Although prior research has had a tendency to confirm a negative association between religiousness and crime, criminologists have been slow to incorporate new concepts and emergent issues from the scientific study of religion into their own research. The self‐identity phrase “spiritual but not religious” is one of them, which has been increasingly used by individuals who claim to be “spiritual” but disassociate themselves from organized religion. This study first examines differences in crime between “spiritual‐but‐not‐religious” individuals and their “religious‐and‐spiritual,” “religious‐but‐not‐spiritual,” and “neither‐religious‐nor‐spiritual” peers in emerging adulthood. Specifically, we hypothesize that the spiritual‐but‐not‐religious young adults are more prone to crime than their “religious” counterparts, while expecting them to be different from the “neither” group without specifying whether they are more or less crime prone. Second, the expected group differences in crime are hypothesized to be explained by the microcriminological theories of self‐control, social bonding, and general strain. Latent‐variable structural equation models were estimated separately for violent and property crimes using the third wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The overall results tend to provide a partial support for the hypotheses. Implications for criminology and future research are discussed.

Almost 25 percent of Americans self-identify as biblical literalists and the concept has long been used in research. Studies of Bible views and their relationship with other social outcomes remain popular today; however, the measure is operationalized differently amongst these studies. This study describes how to best use categorical measures of biblical literalism. This is accomplished through a two-part analysis. First, the three most frequently used forms of Bible views are used as predictors to compare their similarity or dissimilarity in various models with identical controls. Second, we use generalized multinomial logistic regression to explore the differences between the response categories of a three-category nominal Bible view measure and various social and religious exogenous measures. We argue that biblical literalism should be operationalized as a nominal system of dummy variables, referred to here as received, active, and unreliable Bible views, and coding systems that do not do this may obscure important differences between the response groups.

While much religion-health research depends on social support explanations, little is known about whether religious support is also a part of clinical interactions. How many physicians include religious/spiritual topics in clinical conversations? What characteristics are related to inclusion or avoidance? Using a national sample (n = 1,144), this study provides an overview of religious beliefs and practices of physicians in the USA and their patient interactions. Physician attendance rates are related to the inclusion of religious/spiritual topics, but the religious/spiritual orientation of physicians more closely relates to religious/spiritual patient interactions. Further, some physician specialties have more religious/spiritual physicians than others, providing additional reason to think religious/spiritual patient conversations are not equally distributed throughout the medical landscape.

The Bible is an important text in American history, but research analyzing the social consequences of reading the Bible is very limited. Research focusing on religious practices or religiosity with Bible reading as part of a scale shows a tendency towards conservatism and traditionalism, as do more literalist views of the Bible. In the present study, biblical literalism is treated as a powerful context guiding one's reading. The focus here is a quantitative view of Bible reading, deploying two ‘conservative’ and two ‘liberal’ moral/political scales and two competing views for how Bible reading may function. Results indicate that Bible reading is positively related to both of the liberal scales as well as the conservative scales for non-literalists, but not for those with literalist Bible views. The findings begin to show the importance of independent Bible reading, how it may function differently for literalists and non-literalists, and highlights the degree to which literalism and Bible reading are different constructs.

Guided by the stress process tradition, complex links between religion and mental health have received growing attention from researchers. This study gauges individuals’ public and private religiosity, uses a novel measure of environmental stress—negative media portrayal of religion—and presents two divergent hypotheses: (1) religiosity as stress-exacerbating attachment to valued identities producing mental health vulnerability to threat and (2) religiosity as stress-buffering social psychological resource. To assess these hypotheses, we analyze three mental health outcomes (generalized anxiety, social anxiety, and general mental health problems) in national U.S. data from 2010 (N = 1,714). Our findings align with the stress-buffering perspective. Results show that individuals low in public and private religiosity tend to have worse mental health with greater negative media portrayal. High public or private religiosity tends to nullify the relationship between negative media portrayal and mental health.