Religiosity and health: A global comparative study

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to understand global connections between indicators of religiosity and health and how these differ cross-nationally. Data are from World Values Surveys (93 countries, N=121,770). Health is based on a self-assessed question about overall health. First, country-specific regressions are examined to determine the association separately in each country. Next, country-level variables and cross-level interactions are added to multilevel models to assess whether and how context affects health and religiosity slopes. Results indicate enormous variation in associations between religiosity and health across countries and religiosity indicators. Significant positive associations between all religiosity measures and health exist in only three countries (Georgia, South Africa, and USA); negative associations in only two (Slovenia and Tunisia). Macro-level variables explain some of this divergence. Greater participation in religious activity relates to better health in countries characterized as being religiously diverse. The importance in god and pondering life’s meaning is more likely associated with better health in countries with low levels of the Human Development Index. Pondering life’s meaning more likely associates with better health in countries that place more stringent restrictions on religious practice. Religiosity is less likely to be related to good health in communist and former communist countries of Asia and Eastern Europe. In conclusion, the association between religiosity and health is complex, being partly shaped by geopolitical and macro psychosocial contexts.

Gender Equity, Religion, and Fertility in Europe and North America

“…Measuring religiosity by service attendance is appropriate in a European and North American sample (Zimmer et al. 2019), and I also verified (1) that the results were robust to using religious salience7 and (2) that they were not sensitive to controls for religious affiliation.…”

“…Country-level religiosity was defined as percentage 14-50 attending religious services regularly (weekly or more) in each country (calculated separately for each survey). Measuring religiosity by service attendance is appropriate in a European and North American sample (Zimmer et al 2019), and I also verified (1) that the results were robust to using religious salience 7 and (2) that they were not sensitive to controls for religious affiliation.…”

Religiosity and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: a Study on Student Employees in South Tangerang

“…While, this study using the religiosity approach theory which looks at religiosity in general. For this reason, There are mentions the following three dimensions to measure one's religiosity [16].…”

Response to “De-Conflating Religiosity/Spirituality”

“…According to Zimmer and colleagues, the association between religion and health may be the result of three broad, but inter-related mechanisms: religious activity provides social support by bringing people with common values and interests together, which results in a larger quantity of social networks and in better quality of social interactions; religious denominations may encourage lifestyles that promote health (eg, meditation and mindfulness practices) and may discourage those that have a negative effect on health (eg, tobacco/alcohol use, or risky sexual behavior); and religious activity impacts psychosocial factors (eg, reduction of stress and provision of coping mechanisms). 3 There are some negative and indifferent studies on the impact of spirituality and religiosity on health outcomes, and these also should be considered when reviewing the evidence; although, the preponderance of evidence is positive. 3 Roane and Harirforoosh support the idea of training students in spiritual assessments, but do not support the same for religiosity.…”

“…3 There are some negative and indifferent studies on the impact of spirituality and religiosity on health outcomes, and these also should be considered when reviewing the evidence; although, the preponderance of evidence is positive. 3 Roane and Harirforoosh support the idea of training students in spiritual assessments, but do not support the same for religiosity. However, the two are interrelated.…”