minorities in Norway. In an increasingly pluralistic society with different

religious denominations, practices and beliefs, the lack of minority perspectives are

important limitations to acknowledge.

Conclusion and Future Directions in Research

In general, findings from the present study highlight differences in the religion-

health association across demographic groups and across nations. Not only did our

findings challenge the findings of others on positive associations between

religiousness and social support—we found that age, gender and view of life

enrichment moderated this relationship as well. Older non-religious people reported

significantly higher levels of social support on all dimensions compared to older

religious people. For affectionate support, positive social interaction and tangible

support, the significantly higher levels of social support for older non-religious

people depended on high levels of view of life enrichment. Furthermore, younger

Rev Relig Res

123

religious men reported more emotional and tangible support than non-religious

men—with an opposite pattern on tangible support for women. We argue that these

findings could be due to both deprivatization and privatization of religion in society

and that gender differences for the younger group could be due to women

experiencing emotional support in a wide range of contexts opposed to fewer

contexts for men. Our findings add to empirical research on secular, atheistic and

non-religious people and call on further investigation of mechanisms between health

factors and also secular views of life.

The knowledge from the present study gains more insight into differences

between groups in regards to level of social support and may have practical

implications at the national, community and individual level. For instance, in order

to promote people’s health and well-being it is important to offer cultural facilities

that satisfy people’s needs according to their view of life. Furthermore, health- and

social workers and their clients may benefit from being aware that view of life, both

religious and non-religious may be important for some people as a resource to health

and well-being.

The present study contributes to existing literature by gaining knowledge of

religious and non-religious views of life in association to social support in a secular

context. However, in order to advance the study of functional roles of view of life in

relation to health factors and social support, it will be important to identify more

precisely what dimensions in the different views of life that may be more or less

beneficial. Furthermore, as perceived social support is found to be an important

mediating factor in the relationship between religiousness and health (Krause 2006;

Lim and Putnam 2010; Pirutinsky et al. 2011), further studies should investigate the

role of social support between different dimensions of view of life and health.

References

Argue, Amy, David R. Johnson, and Lynn K. White. 1999. Age and religiosity: Evidence from a three-

wave panel analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(3): 423–435.

Ayis, Salma, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, and Shah Ebrahim. 2003. Long-standing and limiting long-

standing illness in older people: Associations with chronic diseases, psychosocial and environmental

factors. Age and Ageing 32(3): 265–272. doi:10.1093/ageing/32.3.265.

Batson, Daniel C., Patricia Schoenrade, and W. Larry Ventis. 1993. Religion and the individual: A social-

psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin, and Michael Argyle. 1997. The psychology of religious behaviour, belief and

experience. London: Routledge.

Botvar, Pal Ketil. 2010. Endringer i nordmenns religiøse liv [Religiousness and change among

norwegians]. In Religion i dagens Norge: Mellom sekularisering og sakralisering [Religion in

today‘s Norway], ed. Pal Ketil Botvar, and Ulla Schmidt. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Cohen, Sheldon. 2004. Social relationships and health. American Psychologist 59(8): 676–684. doi:10.

1037/0003-066X.59.8.676.

Dalby, Padmaprabha. 2006. Is there a process of spiritual change or development associated with ageing?

A critical review of research. Aging & Mental Health 10(1): 4–12. doi:10.1080/

13607860500307969.

Diener, Ed, Louis Tay, and David G. Myers. 2011. The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy,

why are so many dropping out? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(6): 1278–1290.

doi:10.1037/a0024402.

Rev Relig Res

123

Edwards, Keith J. 1976. Sex-role behavior and religious experience. In Research in mental health and

religious behavior: An introduction to research in the integration of Christianity and the behavioral

Sciences, ed. William J. Donaldson, 224–238. Atlanta: Psychological Studies Institute.

Ellison, Christopher, and Daisy Fan. 2008. Daily spiritual experiences and psychological well-being

among US adults. Social Indicators Research 88(2): 247–271. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9187-2.

Ellison, Christopher G., and Linda K. George. 1994. Religious involvement, social ties, and social support

in a southeastern community. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 33(1): 46–61.

European Social Survey (ESS) Round 5 Data. 2010. Data file edition 3.0. Norwegian Social Science Data

Services, Norway—Data Archive and distributor of ESS data.

Eurostat. 2013. People having a long-standing illness or health problem, by sex, age and educational

attainment level (%) (2009). Retreived November 27, 2013 from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

nui/show.do.

Freese, Jeremy. 2004. Risk preferences and gender differences in religiousness: Evidence from the world

values survey. Review of Religious Research 46(1): 88–91.

Fuhrer, Rebecca, and Stephen A. Stansfeld. 2002. How gender affects patterns of social relations and their

impact on health: A comparison of one or multiple sources of support from ‘‘close persons’’. Social

Science and Medicine 54(5): 811–825.

Galen, Luke W., and James D. Kloet. 2011. Mental well-being in the religious and the non-religious:

Evidence for a curvilinear relationship. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 14(7): 673–689. doi:10.

1080/13674676.2010.510829.

Gallup. 10. Americans’ Church Attendance Inches Up in 10. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141044/

americans-church-attendance-inches-10.aspx. Retrieved December 12, 12.

George, Linda K., Christopher G. Ellison, and David B. Larson. 2002. Explaining the relationships

between religious involvement and health. Psychological Inquiry 13(3): 190–200. doi:10.1207/

s15327965pli1303_04.

Griep, Rosane Harter, Dora Chor, Eduardo Faerstein, Guilherme L. Werneck, and Claudia S. Lopes.

2005. Validade de constructo de escala de apoio social do Medical Outcomes Study adaptada para o

portugues no Estudo Pro-Saude. Cadernos de Saude Publica 21: 703–714.

Heelas, Paul, and Linda Woodhead. 2005. The spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to

spirituality. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

Hill, Peter C., and Ralph W. Hood. 1999. Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, Ala.: Religious Education

Press.

Hill, Terrence D., Amy M. Burdette, Mark Regnerus, and Ronald J. Angel. 2008. Religious involvement

and attitudes toward parenting among low-income urban women. Journal of Family Issues 29(7):

882–900. doi:10.1177/0192513x07311949.

Høeg, Ida Marie. 2010. Religiøs tradering [Religion and tradition]. In Religion i dagens Norge: Mellom

sekularisering og sakralisering [Religion in today‘s Norway], ed. Pal Ketil Botvar, and Ulla

Schmidt. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Horning, Sheila. M., Davis, Hasker. P., Stirrat, Michael., and Cornwell, R. Elisabeth. 2011. Atheistic,

agnostic, and religious older adults on well-being and coping behaviors. Journal of Aging Studies.

doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2010.08.022.

Hunt, Kate. 2003. Understanding the spirituality of people who do not go to church. In Predicting

religion: Christian, secular and alternative futures, ed. Paul Heelas, Grace Davie, and Linda

Woodhead, 159–169. Burlington: Ashgate publishing company.

ISSP (The International Social Survey Programme). 2008. Retrieved December 16, 2013 from http://

www.issp.org/.

Jeffner, Anders. 1982. Att studera livsaskadningar [To study view of life]. In Aktuella livsaskadningar del

1: Existantialism Marxism [Contemporary view of life part 1: Existentialism Marxism], ed. Carl R.

Brakenhielm, 11–21. [Lund]: Doxa.

King, Morton B., and Richard A. Hunt. 1972. Measuring the religious variable: Replication. Journal for

the Scientific Study of Religion 11(3): 240–251.

Koenig, Harold G., Judith C. Hays, David B. Larson, Linda K. George, Harvey J. Cohen, Michael E.

McCullough, Keith G. Meador, and Dan G. Blazer. 1999. Does religious attendance prolong

survival? A six-year follow-up study of 3,968 older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Medical

Sciences 54(7): M370–M376.

Koenig, Harold G., Dana E. King, and Verna B. Carson. 2012. Handbook of religion and health. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Rev Relig Res

123

Krause, Neal. 2002. Church-based social support and health in old age: Exploring variations by race. The

Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 57(6): 332–347.

doi:10.1093/geronb/57.6.S332.

Krause, Neal. 2006. Exploring the stress-buffering effects of church-based and secular social support on

self-rated health in late life. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and

Social Sciences 61(1): S35–S43.

Krokstad, Steinar, Roar Johnsen, and Steinar Westin. 2002. Social determinants of disability pension: A

10-year follow-up of 62 000 people in a Norwegian county population. International Journal of

Epidemiology 31(6): 1183–1191. doi:10.1093/ije/31.6.1183.

Lakey, Brian, and Edward Orehek. 2011. Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explain the link

between perceived social support and mental health. Psychological Review 118(3): 482–495.

Lim, Chaeyoon, and Robert D. Putnam. 2010. Religion, social networks, and life satisfaction. American

Sociological Review 75(6): 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.

Løhre, Audhild, Marit B. Rise, and Aslak Steinsbekk. 2012. Characteristics of visitors to practitioners of

homeopathy in a large adult Norwegian population (the HUNT 3 study). Homeopathy 101(3):

175–181. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2012.05.004.

McCullough, Michael E., and Jean-Philippe Laurenceau. 2005. Religiousness and the trajectory of self-

rated health across adulthood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(4): 560–573. doi:10.

1177/0146167204271657.

McFarland, Michael J. 2009. Religion and mental health among older adults: Do the effects of religious

involvement vary by gender? Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 65B(5):621–630.

Miller, Alan S., and John P. Hoffmann. 1995. Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in

religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34(1): 63–75.

OECD. OECD Factbook 2013: OECD Publishing.

Okulicz-Kozaryn, Adam. 2009. Religiosity and life satisfaction across nations. Mental Health, Religion &

Culture 13(2): 155–169. doi:10.1080/13674670903273801.

Oman, Dough, John H. Kurata, William J. Strawbridge, and Richard D. Cohen. 2002. Religious

attendance and cause of death over 31 years. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 32(1):

69–89.

Paloutzian, Raymond F., and Aris S. Janigian. 1986. Interrelationships between religiousness and

loneliness. The Psychotherapy Patient 2(3): 3–14. doi:10.1300/J358v02n03_02.

Pirutinsky, Steven, David Rosmarin, Cheryl Holt, Robert Feldman, Lee Caplan, Elizabeth Midlarsky, and

Kenneth Pargament. 2011. Does social support mediate the moderating effect of intrinsic religiosity

on the relationship between physical health and depressive symptoms among Jews? Journal of

Behavioral Medicine 34(6): 489–496. doi:10.1007/s10865-011-9325-9.

Ribberink, Egbert, Peter Achterberg, and Dick Houtman. 2013. Deprivatization of disbelief? Non-

religiosity and anti-religiosity in 14 Western European countries. Politics and Religion 6(01):

101–120. doi:10.1017/S1755048312000740.

Robitaille, Annie, Heather Orpana, and Cameron N. McIntosh. 2011. Psychometric properties, factorial

structure, and measurement invariance of the English and French versions of the Medical Outcomes

Study social support scale. Health reports/Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Health

Information [Rapports sur la sante/Statistique Canada, Centre canadien d’information sur la

sante] 22(2): 33–40.

Roeland, Johan H., Peter H. J. Achterberg, Dick Houtman, Stef D. Aupers, Willem de Koster, Peter

Mascini, and Jeroen van der Waal. 2011. Christian Religion in the West: Privatization or Public

Revitalization? Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion 2: 119–134.

Russell, Daniel W., and Carolyn E. Cutrona. 1991. Social support, stress, and depressive symptoms

among the elderly: Test of a process model. Psychology and Aging 6(2): 190–201.

Salsman, John M., Tamara L. Brown, Emily H. Brechting, and Charles R. Carlson. 2005. The link

between religion and spirituality and psychological adjustment: The mediating role of optimism and

social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(4): 522–535. doi:10.1177/

0146167204271563.

Saroglou, Vassilis. 2011. Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The big four religious dimensions

and cultural variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(8): 1320–1340. doi:10.1177/

0022022111412267.

Schnell, Tatjana, and J.F.Keenan William. 2011. Meaning-making in an atheist world. Archive for the

Psychology of Religion 33(1): 55–78. doi:10.1163/157361211x564611.

Rev Relig Res

123

Sherbourne, Cathy Donald, and Anita L. Stewart. 1991. The MOS social support survey. Social Science

and Medicine 32(6): 705–714. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-b.

Soares, Andrea, Irene Biasoli, Adriana Scheliga, Renata Baptista, Eloa Brabo, Jose Morais, Guilherme

Werneck, and Nelson Spector. 2011. Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Medical

Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey in Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors. Supportive Care in

Cancer, 1–6. doi:10.1007/s00520-011-1292-8.

Sørbye, Liv W., Sigrunn H. Sørbye, and Øystein Elgen. 2006. Religious faith, lifestyle and health—An

empirical study of the people in Oslo. Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 1: 31–47.

Sørensen, Torgeir, Lars Lien, Jostein Holmen, and Lars Johan Danbolt. 2011. Distribution and

understanding of items of religiousness in the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study, Norway. Mental

Health, Religion & Culture: 1–15. doi:10.1080/13674676.2011.604868.

Sørensen, Torgeir, Alv A. Dahl, Sophie D. Fossa, Jostein Holmen, Lars Lien, and Lars J. Danbolt. 2012a.

Is ‘Seeking God’s Help’ associated with life satisfaction and disease-specific quality of life in cancer

patients? The HUNT Study. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 34(2): 191–213. doi:10.1163/

15736121-12341237.

Sørensen, Torgeir, Lars J. Danbolt, Jostein Holmen, and Harold G. Koenig. 2012b. Do experience of

death in immediate family moderate the relationship between religious attendance and depression in

a population-based sample? The HUNT Study, Norway. Depression Research and Treatment,

special issue: Religious and Spiritual Factors in Depression, 7.

Stark, Rodney. 2002. Physiology and faith: Addressing the ‘‘Universal’’ gender difference in religious

commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41(3): 495–507.

Statistics Norway. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from http://www.ssb.no/english/.

Stavrova, Olga, Detlef Fetchenhauer, and Thomas Schlosser. 2013. Why are religious people happy? The

effect of the social norm of religiosity across countries. Social Science Research 42(1):90–105.

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.07.002.

Stifoss-Hanssen, Hans, and Kjell Kallenberg. 1998. Livssyn og helse. Oslo: Ad notam Gyldendal.

Strawbridge, William J., Sarah J. Shema, Richard D. Cohen, and George A. Kaplan. 2001. Religious

attendance increases survival by improving and maintaining good health behaviors, mental health,

and social relationships. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 23(1): 68–74. doi:10.1207/

s15324796abm2301_10.

Symister, Petra, and Ronald Friend. 2003. The influence of social support and problematic support on

optimism and depression in chronic illness: A prospective study evaluating self-esteem as a

mediator. Health Psychology 22(2): 123–129.

Szaflarski, Magdalena. 2001. Gender, self-reported health, and health-related lifestyles in Poland. Health

Care for Women International 22(3): 207–227. doi:10.1080/073993301300357160.

Walen, Heather R., and Margie E. Lachman. 2000. Social support and strain from partner, family, and

friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships 17(1): 5–30. doi:10.1177/0265407500171001.

Wink, Paul, and Michelle Dillon. 2002. Spiritual development across the adult life course: Findings from

a Longitudinal Study. Journal of Adult Development 9(1): 79–94.

Yu, Doris S.F., Diana T.F. Lee, and Jean Woo. 2004. Psychometric testing of the Chinese version of the

medical outcomes study social support survey (MOS-SSS-C). Research in Nursing & Health 27(2):

135–143. doi:10.1002/nur.20008.

Zahl, Mari-Anne, and Leola Dyrud Furman. 2005. Koblingen sosialt arbeid og religion/livssyn: Et

tilbakelagt stadium eller del av et helhetssyn? Social Work and religion/spirituality: A closed

chapter or part of a holistic perspective? Nordisk Sosialt Arbeid [Nordic Social Work] 25(2):

98–110.

Zuckerman, Phil. 2009. Atheism, secularity, and well-being: How the findings of social science counter

negative stereotypes and assumptions. Sociology Compass 3(6): 949–971. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.

2009.00247.x.

Rev Relig Res

123