THE INFLUENCE OF EXTRAVERSION, RELIGIOSITY, AND SPIRITUALITY

ON HEALTH BEHAVIORS

Elizabeth P. Jenkins

Thesis Prepared for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

May 2013

APPROVED:

Joseph W. Critelli, Major Professor

John Ruiz, Committee Member
Adriel Boals, Committee Member
Vicki Campbell, Chair of the
Department of Psychology
Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse
Graduate School
 UMI Number: 1524972

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 1524972
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Jenkins, Elizabeth P. The Influence of Extraversion, Religiosity, and Spirituality

on Health Behaviors. Master of Science (Psychology), May 2013, 75 pp., 15 tables, 1

illustration, references, 106 titles.

Religion and spirituality are thought to be of great importance for the meaning

and quality of life for many individuals, and research suggests that there may be

important health benefits associated with religion and spirituality. Religion and

spirituality should be related to health behaviors for a number of reasons. Health

behaviors are important contributors to an individual’s overall health, illness and

mortality. Major negative health behaviors related to health outcomes are smoking,

excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, risky driving, and high risk sexual behaviors.

Health behaviors may also be linked to personality traits. The key trait examined for this

study was extraversion. It includes adjectives such as being active, assertive, energetic,

outgoing, and talkative. In this thesis, I take several hypotheses and explore the

influence of extraversion, religiosity, and spirituality on health behaviors.

 Copyright 2013

by

Elizabeth P. Jenkins

ii
 THE INFLUENCE OF EXTRAVERSION, RELIGIOSITY, AND SPIRITUALITY ON

HEALTH BEHAVIORS

While religion and spirituality are distinctive in some ways, their similar

characteristics often make it difficult to separate these constructs. Religiosity, or the

extent to which a person is religious, is a more narrowly defined concept than

spirituality, as it refers to public behaviors usually manifested in a religious institution,

such as a church, mosque, or temple (Westgate, 1996). Johnstone (2004) defines

religiosity as a system of beliefs and practices by which a group of people interpret and

respond to what they feel is sacred and supernatural. Spirituality is a more broad

measure of faith. Gill et al. (2010) refer to it as “an awareness of a being or force that

transcends the material aspects of life and gives a deep sense of wholeness or

connectedness to the universe” (p. 293). It is a more private way of feeling one’s faith,

and is typically less publically expressed. Religious individuals are spiritual in a sense,

and spirituality can be religious or non-religious (Chandler, Holden & Kolander, 1992).

Two of the most pronounced similarities between religion and spirituality are the

shared belief in a higher power and prayer. Belief in a higher power is the most central

shared belief, but in religion that higher power is personified as God or as multiple gods.

The type of prayer may be traditional or more meditative in spirituality. “Meditative

prayer” is a term used to describe a style of praying where one feels the presence of

God, spends time thinking about God, and is overall reflective (Francis & Robbins,

2008). This is very similar to religious prayer, but not all meditation is directed at a

specific being.

The differences between religion and spirituality are what make some spiritual

1
individuals non- religious. One of the biggest overall separations between the two is the

general presence of order and rules that occur in religion, but not spirituality. Religion is

very organized, with scheduled meetings for worship, institutions for which to meet at

and rules or commandments to follow. Spiritual individuals typically do not practice their

beliefs at specific times, or participate in being spiritual with others, or follow any

specific rules. Organized religions also follow a set body of beliefs, while spiritualists

have no written guide to lead them in their faith. Spirituality lacks order, while

organization is fundamental to most religions.

Another difference includes the practices that religious individuals participate in

as opposed to those of non-religious spiritualists. Singing hymns, taking communion,

and saying aloud congregational prayers are only a few of the religious rituals. Without

an institution, other individuals to practice with, or regularly scheduled times for practice,

those who choose a spiritual, non-religious path have less opportunity to practice their

faith and perform specific rituals.

Correlations between religiosity and spirituality have not been analyzed using the

constructs as a whole, due to the varying definitions and understanding of each

concept. One study found through content analysis that religion and spirituality shared

nine common characteristics: experiences of connectedness or relationship, concern

with existential issues or questions, processes leading to increased connectedness,

attempts at or capacities for transcendence, behavioral responses to something sacred

or secular, beliefs in the sacred, transcendent, etc, systems of thought or sets of beliefs,

pleasurable states of being, and traditional institutional or organizational structures (Hill,

Pargament, Hood, McCullough, Swyers, Larson, & Zinnbauer, 2000). Additional studies

2
have noted these constructs as mutually distinct (Saroglou and Munoz-Garcia, 2008;

Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005; Miller, 1999). After reviewing these and other studies,

there is support for examining the constructs as separate belief systems.

Religiosity

The belief in an after-life is one of the defining characteristics of religion.

Religious behavior has been traced back to Neanderthal practices of burying their dead

with weapons, tools, and clothing. This shows that they were likely thinking about the

after-life and what lies beyond (Newberg, D’Aquili, and Rause, 2001). Another ancient

culture that showed signs of early religious behavior was the Egyptians. The Egyptians

saw death as a transitional stage in the progress to a better life in the next world.

Furniture, carved statues, games, food, and other items useful to the next life were

prepared to be buried with the mummy (St. Petersburg Times, 1999). A number of

studies have indicated that religiosity is related to belief in an afterlife (Dezutter,

Soenens, Luyckx, Bruyneel, Vansteenkiste, Duriez, & Hutsebaut, 2009). An extension

of this notion is that in a sample of Episcopal parishioners, belief in an afterlife was

negatively correlated with death anxiety (Harding, Flannelly, Weaver, & Costa, 2005).

Another defining characteristic of many religions is the following of a set body of

beliefs, presented in sacred texts such as the Bible, Koran, or Book of Mormon. The

texts contain facts or stories that the group has determined somewhat explain and

rationalize their beliefs and the authors of these books are generally held in high regard,

whether the groups believe their religious leader wrote them or another important leader

of their faith. In the end, the structure of religion allows for attempts at trying to answer

3
life’s difficult questions – why a death occurred, why a disease has developed, or other

negative events in individual’s lives (Johnstone, 2004).

Following a set body of beliefs leads to religious individuals using certain rituals

and practices to try and connect to the beliefs, such as participating in Bible study,

taking communion, or praying. Most religious prayer is ritualistic, reading from a book or

reciting a memorized prayer; petitionary prayer, asking for material items one may

desire; or colloquial-style prayer, thanking God for blessings and asking for forgiveness

(Francis, & Robbins, 2008).

A final characteristic of religion is having an institution to practice one’s faith at

and the rate of attendance at that place of worship. An institution aids the social support

function of religion, allowing for interaction with others in both spiritual/religious and

secular (nonspiritual) ways. Many people develop lasting friendships and personal

relationships through attending religious events, and this is likely due to the finding that

congregations and individuals who attend religious institutions are highly homogeneous

(Schwadel, 2005). It is also likely that churches, Temples, and other institutions provide

a foundation for reaching out to communities and helping others. When individuals

come together in one place to worship, rather than practicing individually, helping the

less fortunate becomes an easier and more frequent task.

Types of religiosity

Two major types of religious orientations have been identified, extrinsic and

intrinsic. Developed by Allport and Ross (1967), these types of religiosity are opposite

poles on a continuum. Extrinsic individuals “may find religion useful in a variety of ways,

to provide security and solace, sociability and distraction, or status and self-justification”

4
(p. 434). These extrinsic church-goers are usually high in ethnocentrism and

authoritarianism, and when turning to God they do not completely turn away from

themselves. They are also more likely to hold ethnic prejudices, especially if their

church attendance is irregular (Allport & Ross, 1967). Milevsky and Levitt (2004) note

that the extrinsically motivated person may use his or her religion, rather than truly

believe in it. They may be involved in religion for external reasons, such as social

desirability. Gordon, Frousakis, Dixon, Willett, Christman, Furr, and Hellmuth (2008)

also found that extrinsically oriented individuals are more likely to be swayed by social

pressures. Intrinsically motivated individuals, who are also more constant and devout in

their religion, are commonly less prejudiced. They find their master motive in religion.

Other needs, strong as they may be, are regarded as ultimately less significant (Allport

& Ross, 1967). It seems possible that the internalization of religious beliefs that occurs

within intrinsically-oriented individuals may lead them to engage in more positive health

behaviors. Intrinsically motivated faith is internalized, and lived out each day. By truly

believing that their bodies are God’s creation and the other teachings of their religion’s

sacred texts, individuals with an intrinsic religious orientation may be more likely to live

healthier lives. For example, religions of Christianity and Judaism believe that humans

were created in God’s image, and that one should “glorify God in your body,” (New

Revised Standard Version Holy Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:20).

Spirituality

Characteristics of spirituality are more difficult to define, as it is a highly personal

experience. This has led to the development of a term used by researchers to define

5
and measure spirituality: spiritual wellness. Spiritual wellness is a “continuing search for

purpose and meaning in life and an appreciation for the depth of life, expanse of the

universe, and natural forces” (Gill, Barrio Minton & Myers, 2010, p. 293). It is separate

from only being spiritual in that it includes the physical, biological components of being

human rather than only emotional or mental. Spiritual wellness does not only refer to the

positive aspects of health, but both positive and negative health behaviors (overall

health).

Spiritual wellness has been further dissected into four main categories – meaning

and purpose, intrinsic values, transcendent beliefs/experiences, and

community/relationships. Intrinsic values refer to a personal belief system. These values

may be provided through a set body of religious beliefs or developed personally by

spiritual, non-religious individuals. Transcendent beliefs and experiences is belief in a

force behind the universe, something beyond natural and rational, or commitment to a

higher power. The sense of community and relationships has been defined as a sense

of selflessness, willingness to help others, increased love, or your relationship with

yourself, others, and the infinite (Westgate, 1996). Spiritual wellness components such

as community/relationships and transcendent beliefs/experiences were included in the

measurement of spirituality for the present study.

Piedmont (1999) notes other components that describe spirituality. These include

tolerance of paradoxes, or the ability to live with inconsistencies; nonjudgmentality, or

an ability to accept others on their own terms, and be sensitive to the needs of others;

existentiality, or a desire to live in the moment; and finally, gratefulness, an “innate

6
sense of wonder and thankfulness for all the many shared and unique features of one’s

life” (p. 989).

Health Behaviors

Health behaviors are important contributors to an individual’s overall health,

illness and mortality. Major negative health behaviors related to health outcomes are

smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, risky driving, and high risk sexual

behaviors. Cigarette smoking and excessive alcohol consumption have both been found

to be significant predictors of premature mortality (Friedman, Tucker, Schwartz,

Tomlinson-Keasey, Martin, Wingard & Criqui, 1995). In regards to obesity, Desai, Miller,

Staples, and Bravender (2008) noted that from 1976 to 2004, “the prevalence of

overweight and obesity among adults aged 20 to 74 years increased from 47% to 66%”

(p. 109). They found that physical inactivity was associated with increased rates of

being overweight and obese in college students, and obesity can be a determining

factor in heart disease and death (Dhaliwal & Welborn, 2009). College students are also

highly likely to have multiple sex partners, and they represent almost 50% of all new STI

(sexually transmitted infections) diagnoses (Quinn & Fromme, 2010). STIs can increase

the likelihood of contracting HIV, a non-curable disease that continually weakens the

immune system (AIDS Healthcare Foundation, 2008). Risky driving behaviors via

speeding, cell phone usage, or alcohol intoxication are also prevalent during one’s 20s,

especially among males (Begg and Langley, 2001). In a study by Constant, Salmi,

Lafont, Chiron, and Lagarde (2009), reduced cell phone usage and speeding were both

associated with a decrease in injury rates from road traffic collisions.

7
 Positive health behaviors related to health outcomes include exercising,

preventative medical screenings, proper nutrition, and general adherence to medical

recommendations. Physical activity has been shown to help survival after weight loss in

overweight and obese individuals (Ostergaard, Gronbeaek, Schnohr, Sorensen &

Heitmann, 2010). It also has been shown to be inversely related to mortality in women

(Rockhill, Willett, Manson, Leitzmann, Stampfer, Hunter, & Colditz, 2001). According to

the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (2012), males who are better able to work and communicate with their

doctors have better health results. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

(2011) also states that preventative care helps patients to maintain their health and

receive services customized for them.

Personality

One of the most well-researched models of personality is the five-factor model

(FFM). Five personality dimensions are included: extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. The key dimension for this study was

extraversion, or surgency. It includes adjectives such as being active, assertive,

energetic, outgoing, and talkative. Extraversion is typically thought to be on a

continuum, with its opposite descriptor, introversion. All of the five factors have been

shown to have convergent and discriminant validity across multiple instruments

(McCrae & John, 1992). Personality has a strong genetic component (Penke, Denissen

& Miller, 2007), tends to develop through adolescence and into adulthood (Branje, Van

8
Lieshout,& Gerris, 2007), and the FFM has been shown to be stable over time with

adults (McCrae & John, 1992).

Religion, Spirituality and Health Behaviors

Religion and spirituality are thought to be of great importance for the meaning

and quality of life for many individuals, and research suggests that there may be

important health benefits associated with religion and spirituality. Religion and

Spirituality should be related to health behaviors for a number of reasons. A study by

Park (2007) summarized the main characteristics of each construct that have the most

influence in health outcomes. The first characteristic is meaning in life. With perceived

meaning and purpose to one’s life comes motivation to maintain physical health. The

second characteristic is social support, mainly provided by religious institutions. These

religious/spiritual meeting places allow for consistent, prolonged and intimate contact

with other individuals who possess similar characteristics. For example, social support

has been shown to reduce stress (Ensel & Lin, 1991). The next central component Park

recognizes as important to health outcomes is body sanctification. Many religions

advise treating the body as sacred, which carries implications of avoiding sexual

promiscuity and alcohol or drug abuse. The final characteristic is the perceived locus of

control over one’s health, which is the extent to which individuals believe their health is

a result of their own actions, some outside force/God, or a combination of both, as

opposed to behavior that occurs randomly by fate which is outside of any systematic

control.

9
 Religion, Health Outcomes and Health Behaviors

Repetitive rhythmic stimulations, such as saying congregational prayers in

church or singing hymns, can drive the limbic and autonomic systems. Participating in

spiritual/religious behaviors also lowers blood pressure, decreases the heart rate, and

helps keep the immune system functioning (Newberg, D’Aquili & Rause, 2001). Other

studies have shown that participation in religion, a belief in God, attending church

regularly, and engaging in Bible study are all associated with reduced rates of suicide,

death from heart disease and depressive symptoms, along with higher levels of overall

well-being (Levin, 1996; McCllough, 1995). Participation in religion has also been found

to increase longevity, especially in elderly participants (Koenig, Hays, Larson, George,

Cohen, McCllough, Meador, & Blazer, 1999).

In regards to health behaviors, a study conducted using data from the National

Center for Health Statistics found that a higher frequency of religious service attendance

was associated with being less likely to smoke (Gillum & Dupree, 2007). Another study

conducted in Mexico found that attending religious services and participating in religious

activities organized by the church increase preventative screening utilization

(Benjamins, 2007). Finally, a recent finding in the past year was that an extrinsic

religious orientation, as opposed to an intrinsic orientation, predicted poorer health

responsibility and nutrition (Homan & Boytatzis, 2010).

Spirituality and Health Behaviors

A study by Park, Edmondson, Hale-Smith, and Blank (2009) found that daily

spiritual experiences (perception of or interaction with a higher power, or God) were

10
related to better nutrition and exercise in cancer survivors, as well as greater adherence

to advice from a physician. Another study found that high levels of spirituality (upper

30% of the sample) were related to exercising more often and increased physical

activity overall in college students (Nagel & Sgoutas-Emch, 2007). These studies were

conducted with healthy samples. A large number of studies examining relationships

between spirituality and health behaviors have been conducted with patient samples,

individuals who have HIV/AIDS, or mental illnesses (Nichols & Hunt, 2011; Kudel,

Cotton, Szaflarski, Holmes & Tsevat, 2011; Danbolt, Moller, Lien & Hestad, 2011). The

patient sample studies found positive benefits to utilizing spirituality as a method of

treatment, such as increased social support and more positive moods.

Personality and Health Behaviors

Certain personality traits have been linked to risky health behaviors, especially

the personality trait of extraversion. Individuals high in extraversion are more likely to

engage in risky health behaviors than other personality types. These behaviors include

smoking, abuse of drugs and alcohol, drunk driving, and risky sexual behaviors (Vollrath

& Torgersen, 2008). Another study conducted with a sample of college students found

that those students at the highest levels of extraversion were more likely to smoke,

binge drink, and engage in risky sexual behaviors than individuals with any other Big

Five personality trait (Raynor & Levine, 2009). Hong and Paunonen (2009) also found

that extraversion was associated with alcohol abuse.

11
 Research Questions and Hypotheses

Central research question: Does religiosity or spirituality contribute more to

health behaviors?

A central research question of whether religion or spirituality contributes more to

health behaviors was examined. Many studies have investigated the combined effects

of religion and spirituality as one construct on health, or only examined one of the

constructs (Rippentrop, Altmaier, Chen, Found, & Keffala, 2005; Powell, Shahabi, &

Thoresen, 2003; Rosmarin, Pargament, & Flannelly, 2009; Masters, 2008). Studies

conducted on the influence of religion on health have found a majority of positive

results (Krause, 2011; Maltby, Lewis, Freeman, Day, Cruise, & Breslin, 2010; Seybold

& Hill, 2001). The same has been found for spirituality (Nelms, Hutchins, Hutchins, &

Pursley, 2007; Wang, Chan, Ng, & Ho, 2008), but which construct contributes more to

positive health? The present study will compare religion and spirituality as separate

constructs in an attempt to answer this question.

Hypothesis 1: Extraversion will be positively correlated with religiosity and

negatively correlated with spirituality.

The first hypothesis is that extraversion will be positively correlated with

religiosity and negatively correlated with spirituality. Since social support is a main

difference between religion and spirituality, and extraverts are more drawn to social

interactions, they may also be more likely to follow a religious path. The few studies

that have been conducted in this area have produced what appear to be inconsistent

findings. Chlewinski (1981) found that in regards to religious and atheist individuals,

those who were religious were more introverted. Francis and Bourke (2003) also found

12
that a positive attitude towards Christianity was associated with introversion. However

other studies found extraversion to be positively related to both spirituality (Maltby &

Day, 2001) and religiosity (Saroglou, 2002). Examining these relationships through the

use of measures that more clearly differentiate between spirituality and religiosity will

be helpful in both clarifying these discrepancies and extending current

conceptualizations of extraversion.

Hypothesis 2: Intrinsic religious orientation will be positively correlated with

spirituality.

The second hypothesis is that spirituality will be positively correlated with intrinsic

religious orientation and therefore negatively correlated with extrinsic religious

orientation. Both spirituality and intrinsic religious orientations are held in a more

personal sense than extrinsic religious orientations. Berkel, Armstrong, and Cokley

(2004) found that individuals with more intrinsic religious beliefs scored higher on a

spiritual beliefs scale. Although not directly relevant, another study found that both

intrinsic religious orientation and high spiritual well-being predicted low levels of anxiety

(Davis, Kerr & Kurpius, 2003). Both of these studies were conducted with young adults

less than thirty years of age and both used a religious orientation scale based on

Allport and Ross (1967). Their spirituality measures however, differed. A clearer

understanding of this relationship may result from using a measure of spirituality not

used before with these constructs, as well as using an older sample of adults.

No specific hypothesis will be made with regard to the correlation between religiosity

and extrinsic religious orientation due to a relative lack of research and theory

comparing these two constructs, although this relationship will be examined.

13
 Hypothesis 3: Extraversion will be associated with religious orientation and be
positively correlated with extrinsic religious orientation.

The third hypothesis is that extraversion will be positively correlated with extrinsic

religious orientation. Religious orientation has been linked to individual prejudices,

sociability, and overall internalization of religious beliefs (Allport & Ross, 1967; Milevsky

& Levitt, 2004; Gordon, Frousakis, Dixon, Willett, Christman, Furr, & Hellmuth, 2008).

Only a few studies have examined the relationship between personality and religious

orientation. One conducted by Ross and Francis (2010) found that intrinsic religious

orientation scores were higher among extraverts than introverts for a Christian adult

sample. This seems counter-intuitive, as I would expect extrinsically-oriented individuals

to be more extraverted due to both constructs having the similar characteristic of high

sociability. Francis, Robbins, and Murray (2010) found that extraverts had higher scores

than introverts on extrinsic religiosity, while introverts had higher scores than extraverts

on intrinsic religiosity in an Anglican adult sample. An additional meta-analysis by

Saroglou (2002) found extraversion to be weakly associated with religiosity. By using

different personality and religious orientation measures, as well as participants of

various religions, more exploration into this relationship could help to resolve the

obvious discrepancies in previous research. The relationship of these variables could

also be influential for health outcomes.

Hypothesis 4: Intrinsic religious orientation will be positively correlated with

positive health behaviors.

The fourth hypothesis is that intrinsic religious orientation will be positively

correlated with positive health behaviors. No specific hypothesis will be made in

14
regards to extrinsic orientation and negative health behaviors, although this will be

examined. Intrinsic religious orientation has been associated with better mental health

and increased sense of well-being, whereas extrinsically-oriented individuals were

more likely to have depression and anxiety (Homan & Boyatzis, 2010). Another study

found that intrinsic types were more likely to have low body mass indexes and less

likely to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol (Masters & Knestel, 2011). While both of these

studies point to more positive health for individuals with intrinsic religious orientations,

they did not concentrate on college students and they examined only two specific

negative health behaviors. The present study will involve college students and provide

a more comprehensive set of measures of health behaviors.

Hypothesis 5: Spirituality and religiosity act as moderators between extraversion

and negative health behaviors.

The final hypothesis is that spirituality acts as a moderator between extraversion

and negative health behaviors, such that spiritual extraverts will show fewer negative

health behaviors than extraverts who are not spiritual. The same hypothesis will be

tested for religiosity as a moderator. Research has found that extraverts are more likely

than introverts to partake in negative health behaviors (Vollrath & Torgersen, 2008;

Raynor & Levine, 2009; Hong & Paunonen, 2009). Previous research has also found

that participating in religious acts can reduce negative health behaviors (Gillum &

Dupree, 2007; Benjamins, 2007). These studies were not focused on college samples,

using data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and a middle-

aged/older adult sample from Mexico. Research has yet to examine the possibility of a

moderating effect between these variables. The present study will include college

15
students, view religion and spirituality separately, and observe eight negative health

behaviors.

Method

Participants

College student participants were recruited through the University of North

Texas’ SONA system, which allows students to volunteer for research studies online.

The students received extra credit or credit towards a course for their participation. A

community sample was recruited via the social media website Facebook. A link to

Survey Monkey was posted on individual statuses and various spiritual, religious,

atheist, and agnostic groups. Examples of these groups included Spirituality &

Metaphysical, Atheist and Proud!, Agnostic, and The United Methodist Church. Each of

these groups (and many others) has at least 8,000 members and active posts each

week, if not each day. The student sample consisted of 207 participants and the

community sample consisted of 120 participants. Information was collected regarding

participants’ gender, age, race/ethnicity, education level and income/parental income.

See Table 2 for additional demographic information.

Measures

• Religiosity Index. As part of the ASPIRES (Assessment of Spirituality and

Religious Sentiments) measure, the Religiosity Index, or RI, was developed by

Piedmont in 2001. Participants rate the frequency of their religious behaviors - how

often they read the holy books, pray, and attend religious services – by responding to

16
12 items. Examples of the items include “How often do you read the

Bible/Torah/Koran/Geeta,” “How frequently do you attend religious services,” and “How

often do you pray.” The Religiosity Index has been found to have an internal

consistency of .77 (Piedmont, 2009). This scale has been used to predict religiosity in

Filipino, Sri Lankian, and American samples and has been shown to be

psychometrically sound (Dy-Liacco, Piedmont, Murray-Swank, Rodgerson, and

Sherman, 2009; Piedmont, Werdel, and Fernando, 2009; Piedmont, Ciarrochi, Dy-

Liacco and Williams, 2009). The measure reflects important behavioral characteristics

of religion that separate it from spirituality. The coefficient alpha found for the present

study was .82.

• Religious Orientation Scale - Revised. The original measure was developed

by Allport and Ross (1967) and revised by Gorsuch and McPherson (1989). The

Religious Orientation Scale – Revised has 14 items and it separates intrinsically and

extrinsically worded items on a 5-point Likert scale (8 intrinsic, 6 extrinsic). Examples of

items from this scale include, “I enjoy reading about my religion,” and “I go to church

mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there.” This measure has been used in

studies predicting religiosity in older adults (Homan and Boyatzis, 2010), religious

orientation in United Kingdom adults (Lewis, Maltby, and Day, 2005), as well as other

constructs. Reliability for the Intrinsic subscale is .83, while the Extrinsic scale reports a

lower internal consistency of .65. The coefficient alpha found for the present study was

.83. The scale is scored as one continuous scale rather than separate subscales.

• Spirituality Assessment Scale. The Spirituality Assessment Scale, or SAS,

developed by Howden in 1992 and was used to assess spirituality. Similar to

17
Westgate’s spiritual wellness model, this test includes 28 questions and four subscales

similar to the components of spiritual wellness described earlier. The subscales include

Purpose and Meaning in Life, Transcendence, Unifying Interconnectedness, and Inner

Resources. Examples of the items include, “I feel a connection to all of life,” “I can go to

a spiritual dimension within myself for guidance,” and “There is fulfillment in my life.”

The measure employs a 6-point response format ranging from strongly disagree to

strongly agree, with no neutral option (Howden, 1993).This instrument has been shown

to have strong discriminant validity, as there was no statistically significant relationship

between the factors of spirituality and attendance at religious events. With an emphasis

on attitudes and beliefs, the SAS may be able to distinguish between religiosity and

spirituality (Gill et al., 2010). Reliability for the Spirituality Assessment Scale is high at

.92. The four subscales were found to have acceptably high internal consistency: 1.

Purpose and Meaning in Life (4 items), alpha=.91; 2. Innerness or Inner Resources (9

items), alpha=.79; 3. Unifying Interconnectedness (9 items), alpha=.80; 4.

Transcendence (6 items), alpha=.71 (Howden, 1993). The coefficient alpha found for

the present study was .90. The scale also does not include items on health, so as not to

overlap with additional health measures.

• Big Five Inventory. The Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) is

a 44-item measure of personality reflective of the Big Five dimensions (extraversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness). Items are rated on a 5-

point Likert scale and include asking if the participant “is reserved,” “tends to be

disorganized,” or “prefers work that is routine.” Test-retest reliability has been found to

be .84 (Rammstedt & John, 2007) and each subscale has found alpha coefficients of

18
.75 or above (Robie, Komar, & Brown, 2010). The coefficient alpha found for the present

study was .84. The measure has been used in studies predicting aspects of narcissism,

effects of coaching and speeding on Big Five traits, Facebook usage, and many other

constructs (Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011; Robie, Komar, & Brown, 2010; Ryan, &

Xenos, 2011). The BFI has been found to have strong convergence with the NEO PI-R

(.72-1.00) (Soto & John, 2009). The same 2009 study found that each BFI facet scale

correlated more with the corresponding NEO PI-R facet (.44-.48) than other NEO PI-R

facets.

• The Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II. Developed by Walker, Sechrist, and

Pender, (1987) this questionnaire has 52 health-promoting behaviors categorized into

six categories: health responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual growth,

interpersonal relations, and stress management. The responses to the questionnaire

items are on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from never (N) to routinely (R). Cronbach's

alpha for the total scale has been reported as .94 by the authors, and the subscale

alphas range from .79-.87. Construct validity is reported at .68 and test-retest reliability

for the total scale is .89. Only three of the subscales were used, for a total of 26 items –

health responsibility, physical activity, and nutrition. Examples of items on these

subscales include, “choose a diet low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol,” “report any

unusual signs or symptoms to a physician or other health professional,” and “follow a

planned exercise program.” The coefficient alpha found for the present study was .92

for the three subscales utilized. The HPLP II has been widely used in studies examining

health behaviors across various ages, ethnicities, and religions (Homan & Boyatzis,

2010; Nagel & Sgoutas-Emch, 2007; Al-Kandari, Vidal & Thomas, 2008).

19
 • Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. The YRBSS questionnaire

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011) is a public domain collection of

items originally designed for high school-aged students. Eighty-six items are divided into

10 categories of health behaviors, including safety, violence/bullying, suicide, tobacco

use, alcohol consumption, drug use, risky sexual behaviors, obesity, food consumption,

and physical activity. Only eight of the categories were used for this study – safety,

violence/bullying, suicide, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, drug use, risky sexual

behaviors, and obesity - as these are more negative behaviors not covered by the

HPLP II. Examples of the items include, “during the past 30 days, how many times did

you drive a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol,” “during the past

30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes,” “how old were you when you

had your first drink of alcohol other than a few sips,” “during your life, with how many

people have you had sexual intercourse,” and “how do you describe your weight?”

These eight categories were further reduced to 18 items, as stated in the results.

Several of the YRBSS subscales have found good reliability ranging from .73-.79 for the

risky sexual behaviors, alcohol consumption, and tobacco use subscales (Miller and

Quick, 2010). Test-retest reliability has been found to be less than .61 (Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). The coefficient alpha found for the final 18

items utilized in present study was .85. The scale is widely used (Santelli, Robin, Brener

& Lowry, 2001; Everett Jones, Anderson, Lowry & Conner, 2011; Burstein, Lowry, Klein

& Santelli, 2003).

20
 Results

The total number of participants was 327. Community members totaled 120 and

UNT students were the remaining 207. The samples were compared on the variables of

religiosity and spirituality to determine if separate analyses should be conducted.

Independent samples t-tests revealed that the subsamples were significantly different

on the variables of religiosity (t(325) = 2.22, p = .027) and spirituality (t(325) = 3.04, p =

.003), with the community sample reporting higher levels of spirituality and religiosity. As

these are two of the main variables of concern within this study, the subsamples were

analyzed separately.

Missing Data

Missing data values analysis indicated that of the 327 cases, 36% contained at

least 1 missing value on one or more of the variables. The spirituality variable had the

most missing data with 11.6% of the cases missing at least one value. This may reflect

the difficult nature of answering spiritual questions which are ambiguous in nature and

require introspection. The data were treated as missing at random (MAR), with no

pattern to the missing values as indicated by visual inspection of graphs created in

SPSS. Random recursive partitioning (RRP) was utilized to replace missing values. This

technique is considered the best to use with data that contains both categorical and

continuous values (Strobl, Malley & Tutz, 2009). Based on the concept of “nearest

neighbor,” RRP compared cases with the most similar means on each variable to

replace missing data. For example, within the variable of spirituality, the first step of

RRP created two groups of cases that contained relatively similar responses (means) of

21
spirituality. From each of those groups two new groups were formed. The partitioning

continued, and stoped when all of the groups were as homogeneous as possible in

terms of their spirituality means. The means of the subsamples’ spirituality scores were

almost, if not exactly identical. Cases within these groups were now believed to be

“equal” and the means were used to replace missing data within that variable (Porro &

Iacus, 2009). See Figure 1 for an example of RRP.

Figure 1. Random recursive partitioning. Groups continue to reduce until group

averages are as similar as possible.

Creating Variables

To create separate and comprehensive negative and positive health behavior

variables, a factor analysis was conducted over 18 negative health items and 23

positive health items. The negative health items emphasized drug use and alcohol

consumption. Two factors were extracted and the items loaded onto the two factors as

expected, with one representing negative health behaviors and the other positive health

22
behaviors. Factor/composite scores were generated and used for remaining analyses in

place of the raw scores. Utilizing the factor/composite scores allowed for each variable

to not equally contribute to the composite score (as simply finding the mean would

assume all variables are equally contributing to the composite score). This is more

reflective of how variables truly act (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). A varimax rotation was

conducted due to the low correlation of the health behavior items. The Bartlett’s test of

sphericity was significant (χ2 (820) = 5357.45, p < .01). Factor 1 (negative health

behaviors) accounted for 19.80% of the variance and factor 2 (positive health

behaviors) accounted for 12.02%. Table 1 shows the factor loadings for all 41 items.

Table 1

Factor Loadings for Negative and Positive Health Behaviors

Factor 1 Factor 2
(Negative Health) (Positive Health)
LifeUse_Cocaine .736
LifeUse_Meth .725
LifeUse_Ecstasy .722
LifeUse_Needle .654
LifeUse_Heroin .649
LifeUse_Prescription .583
LifeUse_Marajuana .563
LifeUse_Steroids .562
Number_Cigarettes .558
LifeUse_Inhalents .543
Days_Smoked .516
Cigars .465
ChewTobacco_Sniff_Dip .440
Days_5ormore_Alcohol .388
Driver_Alcohol .360
MonthDays_One_Alcohol .285
Seat_Belt_Other_Driver .210
Passenger_Driver_Alcohol .190
Ask_For_Info .730
Discuss_Health_Doctors .670
Low_Fat_Diet .652
(table continues)

23
Table 1 (continued).

Factor 1 Factor 2
(Negative Health) (Positive Health)
Question_Doctor_to_Understand .622
Limit_Sugar .593
Target_Heart_Rate .589
Health_TV .587
Second_Opinion .581
GoTo_Doctor .570
Light_Moderate_Activity .568
Exercise_20min_3xday .563
Exercise_Program .563
Stretch_3xperWeek .562
Read_Labels .553
Recreational_Physical_Activities .530
Inspect_Body_Changes .526
Seek_Counseling .517
Educational_Health_Programs .485
Exercise_Daily_Casual .442
Eat_Breakfast .417
Servings_Dairy .401
Servings_Meat .397
Servings_Rice_Pasta .246

A new variable was also created for intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations.

In following the suggested scoring system by developers of the measure Gorsuch and

McPherson (1989), a cut-off score of 3 indicated that those who reported an average

response of 4 or 5 on either the intrinsic or extrinsic items were significantly oriented on

that scale. This scoring system may be based on the assumption that individuals above

the cutoff are participating in religious behaviors, while those who are not are relatively

non-religious (Lewis & Maltby, 1996). This dichotomous scoring however does not

follow traditional thought of religious orientation as a continuum with two opposite poles

(Allport & Ross, 1967). Additional studies utilizing this measure have altered the scoring

system (Lewis & Maltby, 1996; Jurkovic & Walker, 2006) to a 3-point continuous scale,

with a score of 1 indicating disagreement, 2 as neutral, and 3 as agreement with each

24
item. Similar to these studies, responses for the present study were re-scored as a

continuous scale of 1-5, rather than utilizing the cut-off score. Scores of 1-2

(disagreement with most items on the measure) represented an extrinsic orientation and

scores of 4-5 (agreement with most items) represented an intrinsic orientation. Scores

of 3 were considered neutral. The re-scoring of responses led to 71 participants who

reported an extrinsic orientation and 68 participants who reported an intrinsic

orientation.

Lastly, two demographic variables were coded. Gender was coded as 0 = male,

1 = female and ethnicity was dummy coded with 1= the reference group, 0 =

comparative group (Caucasian). This resulted in 4 ethnicity groups: African-American,

Asian, Hispanic, and other.

Outliers

Variables were next screened for outliers. Outlying cases were observed on the

variables of spirituality and negative health behaviors. Examination of the scatterplots

and studentized deleted residuals (SDR) indicated that these variables had 8 outlying

cases – 7 on negative health behaviors and 1 on spirituality. Studentized residuals are

calculated by obtaining the differences between predicted regression line values and

the actual values for a given case. They account for the influence of error in values

which are farther away from the mean of the given variable. Studentized deleted

residual values are calculated for each case when that case is removed from the

analysis – a new predicted regression line value is created without a given case. A

regression analysis with SDR takes into account the influence of each case (Brannick,

25
2007). As suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), SDR values greater than +/- 3.29

were considered outliers. These authors also suggest that the raw scores of these

values be altered so that they are 1 unit larger than the next most extreme score in

keeping with the ordinal ranking of the values. While this procedure did reduce the

outlier in Spirituality, it did not reduce the outliers on Negative Health Behaviors. The

next most extreme scores within the Negative Health Behaviors variable were used until

altering values to the fifth most extreme score (1.97) reduced all outliers. After raw

scores were adjusted to one unit larger than this value, all SDR values fell below 3.29.

In all, 11 negative health raw values were altered so that the original 7 could fit within an

acceptable standard deviation range.

Demographics

Demographic information was examined for the 2 samples. The student sample

was predominately female (72%) with a mean age of 22.4. This sample contained a

majority of Caucasian ethnicities (57%) and naturally had a majority with some college

education (82%). The community sample reported similar findings to the UNT student

sample on all demographic variables except for an older average age of 30.7, an

absence of African-American individuals, more post-bachelor education, and higher

reported income. Additional demographic information can be found in Table 2, and

Table 3 shows descriptive information for each of the major variables within each

sample.

26
Table 2

Demographic Information

UNT Students Community Sample

(n = 207) (n = 120)
M 22.4 30.7
Age
SD 6.6 11.6
Freq % Freq %
Male 58 28.0 47 39.2
Gender
Female 149 72.0 73 60.8
Caucasian 118 57.0 104 86.7
African-American 25 12.1 -- --
Ethnicity Asian-American 23 11.1 6 5.0
Hispanic 36 17.4 6 5.0
Other 5 2.4 4 3.2
No HS 1 0.5 2 1.7
GED 4 1.9 4 3.3
Some College 169 81.6 36 30.0
Associates 18 8.7 6 5.0
Education
Bachelors 13 6.3 38 31.7
Some Grad -- -- 13 10.8
Masters 2 1.0 18 15.0
Doctorate -- -- 3 2.5
Less than $12,000 49 23.7 10 8.3
$12,000 to $29,999 34 16.4 21 17.5
$30,000 to $49,999 32 15.5 29 24.2
Income
$50,000 to $69,999 26 12.6 15 12.5
$70,000 to $89,999 14 6.8 16 13.3
More than $90,000 52 25.1 29 24.2
Yes 15 7.2 10 8.3
Greek
No 192 92.8 110 91.7

27
Table 3

Descriptive Information for Major Variables

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

M SD Range M SD Range

Religiosity 3.76 1.12 2-6* 4.05 1.16 2-6*

Religious
2.91 0.63 1-4* 2.96 0.69 1-5*
Orientation

Spirituality 126.12 16.24 78-164** 131.76 16.04 87-163**

Extraversion 3.20 0.75 1-5* 3.32 0.83 1-5*

Positive
Health -0.11 0.95 -2.10-3.04 0.20 0.93 -2.02-3.07
Behaviors
Negative
Health -0.09 0.64 -0.55-2.07 -0.01 0.71 -.55-2.08
Behaviors

Note. *This variable was scored as an average of all items **This variable was scored as a sum of all
items.

Power Analysis

Guidelines suggested by Cohen (1988) were used to conduct a power analysis

using G*Power 3.1.3. Power for a correlation attempting to detect a moderate effect size

was .99 within the community sample and .93 within the UNT sample. For a small effect

size, achieved power was .30 for the community sample and .19 for the UNT sample.

When accounting for the demographic variables within each analysis, power suggested

for multiple regression analyses using 10 predictors to detect a moderate effect size

was .98 within the community sample and .81 within the UNT sample. To detect a small

effect size, achieved power was .21 for the community sample and .13 for the UNT

28
sample. The present study’s power was considered low but acceptable for all correlation

and regression analyses.

Correlations

A correlation matrix was constructed to examine the relationships among the

major variables of interest within each sample. Within the student sample Spirituality

was correlated with Extraversion (r = .363, p < .001), Religiosity (r = .361, p < .001),

Positive Health Behaviors (r = .240, p < .001), and Religious Orientation (r = .304, p <

.001). A strong correlation occurred between Religiosity and Religious orientation (r =

.707, p < .001), indicating that intrinsically oriented individuals tended to be more

religious. Negative Health Behaviors did not hold significant correlations with any of the

major variables while Positive Health Behaviors were correlated with Spirituality (r =

.240, p < .001) and Religiosity (r = .191, p = .006).

Within the community sample, a notably stronger correlation existed between

Spirituality and Religiosity (r = .544, p < .001). Spirituality was also correlated with

Positive Health Behaviors (r = .372, p < .001) and Religious Orientation (r = .456, p <

.001). A similar correlation to that found in the student sample occurred between

Religiosity and Religious Orientation (r = .770, p < .001). Negative Health Behaviors

held significant correlations in this sample with Religiosity (r = -.197, p = .031) and

Extrinsic Religious Orientation (r = -.236, p < .010). The full matrix is presented in Table

4.

29
Table 4

Correlations of Major Variables

Negative Positive
Religious
Extraversion Spirituality Religiosity Health Health
Orientation
Behaviors Behaviors
Extraversion 1
Spirituality .203* 1
Religiosity -.023 .544** 1
Community Religious
-.020 .456** .770** 1
Sample Orientation
Negative Health
.042 -.011 -.197* -.236* 1
Behaviors
Positive Health
.136 .372** .331** .196* -.014 1
Behaviors

Extraversion 1
Spirituality .363** 1
Religiosity .029 .361** 1
Religious
UNT Students .039 .304** .707** 1
Orientation
Negative Health
.024 -.103 -.061 -.072 1
Behaviors
Positive Health
.092 .240** .191* .089 .059 1
Behaviors
Note. * indicates significance at p < .05, ** indicates significance at p < .001; N = 120 for Community sample, N = 207 for UNT students.

30
 Research Questions and Hypotheses

Student Sample

Central research question: Does religiosity or spirituality contribute more to

health behaviors?

Four hierarchical multiple regressions were used to determine whether religiosity

or spirituality contributes more to health behaviors within the student sample, after

controlling for the influence of demographic variables and order of entry into the

analysis. Assumptions of the regression were all met via examination of scatterplot,

histogram, and VIF/tolerance statistics. In examining the positive health behaviors of the

student sample gender, age, ethnicity, education and income were entered into Block 1.

These demographic variables explained 5.6% of the variance in positive health

behaviors. The block was statistically non-significant (F(8, 198) = 1.45, p = .176),

however household income (β = .170, p = .016) appeared to make a notable

contribution to prediction. Spirituality was entered into Block 2 and added 6.2% variance

accounted for with an F change (1, 197) = 13.73, p < .001. Religiosity was added in

Block 3 and added 1.3% variance accounted for above and beyond Spirituality, but the

F change was non-significant (F change (1, 196) = .886, p = .084). The final model

explained 13% of the variance in positive health behaviors, with F(10, 196) = 2.94, p =

.002. Spirituality (β = .207, p = .005) appeared to be the only predictor of positive health

behaviors. Entering Religiosity in Block 2 (F change (1, 197) = 8.64, p = .004) and

Spirituality into Block 3 (F change (10, 196) = 2.94, p = .002) indicated that spirituality

added to the prediction of positive health behaviors over and above the effects of

religiosity. In the final model, with all predictors entered, Spirituality continued to be the

only significant predictor (β = .207, p = .005).

31
 In examining a scatterplot of the negative health behaviors of the student sample,

the data did not appear normal. After attempting log, inverse, and square root

transformations of negative health scores, none of the transformations were successful.

The results of this regression should therefore be interpreted with caution. The

demographic variables were entered into Block 1. These variables accounted for 26.7%

of the variance in negative health behaviors. Males (β = -.211, p = .001), age (β = .371,

p < .001), education (β = -.129, p = .040) and household income (β = -.171, p = .006) all

made notable contributions to prediction. Spirituality was entered in Block 2 (F change

(1, 197) = .929, p = .336) and Religiosity in Block 3 (F change (1, 196) = 1.02, p = .314),

however neither explained a significant amount of variance above and beyond the

demographic variables. The final model explained 27.4% of the variance in negative

health behaviors, with F(10, 196) = 7.40, p < .001. Neither Religiosity nor Spirituality

appeared as notable predictors of negative health behaviors. Entering Religiosity in

Block 2 (F change (1, 197) = 1.68, p = .197) rather than Spirituality which was entered

into Block 3 (F change (1, 196) = .274, p = .602) did not alter these conclusions.

Bivariate correlations between spirituality and positive health (r = .240, p < .001) as well

as religiosity and positive health (r = .191, p = .006) for the student sample support

these findings. No significant correlations existed between negative health behaviors

and spirituality or negative health behaviors and religiosity.

Hypothesis 1: Extraversion will be positively correlated with religiosity and

negatively correlated with spirituality.

Two hierarchical multiple regressions were used to evaluate hypothesis 1. In the

UNT student sample, all assumptions of the regression for predicting Spirituality were

32
met. Demographic variables of gender, age, ethnicity, education and income were

entered into Block 1. These variables explained 4.4% of the variance in Spirituality

(F(8, 198) = 1.15, p = .335), which was not statistically significant, although results for

higher education level (β = .150, p = .038) were notable. The entry of Extraversion into

Block 2 added 12.7% of explained variance (F change (1, 197) = 30.31, p < .001). The

final model accounted for 17.2% of the variance in Spirituality, with F(9, 197) = 4.54, p

< .001. Extraversion was a notable predictor (β = .364, p < .001), and there was also a

positive bivariate correlation between Extraversion and Spirituality (r = .363, p < .001).

Assumptions were also met in the regression analysis using extraversion to

predict religiosity. Demographic variables were again entered into Block 1, which

accounted for 8.9% of the variance in Religiosity (F(8, 198) = 2.41, p = .017). Age (β =

.160, p = .025) and Other ethnicity (β = -.146, p = .038) were notable predictors of

Religiosity, indicating that with increased age and greater white ethnicity, religiosity

increased. Extraversion was entered into Block 2 and did not add any explained

variance (F change (1, 197) = .000, p = .992). The final model accounted for 8.9% of the

variance in Religiosity, and while the model was significant (F(9, 197) = 2.13, p = .029),

Extraversion was not shown to be a predictor of Religiosity (β = -.001, p = .992).

Hypothesis 2: Intrinsic religious orientation will be positively correlated with

spirituality.

Two hierarchical multiple regressions were used to determine whether religious

orientation would be associated with Spirituality. Assumptions of the regression for UNT

students were all met via examination of scatterplot, histogram, and VIF/tolerance

statistics. Demographic variables of gender, age, ethnicity, education and income were

33
entered into Block 1 (F(8, 198) = 1.14, p = .335). These variables accounted for 4.4% of

the variance in Spirituality. Education (β = .150, p = .038) appeared to be a notable

predictor in the first block. Religious orientation was entered in Block 2 with lower

scores indicating an extrinsic orientation and higher scores indicating an intrinsic

orientation. This variable explained an additional 8.2% of the variance (F change (1,

197) = 18.51, p < .001). The final model accounted for 12.6% of the variance in

Spirituality, with F(9, 197) = 3.16, p = .001. Religious orientation was associated with

Spirituality (β = .304, p < .001). Correlations of religious orientation with Spirituality (r =

.304, p <.001) indicate that with higher religious orientation scores (intrinsic orientation),

Spirituality increased.

The additional research question in connection to the second hypothesis,

whether extrinsic religious orientation would be associated with Religiosity, was

examined via hierarchical multiple regression. Assumptions of the regression for the

student sample were all met. Demographic variables were entered into Block 1 (F(8,

198) = 2.41, p = .017). These variables accounted for 8.9% of the variance in

Religiosity. White ethnicity (β = -.132, p = .010), appeared as a notable predictor.

Religious orientation was entered into Block 2 and added 43.7% explained variance

beyond the demographic variables (F change (1, 197) = 181.20, p < .001). The final

model accounted for 52.5% of the variance in Religiosity, with F(9, 197) = 24.22, p <

.001. Religious orientation (β = .702, p < .001) was positively correlated with Religiosity

(r = .707, p < .001), indicating that intrinsic, rather than extrinsic religious orientation

was related to greater levels of religiosity.

34
 Hypothesis 3: Extraversion will be associated with religious orientation and be
positively correlated with extrinsic religious orientation.

Hierarchical multiple regression was utilized to determine if extraversion would

be associated with an extrinsic religious orientation. For the UNT student sample all

assumptions of the regression were met. Block 1 included gender, age, ethnicity,

education and income, which accounted for 11.4% of the variance in religious

orientation (F (8, 198) = 3.19, p = .002). Age (β = .152, p = .030) and African-American

ethnicity (β = .277, p < .001) were notable predictors, indicating that with increased age

and African-American ethnicity, an individual is more likely to hold an intrinsic religious

orientation. Extraversion was added in Block 2, but it did not add any additional variance

above and beyond the demographic variables (F change (1, 197) = .045, p = .832). The

final model explained 11.4% of the variance in religious orientation, with F(9, 197) =

2.83, p = .004. Extraversion (β = .014, p = .832) was not significantly associated with

religious orientation.

Hypothesis 4: Intrinsic religious orientation will be positively correlated with

positive health behaviors.

Two hierarchical multiple regressions were used to determine whether an

intrinsic religious orientation would be associated with positive health behaviors after

controlling for the influence of demographic variables. Assumptions of the regression

were all met via examination of scatterplot, histogram, and VIF/tolerance statistics. In

examining the positive health behaviors of UNT students, gender, age, ethnicity,

education and income were entered into Block 1. These variables explained 5.6% of the

variance in positive health behaviors (F (8, 198) = 1.45, p = .176). Although this block

35
was not significant, household income (β = .170, p = .016) appeared to be a notable

contributor, indicating that with a higher household income comes more positive health

behaviors. Block 2 introduced religious orientation, which accounted for an additional

1% of the variance (F change (1, 197) = 2.06, p = .153). The final model explained 6.5%

of positive health behaviors, with F(9, 197) = 1.53, p = .140. Religious orientation (β =

.105, p = .153) was not significantly associated with positive health behaviors.

Hierarchical multiple regression was utilized to examine the research question in

connection to this hypothesis - whether extrinsic religious orientation would be

associated with negative health behaviors. The data should again be interpreted with

caution due to the non-normality of the negative health behaviors variable.

Demographic variables were entered into Block 1, which accounted for 26.7% of the

variance in negative health behaviors (F (8, 198) = 9.01, p < .001). Male gender (β = -

.211, p = .001), increased age (β = .371, p < .001), decreased education level (β = -

.129, p = .040) and decreased household income (β = -.171, p = .006) all made notable

contributions to prediction of increased negative health behaviors. Block 2 included

religious orientation, which did not explain any additional variance (F change (1, 197) =

2.56, p = .111). The final model accounted for 27.6% of the variance in negative health

behaviors, with F(9, 197) = 8.36, p < .001. Although the final model was significant,

religious orientation (β = -.103, p = .111) was not a significantly associated with negative

health behaviors.

Hypothesis 5: Spirituality and religiosity act as moderators between extraversion

and negative health behaviors.

The fifth and final hypothesis that spirituality and religiosity would act as

36
moderators in the relationship between extraversion and negative health behaviors was

analyzed using two hierarchical multiple regression models. In examining the student

sample, the variable of negative health behaviors was again not normal. The results of

this hypothesis should therefore be interpreted with caution. Block 1 included

demographic variables of gender, age, ethnicity, education, and income. These

variables accounted for 26.7% of the variance in negative health behaviors (F (8, 198) =

9.01, p < .001). Male gender (β = -.211, p = .001), increasing age (β = .371, p < .001),

less education (β = -.129, p = .040) and less household income (β = -.171, p = .006) all

made notable contributions to predicting more negative health behaviors. Spirituality

and extraversion were entered in Block 2, and accounted for an additional 1.3% of the

variance (F change (2, 196) = 1.82, p = .166). Block 3 added the interaction of

spirituality and extraversion, which accounted for an additional .4% of the variance. The

final model explained 28.4% of the variance in negative health behaviors, with F(11,

195) = 7.03, p < .001. Spirituality was not a moderator in the relationship, with a non-

significant interaction term (β = -.617, p = .321).

In examining the influence of religiosity as a moderator within the UNT student

sample, the results should again be interpreted with caution. Block 1 included

demographic variables which accounted for 26.7% of the variance in negative health

behaviors (F (8, 198) = 9.01, p < .001). Male gender (β = -.211, p = .001), increasing

age (β = .371, p < .001), decreased levels of education (β = -.129, p = .040) and less

household income (β = -.171, p = .006) all made notable contributions to predicting

more negative health behaviors. Religiosity and extraversion were entered in Block 2,

and accounted for an additional 1.1% of the variance (F change (2, 196) = 1.53, p =

37
.220). Block 3 added the interaction of religiosity and extraversion, which accounted for

an additional .2% of the variance. The final model explained 28% of the variance in

negative health behaviors, with F(11, 195) = 6.89, p < .001. Religiosity did not act as a

moderator in the relationship, with a non-significant interaction term (β = .236, p = .511).

Community Sample

Central research question: Does religiosity or spirituality contribute more to

health behaviors?

Four hierarchical multiple regressions were used to determine whether religiosity

or spirituality contributes more to health behaviors within the community sample, after

controlling for the influence of demographic variables and order of entry into the

analysis. Assumptions of the regression were all met via examination of scatterplot,

histogram, and VIF/tolerance statistics. Gender, age, ethnicity, education and income

were entered into Block 1 to predict positive health behaviors; these explained 18% of

the variance in positive health behaviors (F(7,109) = 3.47, p = .002). Age (β = .308, p =

.002) made a notable contribution to prediction with older individuals participating in

more positive health behaviors. Spirituality (Block 2) added 11.9% variance accounted

for (F change (1, 108) = 18.48, p < .001). Religiosity was added to Block 3 but did not

explain a significant amount of variance above and beyond Spirituality (F change (1,

107) = .287, p = .593). The final model explained 30.4% of the variance in positive

health behaviors, with F(9, 107) = 5.18, p < .001. Spirituality (β = .312, p = .002) was the

only statistically significant predictor of positive health behaviors. Entering Religiosity in

Block 2 (F change (1, 111) = 7.51, p = .007) explained 5.2% of the variance beyond the

demographic variables, and entering Spirituality into Block 3 (F change (1, 110) = 10.27,

38
p = .002) explained an additional 7% of the variance. Altering the order of entry did not

change results of the full model, as Spirituality continued to be the only significant

predictor. In examining the bivariate correlations between spirituality and positive health

behaviors (r = .372, p < .001) as well as religiosity and positive health behaviors (r =

.331, p < .001), the inability of religiosity to significantly explain positive health behaviors

may come from both variables accounting for similar aspects of positive health.

In examining the negative health behaviors of the Community sample, the

demographic variables in Block 1 accounted for 17.1% of the variance in negative

health behaviors (F(7,109) = 3.22, p = .004). Age (β = .223, p = .025), Other ethnicity (β

= .262, p = .004) and household income (β = -.267, p = .009) all made notable

contributions to prediction. Spirituality (Block 2) did not explain a significant amount of

variance above and beyond the demographic variables (F change (1, 108) = .706, p =

.403). Block 3 included Religiosity which accounted for 4.2% of the variance in negative

health behaviors (F change (1, 107) = 5.82, p = .018). The final model explained 21.9%

of the variance in negative health behaviors, with F(9, 107) = 3.34, p = .001. Religiosity

(β = -.259, p = .018) appeared as the only predictor of negative health behaviors with

less religious individuals participating in more negative health behaviors. Entering

Religiosity in Block 2 (F change (1, 111) = 6.10, p = .015) rather than Spirituality which

was entered into Block 3 (F change (1, 110) = .911, p = .342) did not alter these

conclusions. See Tables 5 and 6 for summaries of the regressions. Bivariate

correlations between spirituality and negative health behaviors were not significant,

unlike the correlation between religiosity and negative health behaviors (r = -.197, p =

.031).

39
Table 5

Regression Summary Predicting Positive Health Behaviors from Religiosity and Spirituality

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender .065 .947 .345 .021 .258 .797

Age .033 .468 .641 .291 3.15 .002

African -.120 -1.67 .096 -- -- --

Asian .000 .000 1.00 -.013 -.149 .881

Ethnicity
Hispanic .029 .412 .681 .059 .697 .487

Other .061 .881 .379 -.069 -.835 .405

Education .033 .475 .636 .097 1.16 .249

Household Income .164 2.44 .016 .120 1.27 .206

Spirituality .207 2.82 .005 .325 3.28 .001

Religiosity .130 1.74 .084 .054 .536 .593

2 2
Note. Values reflect final model when Spirituality was entered in Block 2. For UNT students, R = .130, Adjusted R = .086, F(10,196) = 2.94, p =
2 2
.002. For Community sample, R = .304, Adjusted R = .245, F(9,107) = 5.18, p < .001.

40
Table 6

Regression Summary Predicting Negative Health Behaviors from Religiosity and Spirituality

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender -.202 -3.22 .001 -.084 -.969 .195

Age .379 5.86 .000 .308 3.25 .007

African -.068 -1.04 .299 -- -- --

Asian -.130 -2.01 .046 -.110 -1.20 .232

Ethnicity
Hispanic -.058 -.898 .370 -.125 -1.39 .166

Other .114 1.79 .075 .240 2.74 .007

Education -.121 -1.90 .058 -.035 -.393 .695

Household Income -.170 -2.77 .006 -.239 -2.39 .018

Spirituality -.035 -.523 .602 .065 .617 .538

Religiosity -.069 -1.01 .314 -.259 -2.41 .018

2 2
Note. Values reflect final model when Spirituality was entered in Block 2. For UNT students, R = .274, Adjusted R = .237, F(10,196) = 7.40, p <
2 2
.001. For Community sample, R = .219, Adjusted R = .153, F(9,107) = 3.34, p = .001.

41
 Hypothesis 1: Extraversion will be positively correlated with religiosity and
negatively correlated with spirituality.

Two hierarchical multiple regressions were used to test this hypothesis. Social

support is a main difference between religion and spirituality, and as extraverts are

more drawn to social interactions, they may also be more likely to follow a religious

path.

Two hierarchical multiple regressions were again used to determine whether

Extraversion would be associated with Religiosity or Spirituality after controlling for the

influence of demographic variables. Assumptions of the first regression were all met via

examination of scatterplot, histogram, and VIF/tolerance statistics. Demographic

variables in Block 1 explained 5.1% of the variance in Spirituality (F(7, 109) = .838, p =

.558). The addition of Extraversion to Block 2 further explained 5.6% of the variance (F

change (1, 108) = 6.82, p = .010). The final model accounted for 10.7% of the variance

in Spirituality. However, the final model was not significant (F(8, 108) = 1.62, p = .126),

even though extraversion continued to be a notable predictor (β = .252, p = .010).

Regression assumptions were also met in examining the association of

Religiosity and Extraversion. Demographic variables in Block 1accounted for 9% of the

variance in Religiosity (F(7, 109) = 1.53, p = .163). Extraversion in Block 2 did not

explain any more variance above and beyond the demographic variables (F change (1,

108) = .034, p = .855). The final model accounted for 9% of the variance in Religiosity,

and the final model was not significant (F(8, 108) = 1.33, p = .234). Extraversion was

not shown to be significantly associated with Religiosity (β = .018, p = .855). The

variables were also not correlated (r = -.023, p = .403). Refer to Tables 7 and 8 for

regression summaries.

42
Table 7

Regression Summary Predicting Spirituality from Extraversion

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender -.019 -.291 .772 -.041 -.436 .664

Age -.061 -.911 .364 .049 .477 .634

African .098 1.41 .159 -- -- --

Asian -.043 -.626 .532 -.213 -2.16 .033

Ethnicity
Hispanic .004 .061 .951 -.113 -1.19 .235

Other .067 .997 .320 .045 .482 .631

Education .146 2.19 .030 -.007 -.079 .937

Household Income .058 .889 .375 -.019 -.176 .860

Extraversion .364 5.51 .000 .252 2.61 .010

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .172, Adjusted R = .134, F(9,197) = 4.54 , p < .001. For Community sample, R = .107,
2
Adjusted R = .041, F(8,108) = 1.62, p = .126.

43
Table 8

Regression Summary Predicting Religiosity from Extraversion

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender .126 1.82 .071 -.033 -.346 .730

Age .160 2.26 .025 .189 1.82 .072

African .133 1.84 .069 -- -- --

Asian -.066 -.914 .362 -.104 -1.05 .295

Ethnicity
Hispanic -.107 -1.51 .134 .037 .386 .700

Other -.146 -2.07 .039 -.066 -.693 .490

Education .050 .719 .473 -.035 -.371 .712

Household Income -.004 -.055 .956 .112 1.04 .299

Extraversion -.001 -.010 .992 .018 .184 .855

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .089, Adjusted R = .047, F(9,197) = 2.13, p = .029. For Community sample, R = .090,
2
Adjusted R = .023, F(8,108) = 1.33, p = .234.

44
Hypothesis 2: Intrinsic religious orientation will be positively correlated with spirituality

Two hierarchical multiple regressions were used to determine whether religious

orientation would be associated with Spirituality. Assumptions of the regression were all

met. Demographic variables were entered into Block 1. These variables accounted for

5.1% of the variance in Spirituality although the effect was not statistically significant (F

(7, 109) = .838, p = .558). Religious orientation was entered in Block 2 and explained an

additional 23.1% of the variance (F change (1, 108) = 34.72, p < .001). The final model

accounted for 28.2% of the variance in Spirituality, with F(8, 108) = 5.30, p < .001.

Religious orientation was strongly associated with Spirituality (β = .503, p < .001).

Correlations of religious orientation with Spirituality (r = .456, p < .001) indicate that with

higher religious orientation scores (intrinsic orientation), Spirituality increased.

Similar results were produced for the Community sample in regards to the

research question, examining whether religious orientation would be associated with

religiosity. Assumptions of the regression were again met. Demographic variables were

entered into Block 1, which accounted for 9% of the variance in Religiosity (F (7, 109) =

1.53, p = .163). Religious orientation was entered into Block 2 and added 54.4%

explained variance beyond the demographic variables (F change (1, 108) = 160.20, p <

.001). The final model accounted for 60.6% of the variance in Religiosity (F(8, 108) =

23.33, p < .001), with Religious orientation as a strong predictor (β = .772, p < .001).

Religious orientation was also positively correlated with Religiosity (r = .770, p < .001),

indicating that individuals with an intrinsic religious orientation were likely to be more

religious. See Tables 9 and 10 for regression summaries.

45
Table 9

Regression Summary Predicting Spirituality from Religious Orientation

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender -.032 -.469 .639 -.010 -.017 .662

Age -.118 -1.69 .093 .001 .008 .802

African -.045 .617 .538 -- -- --

Asian -.027 -.386 .700 -.097 -1.12 .265

Ethnicity
Hispanic .016 .234 .815 -.171 -2.01 .047

Other .030 .436 .663 .191 2.29 .024

Education .136 1.98 .049 .021 .253 .801

Household Income .024 .362 .718 -.007 -.075 .940

Religious Orientation .304 4.30 .000 .503 5.58 .000

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .126, Adjusted R = .086, F(9,197) = 3.16, p = .001. For Community sample, R = .282,
2
Adjusted R = .229, F(8,108) = 5.30, p < .001.

46
Table 10

Regression Summary Predicting Religiosity from Religious Orientation

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender .037 .735 .463 .019 .311 .912

Age .053 1.02 .308 .128 1.98 .069

African -.062 -1.14 .257 -- -- --

Asian -.049 -.946 .345 -.005 -.083 .934

Ethnicity
Hispanic -.060 -1.16 .246 -.069 -1.14 .258

Other -.132 -2.61 .010 .080 1.34 .184

Education .019 .380 .704 -.021 -.349 .728

Household Income -.020 -.395 .693 .066 .979 .330

Religious Orientation .702 13.46 .000 .772 12.66 .000

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .525, Adjusted R = .504, F(9,197) = 24.22, p < .001. For Community sample, R = .633,
2
Adjusted R = .606, F(8,108) = 23.33, p < .001.

47
 Hypothesis 3: Extraversion will be associated with religious orientation and be
positively correlated with extrinsic religious orientation.

Hierarchical multiple regression was utilized to determine if Extraversion would

be associated with an extrinsic religious orientation. After checking assumptions of the

regression, demographic variables were entered into Block 1. These variables

accounted for 8.9% of the variance in religious orientation (F (7, 109) = 1.51, p = .170).

While the model was not significant, Other ethnicity (β = -.184, p = .049) was a notable

predictor of religious orientation, with Caucasian individuals tending to have more

intrinsic religious orientation. Extraversion was entered in Block 2 and did not account

for any additional variance in religious orientation (F change (1, 108) = .200, p = .656).

The final model explained 7.4% of the variance in religious orientation, with F(8, 108) =

1.34, p = .232. Extraversion (β = .044, p = .656) was again not a significant predictor of

religious orientation. Refer to Table 11 for summaries of the regressions.

Hypothesis 4: Intrinsic religious orientation will be positively correlated with

positive health behaviors.

Two hierarchical multiple regressions were used to determine whether an

intrinsic religious orientation would be associated with positive health behaviors after

controlling for the influence of demographic variables After checking assumptions of the

regression, demographic variables were entered into Block 1. These variables

accounted for 18.2% of the variance in positive health behaviors (F (7, 109) = 3.47, p =

.002). Greater age (β = .308, p = .002) was a notable predictor of these behaviors.

Religious orientation was entered in Block 2, not explaining any additional variance

beyond the demographic variables (F change (1, 108) = 2.50, p = .117). The final model

explained 20.1% of the variance in positive health behaviors, with F(8, 108) = 3.39, p =

48
.002. Although the model was significant, religious orientation (β = .142, p = .117) was

not statistically associated with positive health behaviors. See Table 12 for regression

summaries.

The Community sample reported different results from the student sample in

regards to the research question which examined whether religious orientation would be

associated with negative health behaviors. After checking assumptions of the

regression, which again should be interpreted with caution, demographic variables were

entered into Block 1. Demographics accounted for 17.1% of the variance in negative

health behaviors (F (7, 109) = 3.22, p = .004). Greater age (β = .223, p = .025), Other

ethnicity (β = .262, p = .004) and lower household income (β = -.267, p = .009) were

notable predictors of more negative health behaviors. Religious orientation was entered

into Block 2, which accounted for an additional 4.0% of the variance (F change (1, 108)

= 5.54, p = .020). The final model explained 21.2% of the variance in negative health

behaviors, with F(8, 108) = 3.63, p = .001. Within this sample, religious orientation was

significantly associated with negative health behaviors (β = -.211, p = .020) indicating

that with lower religious orientation scores (extrinsic orientation), negative health

behaviors increased. A negative correlation existed between religious orientation and

negative health behaviors (r = -.236, p = .005). Refer to Table 13 for regression

summaries.

49
Table 11

Regression Summary Predicting Religious Orientation from Extraversion

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender .126 1.84 .068 -.049 -.520 .604

Age .153 2.19 .030 .090 .870 .386

African .275 3.85 .000 -- -- --

Asian -.024 -.339 .735 -.133 -1.34 .183

Ethnicity
Hispanic -.067 -.954 .341 .137 1.43 .155

Other -.018 -.262 .793 -.193 -2.04 .044

Education .044 .640 .523 -.020 -.212 .833

Household Income .024 .349 .728 .056 .522 .603

Extraversion .014 .212 .832 .044 .447 .656

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .114, Adjusted R = .074, F(9,197) = 2.83, p = .004. For Community sample, R = .090,
2
Adjusted R = .023, F(8,108) = 1.34, p = .232.

50
Table 12

Regression Summary Predicting Positive Health Behaviors from Religious Orientation

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender .069 .980 .328 .006 .073 .942

Age .023 .318 .751 .296 3.04 .003

African -.105 -1.38 .169 -- -- --

Asian -.013 -.181 .857 -.053 -.575 .567

Ethnicity
Hispanic .021 .292 .771 .008 .091 .928

Other .049 .694 .488 -.014 -.158 .875

Education .066 .926 .356 .102 1.14 .256

Household Income .168 2.41 .017 .125 1.25 .213

Religious Orientation .105 1.44 .153 .142 1.58 .117

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .065, Adjusted R = .023, F(9,197) = 1.53, p = .140. For Community sample, R = .201,
2
Adjusted R = .142, F(8,108) = 3.39, p = .002.

51
Table 13

Regression Summary Predicting Negative Health Behaviors from Religious Orientation

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender -.198 -3.17 .002 -.120 -1.38 .171

Age .386 6.06 .000 .241 2.49 .014

African -.053 -.798 .426 -- -- --

Asian -.127 -1.97 .050 -.120 -1.32 .189

Ethnicity
Hispanic -.057 -.896 .372 -.112 -1.25 .213

Other .121 1.94 .054 .224 2.55 .012

Education -.125 -2.00 .047 -.029 -.324 .747

Household Income -.169 -2.75 .006 -.254 -2.56 .012

Religious Orientation -.103 -1.60 .111 -.211 -2.35 .020

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .276, Adjusted R = .243, F(9,197) = 8.36, p < .001. For Community sample, R = .212,
2
Adjusted R = .153, F(8,108) = 3.63, p < .001.

52
 Hypothesis 5: Spirituality and religiosity act as moderators of the relationship
between extraversion and negative health behaviors.

The fifth and final hypothesis that spirituality and religiosity would act as

moderators in the relationship between extraversion and negative health behaviors was

analyzed using two hierarchical multiple regression models. The results for the

community sample should also be interpreted with caution due to the non-normality of

the negative health behaviors. In examining spirituality as a moderator, demographic

variables were entered into Block 1. These variables explained 17.1% of the variance in

negative health behaviors (F(7, 109) = 3.22, p = .004). Increasing age (β = .223, p =

.025), holding an “Other” ethnicity (β = .262, p = .004) and less household income (β = -

.267, p = .009) were notable predictors of increased negative health behaviors. Block 2

included spirituality and extraversion, which accounted for a non-significant additional

.9% of variance (F change (2, 107) = .607, p = .547). The interaction of spirituality and

extraversion was added to Block 3 and did not account for any additional variance

beyond the first two blocks. The final model explained 18.1% of the variance in negative

health behaviors, with F(10, 106) = 2.34, p = .016. Similar to the UNT student sample,

the Spirituality was not a moderator for this relationship, with the interaction term being

non-significant (β = -.245, p = .886).

In examining the influence of religiosity as a moderator within the Community

sample, the results should again be interpreted with caution. Block 1 included

demographic variables which accounted for 17.1% of the variance in negative health

behaviors (F(7, 109) = 3.22, p = .004). Increasing age (β = .223, p = .025), holding an

“Other” ethnicity (β = .262, p = .004) and decreased household income (β = -.267, p =

.009) made notable contributions to prediction. Religiosity and extraversion were

53
entered in Block 2, and accounted for an additional 4.7% of the variance (F change (2,

107) = 3.23, p = .043). Block 3 added the interaction of religiosity and extraversion,

which accounted for a non-significant additional .5% of the variance. The final model

explained 22.4% of the variance in negative health behaviors, with F(10, 106) = 3.05, p

= .002. Religiosity did not act as a moderator, with a non-significant interaction term (β =

.404, p = .406). See Tables 14 and 15 for regression summaries.

Discussion

Demographics

The demographic variables of age, gender, ethnicity, income, and education

were influential in each analysis. In analyses examining negative health behaviors, the

demographic variables were effective in explaining variability. For both samples,

variance explained ranged from 18-27%, with increased age and male gender showing

the strongest prediction of negative health. Positive health behaviors were not quite as

influenced by these variables, with demographics explaining 6-18% of variance. Greater

income and older age were notable predictors of positive health. The dependent

variable least affected by demographic variables was spirituality, in which higher

education level explained about 4% of the variable in each sample. Demographic

variables accounted for 7-11% variance in each analysis examining religiosity and

religious orientation. Notable predictors for these variables included Caucasian

ethnicity, African-American ethnicity and older age.

54
Table 14

Regression Summary Moderating Negative Health Behaviors of Extraverts with Spirituality

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender -.221 -3.56 .000 -.111 -1.22 .227

Age .363 5.73 .000 .234 2.34 .021

African -.080 -1.24 .218 -- -- --

Asian -.132 -2.06 .041 -.127 -1.26 .211

Ethnicity
Hispanic -.054 -.840 .402 -.155 -1.68 .096

Other .136 2.16 .032 .259 2.81 .006

Education -.115 -1.82 .071 -.029 -.319 .750

Household Income -.158 -2.56 .011 -.280 -2.64 .009

Spirituality .157 .589 .557 -.042 -.119 .906

Extraversion .581 1.21 .226 .169 .240 .811

Spirituality x Extraversion -.617 -.995 .321 -.122 -.144 .886

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .284, Adjusted R = .243, F(11,195) = 7.03, p < .001. For Community sample, R = .181,
2
Adjusted R = .103, F(10,106) = 2.33, p = .016.

55
Table 15

Regression Summary Moderating Negative Health Behaviors of Extraverts with Religiosity

UNT Students (n = 207) Community Sample (n = 120)

β t Sig. β t Sig.

Gender -.205 -3.27 .001 -.107 -1.22 .225

Age .387 6.05 .000 .264 2.68 .009

African -.078 -1.20 .232 -- -- --

Asian -.129 -2.00 .047 -.109 -1.15 .255

Ethnicity
Hispanic -.054 -.841 .401 -.133 -1.49 .139

Other .115 1.80 .073 .248 2.77 .007

Education -.128 -2.04 .042 -.043 -.484 .630

Household Income -.169 -2.74 .007 -.236 -2.30 .024

Religiosity -.264 -.934 .351 -.528 -1.40 .164

Extraversion -.069 -.309 .757 -.214 -.651 .517

Religiosity x Extraversion .236 .659 .511 .404 .834 .406

2 2 2
Note. Values reflect final model. For UNT students, R = .280, Adjusted R = .239, F(11,195) = 6.89, p < .001. For Community sample, R = .224,
2
Adjusted R = .150, F(10,106) = 3.05, p = .002.

56
 These findings support previous research which has found that increased

resources such as money, education level, and SES allow individuals to take better care

of themselves physically, emotionally, and mentally (Deaton, 2003). These resources

allow the possibility of better health, however being successful in obtaining these

resources does not necessarily lead to engagement in positive health behaviors.

Older age was a statistically significant predictor of both negative and positive

health behaviors. One explanation for this finding may be the link between age and

gender, and age and income level. Older males reported engaging in negative

behaviors while older individuals with more income reported engaging in positive

behaviors. Previous research has shown that males tend to engage in more negative

health behaviors (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Lewinsohn, Rohde, Seeley, Monson, Meyer,

& Langford, 1998) and income is a basic resource for obtaining higher socio-economic

status, leading to the possibility for more positive health behaviors (Deaton, 2003).

Central Research Question

The central research question of whether religiosity or spirituality contributes

more to health behaviors provided notable results. Spirituality was able to predict

positive health behaviors beyond religiosity in both samples. This conflicted with several

studies supporting a relationship between positive health behaviors and increased

religiosity (Gillum & Dupree, 2007; Benjamins, 2007; Koenig, et. al, 1999; Levin, 1996;

McCllough, 1995). The relatively low levels of reported religiosity for both samples in the

present study (3.76 for student sample and 4.05 for community sample, out of a

response range of 2-6) may have influenced these conflicting results.

57
 Most religions also do not offer a guide on how to live a healthy life, rather most

suggest what negative health behaviors not to indulge in. Spirituality on the other hand

provides suggestions on yoga, meditation, and additional positive health behaviors.

Results of this study suggest that the desire to live a healthy lifestyle may be supported

more by choosing a spiritual path rather than a religious path, which supports some

previous research (Park, et. al, 2009; Nagel & Sgoutas-Emch, 2007). Nagel and

Sgoutas-Emch (2007) used a similar sample as well as similar spirituality and health

behavior measures in their study. The study by Park et.al (2009) examined the

influences of both religiosity and spirituality separately, but utilized a specific, restrictive

sample of cancer survivors. The present study appeared to both extend previous

findings (Nagel & Sqoutas-Emch, 2007) and provide new information on healthy

samples, examining the different influences religiosity and spirituality have on positive

health behaviors in one study.

For negative health behaviors the findings differed between samples. While

spirituality failed to predict these behaviors in either sample, religiosity was able to

predict negative health behaviors for the Community sample. Correlations between

religiosity and negative health behaviors show that the more religious an individual is

the less likely they are to engage in negative health behaviors. This supports previous

findings by many researchers (Krause, 2011; Maltby, Lewis, Freeman, Day, Cruise, and

Breslin, 2010; Seybold and Hill, 2001). The difference between samples may be due to

differing social environments. Social environments surrounding most college students

are typically filled with more peer pressure than a general “community” environment.

The difference between the samples in regards to prediction of certain behaviors by

58
religious/spiritual beliefs may be primarily due to age. Younger adults in a college

setting are typically more likely to engage in negative health behaviors. Also, parents

tend to maintain influence over their children’s religious beliefs as young adults, and

while many students reported having religious beliefs, they may not truly hold them.

Positive and negative health behaviors were not significantly correlated in either

sample. While it would seem that those who engage in more positive health behaviors

would also engage in fewer negative behaviors, this is not necessarily the case

(Stefansdottir & Vilhjalmsson, 2007; Park, Edmondson, Fenster, & Blank, 2008). For

example, many individuals choose to exercise and eat healthy foods during the week so

they may consume alcohol and engage in more negative health behaviors on the

weekends.

Overall, spirituality appears to be more useful for understanding positive health

behaviors while religiosity is more useful for predicting negative health behaviors.

Individuals who are highly spiritual and religious may combine both patterns, having

lives which follow positive health behaviors and avoid negative health behaviors.

Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis, that extraversion would be positively correlated with

religiosity and negatively correlated with spirituality, was not supported in either sample.

Within both samples, extraversion predicted spirituality but did not predict religiosity.

This contradicts common thinking in that with social support as a key difference

between religion and spirituality, and because extraverts are more drawn to social

interactions, they should also be more likely to follow a religious than a spiritual path.

59
This does however support findings by Maltby and Day (2001) who found extraversion

to be linked to spirituality. They noted that characteristics commonly associated with

extraversion such as optimism and sensation-seeking could explain their results. This

explanation may also be true for the samples in the present study, as the optimism and

sensation-seeking components of extraversion may lead individuals to seek out a less

regulated, internal belief system such as spirituality. However, if spirituality increases

with extraversion, and many studies have shown negative health behaviors to increase

with extraversion, negative health behaviors might also be expected to increase with

spirituality. This was not the case in the present study (see central research question).

The aspects of extraversion which may be linked to spirituality may be different from

those aspects linked to negative health behaviors.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 stated that intrinsic religious orientation would be associated with

greater spirituality. Religious orientation was associated with spirituality in both samples,

and the correlations between religious orientation and spirituality were supportive of the

hypothesis. A more intrinsic orientation indicated higher spirituality, supporting current

findings (Berkel, Armstrong, & Cokley, 2004). Spiritual measures utilized in the present

study and by Berkel et al. (2004) reflected both similar facets of spiritualty (spiritual

beliefs, characteristics) and different (the inclusion of environmental/nature concerns in

the present study). This study may then extend previous findings of the relationship

between spirituality and religious orientation through defining spirituality in different

ways. This relationship may also further demonstrate how religious orientation can be

60
applied to both spiritual and religious individuals.

The additional research question in connection with hypothesis 2 examined

whether religious orientation was associated with religiosity. Both the student and

community samples found that religious orientation was linked to religiosity with a

positive correlation. An extrinsic religious orientation indicated lower religiosity, which

was supportive of previous findings (Allport & Ross, 1967; Milevsky & Levitt, 2004).

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 stated that extraversion would be associated with extrinsic religious

orientation. This hypothesis was not supported in either sample. Extrinsic religious

orientation has been shown to share certain characteristics with extraversion such as

individual prejudices and sociability (Allport & Ross, 1967; McCrae & John, 1992).

Previous research has also shown extraversion to be predictive of extrinsic religious

orientation (Francis, Robbins & Murray, 2010). Discrepancies among previous research

and the present study may be due to characteristics of the samples. Previous studies

utilized samples of Christian adults (Francis, Robbins & Murray, 2010) where this study

examined college students and adults of likely varying religious/spiritual beliefs.

Hypothesis 4

The fourth hypothesis examined the link between positive health behaviors and

intrinsic religious orientation. The hypothesis was not supported in either sample.

Although intrinsic religious orientation has been linked to predicting many positive health

behaviors (Homan & Boyatzis, 2010; Masters & Knestel, 2011), this study attempted to

61
extend the generalizability to younger samples and additional health behaviors. Both of

the previously noted studies examined older samples with mean ages of 48 and 75,

respectively. The present study reported mean ages of 22 for the student sample and

31 for the community sample. Older individuals may have a stronger sense of their

spiritual/ religious beliefs. In examining additional health behaviors, the study by

Masters and Knestel (2011) only examined smoking, alcohol consumption, and

exercise. The present study included many more positive and negative health

behaviors.

In examining the research question made in connection to the fourth hypothesis,

extrinsic orientation was associated with negative health behaviors in the community

sample, but not in the student sample. Significant negative correlations between

negative health behaviors and religious orientation within the community sample

indicated that an extrinsic orientation was linked to more negative behaviors. The social

characteristics of holding an extrinsic religious orientation may be an explanation for this

finding. The difference in results between the two samples may be due to individuals in

the community sample reporting higher levels of religiosity. Individuals attempting to

reduce their negative health behaviors may do so by attempting to move toward

intrinsically oriented religious beliefs.

Hypothesis 5

The fifth and final hypothesis examined spirituality and religiosity acting as

moderators between extraversion and negative health behaviors. Previous research has

found that participating in religious acts can reduce negative health behaviors (Gillum &

62
Dupree, 2007; Benjamins, 2007). While many studies have found that extraverts are

more likely than introverts to engage in negative health behaviors (Vollrath & Torgersen,

2008; Raynor &Levine, 2009; Hong & Paunonen, 2009), some studies have also found

that this is not the case (Torgersen & Vollrath, 2006). Results from previous hypotheses

within this study demonstrated that extraverts did not show a link to negative health

behaviors. Therefore, there was no relationship to moderate and no results could be

found for the fifth hypothesis. Extraverts in the present study may not have shown a

significant correlation to negative health behaviors due to the interplay between

extraversion and other personality factors, such as conscientiousness. Examining the

influence of multiple personality factors (Torgersen & Vollrath, 2006) may have altered

results of this hypothesis (i.e., individuals high in extraversion and low in

conscientiousness). Another explanation may be sample characteristics. Previous

studies utilized samples of college students with multiple majors including athletes,

business, and psychology. Students with majors such as athletics and business may be

more inclined to engage in negative health behaviors than psychology majors due to the

cultures of those majors.

Conclusions

The present study has both extended previous research and provided new

insights. The connection between spirituality and positive health behaviors was

extended to healthy samples and the differing influences religiosity and spirituality have

on health behaviors for healthy individuals had previously not been examined in one

study. This study also supported a new insight in that the reduction of negative health

63
behaviors with increased religiosity does not necessarily lead those individuals to

engage in more positive health behaviors. The link between religion and negative health

behaviors, as well as between spirituality and positive health behaviors provides more

evidence for the separation of religion and spirituality.

A connection between extrinsic religious orientation and negative health

behaviors was a relatively new finding, and it added support to the connection between

religiosity and negative health behaviors. Previous studies had not focused on specific

health behaviors, and only found links between intrinsic religious orientation and

positive health behaviors. The connection between religious orientation and spirituality

was extended in the present study to include different aspects of spirituality. An intrinsic

religious orientation and spirituality may share an increased connection to nature and

the environment.

Future Directions and Limitations

Limitations of this study include sample characteristics such as size and major,

the absence of atheist/ agnostic individuals, the non-measurement of the religious quest

orientation, non-normality of the negative health behaviors variable and a lack of inquiry

of membership to a religious group. Future directions for research conducted on these

variables include gathering a larger number of participants from varying majors so as to

maximize generalizability. Community participants recruited via internet websites other

than social media sites may also increase generalizability as individuals utilizing these

sites tend to be younger. Health behaviors and personality traits should also be

examined for those who do not believe in a higher power (atheist/agnostic), as they may

64
serve as a sort of “base-line” standard for religious and spiritual individuals. The Quest

orientation was not measured in this study, although it has more recently been noted as

an important part of religious orientation (Batson & Ventis, 1982; Francis 2007).

Finally, inclusion of religious membership may provide additional insights for

examination of these variables.

65
 REFERENCES

AIDS Healthcare Foundation. (2008). HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from

http://www.aidshealth.org /about-hiv-aids/hiv-aids/.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.). Talk with your doctor. Retrieved
from http://www.ahrq.gov/healthymen/discuss.htm

Al-Kandari, F., Vidal, V. L., & Thomas, D. (2008). Health-promoting lifestyle and body
mass index among College of Nursing students in Kuwait: A correlational study.
Nursing & Health Sciences, 10(1), 43-50. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2018.2007.00370.x

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2012). Talk with Your Doctor. Retrieved
from http://www.ahrq.gov/patients-consumers/patient-involvement/healthy-
men/doctor/index.html

Banks, R. (1980). Health and spiritual dimensions: Relationships and implications for
professional preparation programs. Journal of School Health, 50, 195-202.

Barrett, C. E., & Roesch, S. C. (2009). Evaluating the relationship between the five
factor model of personality and religious orientation. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 28(3), 195-199. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Begg, D., & Langley, J. (2001). Changes in risky driving behavior from age 21 to 26
years. Journal of Safety Research, 32(4), 491-499. doi:10.1016/S0022-
4375(01)00059-7

Benjamins, M. R. (2007). Predictors of preventive health care use among middle-aged

and older adults in Mexico: The role of religion. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Gerontology, 22(2), 221-234. doi:10.1007/s10823-007-9036-4.

Berkel, L. A., Armstrong, T. D., & Cokley, K. O. (2004). Similarities and differences
between religiosity and spirituality in African American college students: A
preliminary investigation. Counseling and Values, 49(1), 2-26. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.

Berwick, D. (2011). Prevention just makes sense. Retrieved from

http://blog.medicare.gov /2011/06/20/prevention-just-makes-sense/.

Brannick, M. T. (2007). Diagnostics. Retrieved in January, 2013 from

http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~mbrannic/files/regression/Diagnostics.html.

Branje, S. T., Van Lieshout, C. M., & Gerris, J. M. (2007). Big Five personality
development in adolescence and adulthood. European Journal of Personality,
21(1), 45-62. doi:10.1002/per.596

66
Burstein, G. R., Lowry, R., Klein, J. D., & Santelli, J. S. (2003). Missed opportunities for
sexually transmitted diseases, human immunodeficiency virus, and pregnancy
prevention services during adolescent health Supervision Visits. Pediatrics,
111(5), 996-1002.

Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2011). You probably think this paper's
about you: Narcissists' perceptions of their personality and reputation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 185-201. doi:10.1037/a0023781

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/yrbs.

Chandler, C. K., Holden, J. M., & Kolander, C. A. (1992). Counseling for spiritual
wellness: Theory and practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71(1),
168-175.

Chlewinski, Z. (1981). Personality and attitude toward religion in Poland. Personality

and Individual Differences, 2(3), 243-245. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(81)90029-5

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Constant, A., Salmi, L., Lafont, S., Chiron, M., & Lagarde, E. (2009). Road casualties
and changes in risky driving behavior in France between 2001 and 2004 among
participants in the GAZEL cohort. American Journal of Public Health, 99(7),
1247-1253. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.126474

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its
relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343-
359. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Danbolt, L. J., Møller, P., Lien, L., & Hestad, K. A. (2011). The personal significance of
religiousness and spirituality in patients with schizophrenia. International Journal
for the Psychology of Religion, 21(2), 145-158.
doi:10.1080/10508619.2011.557009

Davis, T. L., Kerr, B. A., & Kurpius, S. (2003). Meaning, purpose, and religiosity in at-
risk youth: The relationship between anxiety and spirituality. Journal Of
Psychology And Theology, 31(4), 356-365.

Deaton, A. (2003). Health, income, and inequality. The National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/reporter/spring03/health.html.

Desai, M. N., Miller, W. C., Staples, B., & Bravender, T. (2008). Risk factors associated
with overweight and obesity in college students. Journal of American College
Health, 57(1), 109-114. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.1.109-114

Dezutter, J., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Bruyneel, S., Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., &
Hutsebaut, D. (2009). The role of religion in death attitudes: Distinguishing

67
 between religious belief and style of processing religious contents. Death
Studies, 33(1), 73-92. doi:10.1080/07481180802494289

Dy-Liacco, G. S., Piedmont, R. L., Murray-Swank, N. A., Rodgerson, T. E., & Sherman,
M. F. (2009). Spirituality and religiosity as cross-cultural aspects of human
experience. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1(1), 35-52.
doi:10.1037/a0014937

Ehrhart, K., Roesch, S. C., Ehrhart, M. G., & Kilian, B. (2008). A test of the factor
structure equivalence of the 50-item IPIP five-factor model measure across
gender and ethnic groups. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 507-516.
doi:10.1080/00223890802248869

Ensel, W. M., & Lin, N. (1991). The life stress paradigm and psychological distress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 321–341.

Everett Jones, S., Anderson, K., Lowry, R., Conner, H. (2011). Risks to health among
American Indian/Alaska Native high school students in the United States.
Preventing Chronic Disease, 8(4), A76.
http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2011/jul/10_0193.htm.

Francis, L. J., & Bourke, R. (2003). Personality and religion: Applying Cattell's model
among secondary school pupils. Current Psychology, 22(2), 125-137.
doi:10.1007/s12144-003-1003-9

Francis, L. J., & Robbins, M. (2008). Psychological type and prayer preferences: A
study among Anglican clergy in the United Kingdom. Mental Health, Religion &
Culture, 11(1), 67-84. doi:10.1080/13674670701619445

Francis, L. J., Robbins, M., & Murray, L. (2010). Psychological type and religious
orientation: Do introverts and extraverts go to church for different reasons?.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13(7-8), 821-827.
doi:10.1080/13674670802207496

Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Schwartz, J. E., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Martin, L. R.,
Wingard, D. L., & Criqui, M. H. (1995). Psychosocial and behavioral predictors of
longevity: The aging and death of the 'termites.'. American Psychologist, 50(2),
69-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.2.69

Gill, C. S., Barrio Minton, C. A., & Myers, J. E. (2010). Spirituality and religiosity: Factors
affecting wellness among low-income, rural women. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 88(3), 293-302. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Gillum, R. F., & Dupree, N. (2007). Religiousness, health, and health behavior in public-
use data of the National Center for Health Statistics. Journal of Religion and
Health, 46(1), 155-165. doi:10.1007/s10943-006-9083-0

68
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory
measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.
Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, Vol.
7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Gordon, K., Frousakis, N. N., Dixon, L. J., Willett, J. M., Christman, J. A., Furr, R. E., &
Hellmuth, J. C. (2008). Intrinsic/extrinsic religious orientation, forgiveness, and
the role of social pressure. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27(4), 311-
319. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/Extrinsic Measurement: I/E –

revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3),
348-354.

Harding, S. R., Flannelly, K. J., Weaver, A. J., & Costa, K. G. (2005). The influence of
religion on death anxiety and death acceptance. Mental Health, Religion &
Culture, 8(4), 253-261. doi:10.1080/13674670412331304311

Heaven, P. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance

orientation and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European
Journal of Personality, 15(1), 49-56. doi:10.1002/per.389

Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. r., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D.
B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of
commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
30(1), 51-77. doi:10.1111/1468-5914.00119.

Homan, K. J., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2010). Religiosity, sense of meaning, and health
behavior in older adults. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,
20(3), 173-186. doi:10.1080/10508619.2010.481225.

Hong, R. Y., & Paunonen, S. V. (2009). Personality traits and health-risk behaviours in
university students. European Journal of Personality, 23(8), 675-696.
doi:10.1002/per.736

Howden, J. W. (1993, July). Development and psychometric characteristics of the

Spirituality Assessment Scale. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions
4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California,Berkeley, Institute of Personality
and Social Research.

Johnstone R. L. (2004). Religion in society: a sociology of religion (7th edn). Pearson

Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Jurkovic, D., & Walker, G. A. (2006). Examining masculine gender-role conflict and
stress in relation to religious orientation and spiritual well-being in Australian
men. The Journal Of Men's Studies, 14(1), 27-46. doi:10.3149/jms.1401.27

69
Koenig, H. G., Hays J. C., Larson D. B., George, L. K., Cohen H. J., McCllough, M. E.,
Meador, K. G., & Blazer, D. G. (1999). Does religious attendance prolong
survival? A six-year follow-up study of 3,968 older adults. J Gerontology, 54(A),
370-376.

Krause, N. (2011). Religion and health: Making sense of a disheveled literature. Journal
of Religion and Health, 50(1), 20-35. doi:10.1007/s10943-010-9373-4

Kristiansen, C. M. (1985). Value correlates of preventive health behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 748-758. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.49.3.748

Kudel, I., Cotton, S., Szaflarski, M., Holmes, W. C., & Tsevat, J. (2011). Spirituality and
religiosity in patients with HIV: A test and expansion of a model. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 41(1), 92-103. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9229-x

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Lewinsohn, P., Rohde, P., Seeley, J., Monson, C. M.,
Meyer, K. A., & Langford, R. (1998). Gender differences in the suicide-related
behaviors of adolescents and young adults. Sex Roles, 39(11-12), 839-854.
doi:10.1023/A:1018824621193

Levin, J. S. (1996). How religion influences morbidity and health: Reflections on natural
history, salutogenesis and host resistance. Social Science & Medicine, 43, 849–
864.

Lewis, C., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2005). Religious orientation, religious coping and
happiness among UK adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(5), 1193-
1202. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.002

Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2001). The relationship between spirituality and Eysenck's
personality dimensions: A replication among English adults. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 162(1), 119-122. doi:10.1080/00221320109597884.

Maltby, J., & Lewis, C. (1996). Measuring intrinsic and extrinsic orientation toward
religion: Amendments for its use among religious and non-religious samples.
Personality and Individual Differences, 21(6), 937-946. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(96)00154-7

Maltby, J., Lewis, C., Freeman, A., Day, L., Cruise, S., & Breslin, M. J. (2010). Religion
and health: The application of a cognitive-behavioural framework. Mental Health,
Religion & Culture, 13(7-8), 749-759. doi:10.1080/13674670802596930

Masters, K. S. (2008). Mechanisms in the relation between religion and health with
emphasis on cardiovascular reactivity to stress. Research in the Social Scientific
Study of Religion, 1991-115. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004166462.i-299.29

Masters, K. S., & Knestel, A. (2011). Religious orientation among a random sample of
community-dwelling adults: Relations with health status and health-relevant

70
 behaviors. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21(1), 63-76.
doi:10.1080/10508619.2011.532450

McCullough, M. E. (1995). Prayer and health: Conceptual issues, research review, and
research agenda. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23, 15-29.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1992.tb00970.x

Milevsky, A., & Levitt, M. J. (2004). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity in preadolescence
and adolescence: Effect on psychological adjustment. Mental Health, Religion &
Culture, 7(4), 307-321. doi:10.1080/13674670410001702380

Miller, G. (1999). The development of the spiritual focus in counseling and counselor
education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 498-501.

Miller, C. H., & Quick, B. L. (2010). Sensation seeking and psychological reactance as
health risk predictors for an emerging adult population. Health Communication,
25(3), 266-275. doi:10.1080/10410231003698945

Nagel, E., & Sgoutas-Emch, S. (2007). The relationship between spirituality, health
beliefs, and health behaviors in college students. Journal of Religion and Health,
46(1), 141-154. doi:10.1007/s10943-006-9088-8.

Nelms, L., Hutchins, E., Hutchins, D., & Pursley, R. J. (2007). Spirituality and the health
of college students. Journal of Religion and Health, 46(2), 249-265.
doi:10.1007/s10943-006-9075-0

Newberg, A., D’Aquili, E., & Rause, V. (2001). Why god won’t go away: Brain science
and the biology of belief. New York: Ballantine Books.

Nichols, L. M., & Hunt, B. (2011). The significance of spirituality for individuals with
chronic illness: Implications for mental health counseling. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 33(1), 51-66. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Østergaard, J. N., Grønbæk, M. M., Schnohr, P. P., Sørensen, T., & Heitmann, B. L.
(2010). Combined effects of weight loss and physical activity on all-cause
mortality of overweight men and women. International Journal of Obesity, 34(4),
760-769. doi:10.1038/ijo.2009.274

Park, C. L. (2007). Religiousness/spirituality and health: A meaning systems

perspective. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(4), 319-328.
doi:10.1007/s10865-007-9111-x

Park, C. L., Edmondson, D., Fenster, J. R., & Blank, T. O. (2008). Positive and negative
health behavior changes in cancer survivors: A stress and coping perspective.

71
 Journal of Health Psychology, 13(8), 1198-1206.
doi:10.1177/1359105308095978

Park, C. L., Edmondson, D., Hale-Smith, A., & Blank, T. O. (2009).

Religiousness/spirituality and health behaviors in younger adult cancer survivors:
Does faith promote a healthier lifestyle?. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(6),
582-591. doi:10.1007/s10865-009-9223-6.

Penke, L., Denissen, J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary genetics of
personality. European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 549-587.
doi:10.1002/per.629

Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality?

Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67(6),
985-1013. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00080

Piedmont, R. L., Ciarrochi, J. W., Dy-Liacco, G. S., & Williams, J. E. G. (2009). The
empirical and conceptual value of the spiritual transcendence and religious
involvement scales for personality research. Psychology of Religion and
Spirituality, 1-18.

Piedmont, R. L., Werdel, M. B., & Fernando, M. (2009). The utility of the assessment of
spirituality and religious sentiments (ASPIRES) scale with Christians and
Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 20,
131-143.

Porro, G. & Iacus, S. M. (2009). Random recursive partitioning: A matching method for
the estimation of the average treatment effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics,
24, 163-185.

Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Religion and spirituality: Linkages
to physical health. American Psychologist, 58(1), 36-52. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.58.1.36

Priester, P. E., Scherer, J., Steinfeldt, J. A., Jana-Masri, A., Jashinsky, T., Jones, J. E.,
& Vang, C. (2009). The frequency of prayer, meditation and holistic interventions
in addictions treatment: A national survey. Pastoral Psychology, 58(3), 315-322.
doi:10.1007/s11089-009-0196-8

Purdy, M., & Dupey, P. (2005). Holistic flow model of spiritual wellness. Counseling and
Values, 49(2), 95-106. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Quinn, P. D., & Fromme, K. (2010). Self-regulation as a protective factor against risky
drinking and sexual behavior. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(3), 376-385.
doi:10.1037/a0018547

72
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A
10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

Raynor, D. A., & Levine, H. (2009). Associations between the five-factor model of
personality and health behaviors among college students. Journal of American
College Health, 58(1), 73-81. doi:10.3200/JACH.58.1.73-82

Rippentrop, A., Altmaier, E. M., Chen, J. J., Found, E. M., & Keffala, V. J. (2005). The
relationship between religion/spirituality and physical health, mental health, and
pain in a chronic pain population. Pain, 116(3), 311-321.
doi:10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.008

Robie, C., Komar, S., & Brown, D. J. (2010). The effects of coaching and speeding on
big five and impression management scale scores. Human Performance, 23(5),
446-467. doi:10.1080/08959285.2010.515278

Rockhill, B., Willett, W. C., Manson, J. E., Leitzmann, M. F., Stampfer, M. J., Hunter, D.
J., & Colditz, G. A. (2001). Physical activity and mortality: A prospective study
among women. American Journal of Public Health, 91(4), 578-583.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.4.578

Rosmarin, D. H., Pargament, K. I., & Flannelly, K. J. (2009). Do spiritual struggles

predict poorer physical/mental health among Jews?. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 19(4), 244-258. doi:10.1080/10508610903143503

Ross, C. J., & Francis, L. J. (2010). The relationship of intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest
religious orientations to Jungian psychological type among churchgoers in
England and Wales. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13(7-8), 805-819.
doi:10.1080/13674670802207462

Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the
relationship between the big five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook
usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658-1664.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004

Santelli, J. S., Robin, L., Brener, N. D. & Lowry R. (2001). Timing of alcohol and other
drug use and sexual risk behaviors among unmarried adolescents and young
adults. Family Planning Perspectives, 33(5), 200-205.

Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review.
Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.

Saroglou, V., & Muñoz-García, A. (2008). Individual differences in religion and

spirituality: An issue of personality traits and/or values. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 47(1), 83-101. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00393.x

73
Schwadel, P. (2005). Individual, congregational, and denominational effects on church
members' civic participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(2),
159-171. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00273.x

Seybold, K. S., & Hill, P. C. (2001). The role of religion and spirituality in mental and
physical health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(1), 21-24.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00106

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the big five inventory:
Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant
validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 84-90.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002

St. Petersburg Times (1999). Ancient Egyptian religion. Retrieved from

http://www2.sptimes.com/Egypt/EgyptCredit.4.3.html

Stefansdottir, I., & Vilhjalmsson, R. (2007). Dimensions of health-related lifestyle in

young adulthood: Results from a national population survey. Scandinavian
Journal Of Caring Sciences, 21(3), 321-328.

Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009). An introduction to recursive partitioning:
Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees,
bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods, 14(4), 323-348.
doi:10.1037/a0016973

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

Vollrath, M. E., & Torgersen, S. (2008). Personality types and risky health behaviors in
Norwegian students. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 287-292.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00631.x

Walker, S. N., Sechrist, K. R., & Pender, N. J. (1987). The health-promoting lifestyle
profile: Development and psychometric characteristics. Nursing Research, 36(2),
76-81

Wang, C. W., Chan, C. W., Ng, S. M., & Ho, A. Y. (2008). The impact of spirituality on
health-related quality of life among Chinese older adults with vision impairment.
Aging & Mental Health, 12(2), 267-275. doi:10.1080/13607860801951903

Westgate, C. E. (1996). Spiritual wellness and depression. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 75(1), 26-35. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Young, J., Cashwell, C. S., & Shcherbakova, J. (2000). The moderating relationship of
spirituality on negative life events and psychological adjustment. Counseling and
Values, 45(1), 49-57.

74
Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F.
Paloutzian, C. L. Park, R. F. Paloutzian, C. L. Park (Eds.) , Handbook of the
psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21-42). New York, NY US: Guilford
Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

75