Religiosity and mental health: A critical reevaluation and meta-analysis.

Abstract

For many decades, lassitude and malaise hae afflieled the relationship btiween psychology and religion. Intemt and actioity in this rtlalionship are now being renewed, and old controoersies with ntID terms are resurfacing. This article rroiews the extensioe empirical literature on the topic and shows that rtligiosity is a compla phenomenon with numerouscorrtlates and consequencesthat defy simple inttrprtialions. A meta-analysis of 24 pertinent studies rroealed no support for the preconception that religiousness is necessarily correlated with psychopathology; but it also showed only slightly positioe corrtlates of rtligion. Sociological and psychiatric reports were more faoorable to religion. The data's ambiguities compare with those ambiguities that formerly charaelerized psychotherapy research. Beller specification of concepts and methods of measuring rtligiosity are alleoiating this problem. which suggests that ambiguous results ref/eel a multidimensional phenomenon that has mixed posit iDe and negatioe aspects. Aoeraging such dioerse factors generally yields unimpressioe findings. whereas using specificity promises clearer and more powerful results. Clinical education. practice, and research nud rroision so that professionals will be beller informed of the eoidence. more open to the study of such oariables. and more efficacious in their work with persons who approach life from a rtligious perspeelioe. In a recent article on psychotherapy and religious values, I indicated that a renascence of psychological interest in religion is occurring (Bergin, 1980a, 1980b). Value assumptions underlying clinical approaches are often considered alien by a large proportion of the population in treatment, who endorse more traditional religious perspectives. I argued that religion should be considered more systematically in personality theories and therapeutic interventions. Responses to these themes were numerous, divergent, and vigorous. The topic is not dead, as was once lamented (Beit-Hallahmi, 1974), and a new National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) bibliography on the subject is now available (Summerlin, 1980). The present review considers the assertion by critics (Ellis, 1980; Walls, 1980) that religiosity is antithectical to emotional health and rationality, a view widely held in the clinical professions. Ellis (1980) stated this position bluntly and honestly: