Good for All? Hardly! Attending Church Does Not Benefit Religiously Unaffiliated

Speed, David; Fowler, Ken

doi:10.1007/s10943-016-0317-5

Cited by 25 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the greater rate of charitable giving and volunteering found among religious attenders is attributable to factors such as positive social norms and networking, requests for donations, and engaging in structured social activities (Becker & Dhingra 2001;Campbell & Yonish 2003;Merino 2013). One interpretation of this is that even the nonreligious could benefit from religious group membership and practices (Lim & MacGregor 2012;Putnam & Campbell, 2010), although there is some evidence that engagement in religious groups may not have well-being benefits for the unaffiliated (Speed & Fowler, 2017). Another implication is that, although SECULAR MECHANISMS 6 religious engagement constitutes one possible avenue for these effects, they could also accrue to nonbelievers who "practice nonbelief" by engaging in secular groups, such as humanist, freethought, and Sunday Assembly organizations (Galen & Kloet, 2011a).…”

Section: Secular Effect Of Social Embeddedness and Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focusing on the nonreligious reveals secular mechanisms underlying well-being and prosociality.

Galen

2018

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greater attention to secular and nonreligious individuals has provided much-needed balance as well as alternative interpretations of commonly-held assumptions regarding religiosity/ spirituality (R/S). Contrary to the theory that R/S provides unique benefits in areas such as prosociality and mental health, analogous secular mechanisms exist. The conflation of effects attributed to R/S together with secular effects represents a congruence fallacy. Studies often lack proper controls found in other areas of psychology (e.g., dismantling or placebo designs) that could detect when religion is acting as a proxy for more basic underlying influences. For example, an increased focus on the nonreligious has revealed that religious belief has often been confounded with factors such as strong worldview conviction, social engagement, and normative cultural fit. R/S differences co-occur with demographic, personality, cognitive, and epistemic variables that exert causal influence independent of any religious content. Experimental and treatment outcome studies featuring effects attributed to R/S often have not included equivalent secular conditions or stimuli. The association between spirituality and well-being has been artificially inflated because of conceptual blurring on assessment measures, leading to the miscategorization of some nonreligious individuals into the spirituality domain. In sum, a more specified and critical approach is needed in order to validate assumptions that religiosity and spirituality exert unique effects.

show abstract

Section: Secular Effect Of Social Embeddedness and Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focusing on the nonreligious reveals secular mechanisms underlying well-being and prosociality.

Galen

2018

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More specifically, disturbances such as doubt (Ellison and Lee 2010; Krause 2006; Krause and Ellison 2009), disaffiliation (Fenelon and Danielsen 2016; Hayward et al 2016), moderate levels of commitment (Eliassen et al 2005), and negative interactions in the Church (Ellison et al 2009) tend to diminish the otherwise positive relationship between religion and mental health. According to Speed and Fowler’s (2017) recent study of Ontario’s adult population, the relationship between religion and mental health is also moderated by religious affiliation. More specifically, there is a positive relationship between church attendance and well-being for Christians and a negative relationship between church attendance and well-being for the unaffiliated (Speed and Fowler 2017).…”

Section: Identity Theory and Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Religious (Dis)Affiliation and Depressive Symptomatology

May

2017

Society and Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Religious affiliation is generally associated with better mental health. The nonreligious, however, currently constitute one of the fastest-growing religious categories in the United States. Since most of the nonreligious were raised in religious homes, their growth raises important questions about the mental health of those who consider dropping out of religion. In this article, I use longitudinal data from the Portraits of American Life Study to examine the impact of religious affiliation on mental health. Specifically, I compare individuals who dropped out of religion (leavers) with individuals who considered dropping out (stayers) and individuals who are more consistent in their religious (stable affiliates) and nonreligious (stable Nones) affiliations. I find that stayers experience more depressive symptoms than any other group and that they experience a greater increase in depressive symptoms over time. My findings are consistent with identity theories in sociology, and they provide evidence that a strong religious or secular identity is an important contributor to mental health.

show abstract

“…When healthy behaviors are properly controlled for, health differences between religious and nonreligious individuals (and spiritual and nonspiritual individuals) are negligible (Baker, Stroope, and Walker ; Cragun et al. ; Speed ; Speed and Fowler , ), though, as with the relationship between religiosity and happiness (Diener, Tay, and Myers ), this finding needs further investigation in more geographic regions than just North America.…”

Section: Empirical Research On Religion's Othermentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping Religion's Other: A Review of the Study of Nonreligion and Secularity

Smith

Cragun

2019

Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we review the research literature on nonreligion, secularity, the nones, and other forms of "religion's other." As a relatively new area of sustained and still growing research activity, with its attendant theoretical and methodological implications continuing to take shape, our focus is on the social science research from the mid-2000s to the present. We consider the challenges of definition and perspective in this line of inquiry, highlight key arguments, and summarize the main findings from empirical studies of nonreligion and its relationship to topics including identity, health, family, and prejudice. After discussing the organizational and social movement aspects of nonreligious communities, as well as related developments in how scholars are studying these communities, we conclude our assessment of the state of this field by proffering questions relevant to both current efforts and whatever future directions are in store for research on religion's other.

show abstract

Good for All? Hardly! Attending Church Does Not Benefit Religiously Unaffiliated

Cited by 25 publications

References 29 publications

Focusing on the nonreligious reveals secular mechanisms underlying well-being and prosociality.

Focusing on the nonreligious reveals secular mechanisms underlying well-being and prosociality.

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Religious (Dis)Affiliation and Depressive Symptomatology

Mapping Religion's Other: A Review of the Study of Nonreligion and Secularity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About