life purpose and another reflecting life satisfactioa Conservative religiosity was ... with high scores on the PIL (as a whole), as well as on both purpose and life.
Journal of Psychology and Theology 1986, Vol. 14, No. 1, 42-48
Copyright 1986 by Rosemead School of Psychology Biola University, 0091-6471/4107-3000
The Association between Religiosity and the Purpose-in-Life Test: Does it Reflect Purpose or Satisfaction? BRIAN D. DUFON University o f Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba
DANIEL PERLMAN University o f British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia There has been both theory and research to suggest that conservative religiosity is associated with a sense of life purpose. Much of this research has utilized the Purpose-inlife (PIL) test There has been some debate, however, regarding the homogeneity of this measure. The present study found that the PIL test consists of two factors, one reflecting life purpose and another reflecting life satisfactioa Conservative religiosity was associated with high scores on the PIL (as a whole), as well as on both purpose and life satisfaction items. Implications for both ftiture use of the PIL and for past research on life purpose are discussed
There have been a number of studies to investigate the relationship of religiosity to life purpose. In general, these studies have suggested that believers, in particular those who hold beliefs most typical of a conservative or born-again orientation, exhibit more life purpose than those not holding religious beliefs (see, for example, Crandall & Rasmussen, 1975; Ellison & Economos, 1981; Ellison & Paloutzian, 1979; Paloutzian, 1981). The bulk of this research has utilized the Purpose-in-Life (PIL) test developed by Crumbaugh and Maholick ( 1964). Based on the concepts of Victor Frankl (1963), the PIL test is designed to assess the degree to which an individual experiences a sense of meaning and purpose (Crumbaugh, 1968). Evidence of its validity has been given in a number of studies (see, for example, Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964; Crumbaugh, Raphael & Shrader, 1970). Yet despite a relatively substantial number of validity
Glock (1962) has suggested that, by definition, believers are those who have found solutions to problems of life meaning and purpose. Kelley (1972), similarly, has speculated that the primary function of religion is to explain the meaning of life. Religious beliefs may provide meaning by giving perspectives on problems beyond the immediate experience of here-and-now reality (Wuthnow, 1976) or by granting an integrative structure with which to make sense of life stresses (Schweiker, 1969). This article is based on the first author’s doctoral dissertation while at the University of Manitoba, done under the direction of the second author. The second author’s program of research has in part been supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Requests for reprints should be sent to Brian D. Dufton, PhD, Psychology Department, Bethune Building, Victoria General Hospital, 1278 Tower Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2Y9.
42
BRIAN D. DUFTON AND DANIEL PERLMAN
studies, there has been some debate about the homogeneity of the PIL test. On one hand, evidence of internal consistency has been given in the form of relatively high split-half correlation coefficients (Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964; Reker & Cousins, 1979). On the other hand, evidence of test heterogeneity has been given by a factor analytic solution. Using a principal component factor analysis with a varimax rotation, six factors were identified, namely purpose in life, contentedness with life, goal achievement, self-fulfillment, internal-external locus of control and life view (Reker & Cousins, 1979). This finding supports the contentions ofothers(see Paloutzian, 1981; Yalom, 1980) that the PIL is made up of more than one concept if not several. In summary, there is both theory and research suggesting a relationship between religiosity and life purpose. Much of the research investigating this relationship, however, is complicated by the potential heterogeneity of the PIL test. Clearly, if the latter is made up of more than one dimension, it becomes difficult to determine the significance of studies using this measure. This study, thus, addressed three questions. Is religiosity associated with life meaning and purpose as measured by the PIL test? Is the PIL test homogeneous? If the PIL test is not homogeneous, how are its components related to religiosity?
Method Subjects The subjects in this study were all introductory psychology students at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. They took part in the study as a way of partially fulfilling a course requirement of research participation. Data analysis was based on the responses of232 students who met the criteria for being classified as either a nonbeliever n=76), a conservative believer ( 71= 76) or a nonconservative believer ( 8 0 = )מ. The sample contained an equal number of males and females. Subjects ranged in age
from 16 to 25 (M = 19.2). The majority of the sample were single (94.4%) with the remainder either married or living with someone of the opposite sex. Most of the sample lived with their parents (71.7%) or in their own residence off campus (20.3%). No religious preference was chosen by 69.7%, 5.1% and 2.6% of the nonreligious, nonconservative and conservative groups respectively. Of the nonconservative group, membership in either the Roman Catholic or the United Church of Canada was most common (39.2% and 19.0% respectively). Of the conservative group, membership in either the Mennonite or Baptist Churches was most frequent (40.8% and 11.8% respectively). Ten other denominations were represented in the total sample with an average of 2.1 % of the sample choosing each of these denominations as their preference.
Classification o f Subjects into Groups To place the participants into religious categories, two measures of belief content were administered. One scale was adapted from the questions used by Paloutzian and Ellison (1982). It required the respondents to select the one statement best reflecting their form of religious commitment. The alternatives were: 1. I do not consider myself to be religious. 2. I consider myself to be religious and I have received Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord. 3. I consider myself to be religious and I respect and attempt to follow the moral and ethical teachings of Christ. 4. I consider myself to be religious but I do not consider myself to be a Christian. I am a member of some other religious faith. Subjects were also given Hunfs (1972) literal, Anti-Literal and Mythological (LAM) scales. Minor revisions were made to Hunt’s original 17-item scale to remove sexist wording. Subjects were asked to pick the statement which best reflected their personal opinion. A sample item is: 43
RELIGIOSITY AND PURPOSE-IN-LIFE TEST I believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. a. Agree, since God has said that He will be with us always. Prayer thus is an effective way of listening to God^ guidance. b. Disagree, since the supernatural, if it exists at all, is in no way directly involved in telling people what to do. c. Agree, because this is one way of describing the involvement of God with his creation and people.
These statements are literal, anti-literal and mythological respectively. Students who claimed to be religious but who were not Christians were excluded from further consideration. The remaining students were included in the final sample only if they met the criteria for membership in one of three groups. Nonbelievers were defined as those who said that they were not religious and who also scored higher on the Anti-literal (A) scale than on the Literal (L) and Mythological (M) scales together. Conservative believers were defined as those who said that they had received Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Lord and who also scored higher on the L scale than on the M scale. Nonconservative believers were defined as those who said that they respected and tried to follow the moral and ethical teachings of Christ and who also scored higher on the M scale than on the L scale. Other Measures Life purpose. As noted previously, life purpose was assessed by the PIL test. The latter consists of 20 items which are rated on a seven point, Likert-type scale. A sample item is: I am usually (1) completely bored (4) neutral (7) exuberant, enthusiastic. Social desirability. To control for the effects of social desirability, the latter was assessed by twelve true-false items from the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Procedure This study was part of a much larger one (Dufton & Perlman, in press). The questionnaire, containing 245 items, including the religious belief measures, demographic items, 44
the PIL test, and the measure of social desirability, was administered to students in groups of approximately 30 individuals. It took approximately an hour to complete. Subjects were told that the study was concerned with the interaction of values and behavior. Results Data analyses consisted of (a) a two (sex) by three (religious group) analysis of covariance of PIL test scores using social desirability as a covariate, (b) a factor analysis of the PIL test, and (c) a two (sex) by three (religious group) multivariate analysis of covariance of the 20 PIL items using social desirability as a covariate. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) method was employed to determine which groups were significantly different. For reasons of space, ANCOVA and MANCOVA tables are not presented here but are available on request. Group Differences in PIL Scores Mean PIL scores for the nonreligious group, nonconservative group and conservative group were 99.8, 99.9 and 113.9 respectively with the latter being significantly higher than the other two groups (F=9.43; df= 2,211 ; /?
