J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613
DOI 10.1007/s10943-016-0274-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Further Exploring the Link Between Religion
and Existential Health: The Effects of Religiosity
and Trait Differences in Mentalizing on Indicators
of Meaning in Life
Clay Routledge1 • Christina Roylance1 • Andrew A. Abeyta1
Published online: 29 June 2016
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Religiosity contributes to perceptions of meaning. One of the cognitive foun-
dations for religious belief is the capacity to mentalize the thoughts, emotions, and
intentions of others (Theory of Mind). We examined how religiosity and trait differences in
mentalizing interact to influence meaning. We hypothesized that people who are most
cognitively inclined toward religion (high mentalizers) receive the greatest existential
benefits (i.e., high and secure meaning) from religiosity. We assessed individual differ-
ences in mentalizing and religiosity, and measured indicators of meaning. Results con-
firmed that the combination of high mentalizing and high religiosity corresponded to the
highest levels of existential health.
Keywords Meaning Religiosity Mentalizing Theory of Mind Existential health
Introduction
Humans strive to perceive their lives as full of meaning and purpose (e.g., Frankl 1959;
Hicks and Routledge 2013). These efforts are important because perceptions of meaning in
life positively contribute to psychological health and well-being (for a review, see
Heintzelman and King 2014). For example, people who view their lives as being full of
meaning are happier and more satisfied with their lives (Park et al. 2010). Perceptions of
meaning are also associated with decreased likelihood of depressive symptoms (Mascaro
and Rosen 2005), suicidality (Edwards and Holden 2001), and substance abuse (Kinnier
et al. 1994). For those who do struggle with mental illness, perceived meaning contributes
to positive therapeutic outcomes in psychotherapy (Debats 1996). In other words,
& Clay Routledge
[email protected];
http://www.clayroutledge.com
1
Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA
123
J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613 605
perceiving life as meaningful both reduces the risk of psychopathology and aids in the
treatment of it. Meaning has also been identified as a critical resource for coping with
traumatic life events (e.g., Park and Folkman 1997). Finally, meaning in life is associated
with physical health and longevity (Bower et al. 2003; Hill and Turiano 2014). In short,
perceptions of meaning may be one key to a long and fulfilling life. Existential health in the
form of perceiving one’s life as meaningful and full of purpose promotes overall psy-
chological and physical health.
Religious belief has long been linked to perceptions of meaning in life (Batson and
Stocks 2004; Emmons 2005; Yalom 1980). For example, research generally observes a
positive association between religiosity and meaning in life (e.g., Hicks and King 2008;
Steger and Frazier 2005). Recent experimental research also reveals the meaning-making
nature of religious belief by demonstrating that threatened meaning increases self-reported
religiosity (Van Tongeren and Green 2010) and belief in religious phenomena (e.g.,
miracles; Routledge et al. 2015). Research further suggests that religiosity may contribute
to overall psychological health, in part, because of its capacity to positively influence
perceptions of meaning in life. For instance, Steger and Frazier (2005) found that meaning
in life mediated the relationship between religiosity and well-being.
Meaning contributes to health and well-being, and religious belief is a powerful source
of meaning. However, individual differences may impact how effectively people’s reli-
giosity translates into perceptions of life as meaningful. Specifically, research in cognitive
psychology indicates that social cognitive processes influence people’s religious nature and
this work might prove informative for understanding for whom religiosity is most likely to
generate meaning. Cognitive scientists have argued that the human proclivity toward
religion can be partially explained by normal social cognitive processes related to agency
detection and mentalizing the internal states, feelings, and intentions of others (Atran 2007;
Barrett 2000; Bloom 2007; Boyer 2001; Willard and Norenzayan 2013). Clearly, many
facets of religious belief involve this kind of mentalizing or Theory of Mind. For example,
believing that there is a God who created the Earth and watches over humans involves
assuming agency in nature (i.e., God purposely designed the world) and mental perspective
taking (i.e., God cares about humans and wants to help them). Likewise, to interpret events
in the world as divinely influenced or miraculous requires the ability to mentalize a
supernatural agent (e.g., God, guardian angels) with intentions and goals. Also, religious
behavior such as prayer requires an ability to envision a spiritual force or deity with agency
who is empathetic to one’s concerns.
In support of this cognitive perspective, studies reveal that trait differences in men-
talizing predict religiosity and belief in God (Willard and Norenzayan 2013). That is,
people who are more inclined to take the perspective of other agents and simulate their
possible thoughts, feelings, and intentions are more likely to hold religious beliefs. In
addition, females tend to be more religious than males and this effect is mediated by trait
differences in mentalizing abilities (Norenzayan et al. 2012). Furthermore, people with
Theory of Mind deficits such as individuals on the autism spectrum are more likely to not
believe in God than neuro-typical individuals, and this effect is also mediated by individual
differences in mentalizing abilities (Norenzayan et al. 2012). Neuro-imaging studies fur-
ther reveal that thinking about God or praying to God activates regions of the brain
associated with Theory of Mind (Kapogiannis et al. 2009; Schjoedt et al. 2009). In short,
social cognitive processes, specifically those associated with mentalizing, help lay the
foundation for religious belief.
Trait differences in mentalizing may incline people toward religion; however, there are
a number of demographic, social, and motivational variables that also influence religious
123
606 J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613
belief and disbelief (Banerjee and Bloom 2013; Norenzayan and Gervais 2012). For
instance, people who are raised in a religious social environment are more likely to identify
as religious than those who do not grow up around religious peers or in religious families
(Gunnoe and Moore 2002). A number of life experiences can also influence religiousness.
For example, people are more inclined to attribute life outcomes to God during times of
stress or extreme hardship (Stephens et al. 2012). Moreover, research indicates that people
are more likely to believe in God and other supernatural agents (e.g., Norenzayan and
Hansen 2006) and engage in religious-like teleological thinking (Davis et al. 2011) when
grappling with existential concerns about mortality. Similarly, interpersonal threats such as
being socially excluded or ostracized increase religiosity (Aydin et al. 2010).
Though mentalizing proclivities are only part of what makes people religious, we
propose that these tendencies might prove important for religion’s ability to generate
meaning. That is, the more easily people are able to imagine supernatural agents such as
God and envision the intentions and emotions of these agents, the more easy it may be for
them to experience meaning derived from religiosity. Indeed, previous research indicates
that part of what makes religion a meaning-making resource is that religious narratives
involve supernatural agents such as God being invested in the lives of humans (Routledge
et al. 2015). That is, feeling that one’s life is part of God’s plan and that God and perhaps
other supernatural agents such as angels are watching over them makes existence feel more
purposeful and meaningful. Furthermore, research has revealed that greater mentalizing
abilities are associated with greater perceptions of life as meaningful (Willard and
Norenzayan 2013). Thus, though past work clearly identifies religiosity as a source of
meaning, since part of what makes religion generate meaning is the belief that powerful
and immortal supernatural agents care about and look after humans perhaps those who are
best able to envision these agents (i.e., high mentalizers) will gain the greatest existential
benefits from religion.
In the present study, we test this possibility by measuring trait differences in mental-
izing, religious belief, and distinct indicators of meaning in life: presence of meaning,
search for meaning, and crisis of meaning. Presence of meaning represents the extent to
which people view their existence as significant and purposeful (Steger et al. 2006). Search
for meaning represents the desire to find meaning. Research indicates that though search
for meaning is not the opposite of presence of meaning, it is can be conceptualized as a
defensive response to low presence of meaning (Steger et al. 2008). That is, since people
generally desire to perceive life as meaningful, the more they lack a sense of meaning, the
more they should be motivated to search for it. Crisis of meaning represents the frustration
or distress felt over the perception that one’s life is lacking meaning. Research indicates
that though crisis of meaning is independent from general perceptions of meaning and
search for meaning, high crisis of meaning typically corresponds with low presence and
high search for meaning (Schnell 2009). We specifically hypothesized that religiosity
would be associated with greater perceived meaning, less search for meaning (i.e., less of a
need to further seek meaning), and lower crisis of meaning (i.e., lower existential distress).
However, we predicted that this relationship would be most pronounced among those high
(relative to low) in mentalizing. We similarly hypothesized that high levels of mentalizing
would be most strongly associated with meaning among those high (relative to low) in
religiosity. In other words, we predicted that it would be the combination of high men-
talizing and high religiosity that would lead to the highest and most secure perceptions of
life as meaningful.
123
J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613 607
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 165 undergraduate students (64 females, Mage = 19.50, SDage = 1.51)
from a Midwestern university. Participants completed all materials on computers in private
cubicles and were fully debriefed after the study session.
Materials
Mentalizing
To measure trait differences in mentalizing, we administered the 22-item short version of
the Empathy Quotient (EQ; Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright 2004; Wakabayashi et al.
2006) as this measure has been extensively used to in past work linking mentalizing to
religiosity (e.g., Norenzayan et al. 2012; Willard and Norenzayan 2013). The EQ assesses
mentalizing tendencies such as perspective taking, cognitive and affective empathy, as well
as motivation to understand other people’s thoughts and emotions. It includes items such as
‘‘I can pick up quickly if someone says one thing but means another’’ and ‘‘I can tune into
how someone else feels rapidly and intuitively’’ (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly
agree). Scores on the 22 items formed an internally reliable index, so we computed total
EQ scores by reverse scoring appropriate items so that higher values corresponded with
greater proclivity toward mentalizing and averaging the items (a = .91, M = 2.98,
SD = .46).
Religiosity
We administered three items to assess religiosity. The following two items were selected
from the Americans’ Changing Lives survey (House 1994): ‘‘In general, how important are
religious or spiritual beliefs in your day-to-day life?’’ (1 = not very important, 6 = very
important). ‘‘When you have problems or difficulties in your work, family, or personal life,
how often do you seek spiritual comfort?’’ (1 = not very often, 6 = very often). The final
item was a face valid question about religious identification: ‘‘In general, would you say
you are a religious person?’’ (1 = not very religious, 6 = very religious). These three
items formed a highly reliable index of religiosity (a = .93; M = 3.28, SD = 1.70).
Presence and Search for Meaning
To assess meaning, we administered the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, which consists of
two subscales (Steger et al. 2006). The presence subscale assesses the extent to which
people currently feel like their lives are meaningful (sample item: ‘‘My life has a clear
sense of purpose’’; 1 = absolutely untrue, 7 = absolutely true; a = .94; M = 4.63,
SD = 1.46). The search subscale assesses the extent to which people are currently seeking
meaning in life (sample item: ‘‘I am searching for meaning in my life’’; 1 = absolutely
untrue, 7 = absolutely true; a = .91; M = 4.24, SD = 1.57).
123
608 J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613
Table 1 Zero-order correlations
Measure 1 2 3 4
1. EQ –
2. Religiosity .30** –
3. Presence of meaning .43** .50** –
4. Search for meaning -.07 -.19* -.38** –
5. Crisis of meaning -.39** -.31** -.66** .33**
** p \ .001; * p \ .05
Crisis of Meaning
Finally, we assessed crisis of meaning with the 5-item crisis of meaning subscale of the
Sources of Meaning in Life Scale (Schnell 2009; 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly
agree). This subscale assesses distress over lack of meaning in life (e.g., ‘‘I feel pain from
finding no purpose in life’’; a = .95; M = 2.46, SD = 1.46).
Results
Zero-order correlations are available in Table 1. Consistent with past research, EQ scores
and religiosity were significantly and positively correlated. Religiosity was also associated
significantly with greater meaning, lower search for meaning, and lower crisis of meaning.
EQ was positively correlated with meaning and negatively correlated with crisis of
meaning but not significantly related to search for meaning.1 The only observed gender
differences were on EQ and religiosity. Again, consistent with past work, women scored
higher than men on both EQ (p \ .001) and religiosity (p \ .05). There were no gender
differences on meaning measures (ps [ .09)
To probe potential interaction effects, we centered EQ and religiosity scores and created
an interaction term. Regression analyses revealed significant interaction effects between
EQ and religiosity on all three meaning outcomes. We next discuss each interaction and
describe the results of the follow-up tests we conducted to probe the nature of each
1
Based on the zero-order correlations, we also tested for mediation. To test the hypothesis that individual
differences in mentalizing predict meaning in life indirectly through religiosity, we calculated 95 %
bootstrapped confidence intervals and bootstrapped standard errors for direct and indirect effects (10,000
bootstrap samples) using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013; model 4). EQ predicted presence of
meaning indirectly, through religiosity, Mindirect = 0.37, SE = .12, 95 % CI [0.18, 0.66]. Higher levels of
EQ were associated with greater religiosity, b = 1.10, SE = .27, t = 4.08, p \ .001, 95 % CI [0.57, 1.64].
Greater religiosity, in turn, was associated with greater presence of meaning, b = 0.34, SE = .06, t = 5.85,
p \ .001, 95 % CI [0.22, 0.45], when controlling for the significant direct relation between EQ and presence
of meaning, b = 0.98, SE = .21, t = 4.59, p \ .001, 95 % CI [0.56, 1.40]. We repeated this analysis for
search for meaning and crisis of meaning, respectively. EQ predicted search for meaning indirectly, through
religiosity, Mindirect = -0.19, SE = .09, 95 % CI [-0.41, -.03]. Specifically, higher levels of EQ were
associated with greater religiosity, and greater religiosity, in turn, was associated with less search for
meaning, b = -0.17, SE = .07, t = -2.28, p = .02, 95 % CI [-0.32, -0.02], when controlling for the
nonsignificant direct relation between EQ and search for meaning, b = -0.06, SE = .27, t = -0.21,
p = .83, 95 % CI [-0.60, 0.48]. EQ also predicted crisis of meaning indirectly, through religiosity,
Mindirect = -0.20, SE = .09, 95 % CI [-0.44, -.06]. Specifically, higher levels of EQ were associated with
greater religiosity, and greater religiosity, in turn, was associated with less crisis of meaning, b = -0.18,
SE = .06, t = -2.80, p = .006, 95 % CI [-0.31, -0.05], when controlling for the significant direct relation
between EQ and crisis of meaning, b = -1.05, SE = .24, t = -4.42, p \ .001, 95 % CI [-1.51, -0.58].
123
J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613 609
Fig. 1 Effects of mentalizing 7 Low EQ High EQ
and religiosity on presence of
Presence of Meaning
meaning. Higher scores on the 6
y-axis indicate higher levels of 5
presence of meaning. EQ and
religiosity values represent ±1 4
SD from the mean 3
2
1
Low Religiosity High Religiosity
interaction. Follow-up tests were conducted by recentering EQ and religiosity scores at ±1
SD from the mean.
Presence of Meaning
For presence of meaning, the interaction between EQ and religiosity was significant,
b = 0.40, SE = .11, t = 3.57, p \ .001 (see Fig. 1). Follow-up tests revealed that reli-
giosity predicted meaning at high levels (?1 SD) of EQ, b = 0.48, SE = .07, t = 7.00,
p \ .001. However, religiosity was not a significant predictor of meaning at low levels (-1
SD) of EQ, b = 0.12, SE = .08, t = 1.44, p = .15. Looked at differently, at high levels of
religiosity (?1 SD), EQ was a significant predictor of meaning, b = 1.72, SE = .29,
t = 5.88, p \ .001. However, at low levels of religiosity (-1 SD), EQ was not a significant
predictor of meaning, b = 0.38, SE = .27, t = 1.42, p = .16.
Search for Meaning
For search for meaning the interaction between EQ and religiosity was significant,
b = ±.43, SE = .14, t = ±3.00, p \ .01 (see Fig. 2). Follow-up tests revealed that high
religiosity was associated with decreased search for meaning at high levels (?1 SD) of EQ,
b = -0.33, SE = .09, t = -3.66, p \ .001. However, religiosity no longer predicted
search for meaning at low levels (-1 SD) of EQ, b = 0.07, SE = .11, t = .65, p = .52.
Looked at differently, high EQ was associated with decreased search for meaning at high
levels (?1 SD) of religiosity, b = -0.87, SE = .38, t = -2.30, p \ .05. But again, EQ
was not a significant predictor of search for meaning at low levels (-1 SD) of religiosity,
b = 0.60, SE = .35, t = 1.74, p = .09.
Crisis of Meaning
For crisis of meaning, the interaction between EQ and religiosity was significant,
b = -0.26, SE = .13, t = -2.06, p \ .05 (see Fig. 3). Follow-up tests revealed that high
religiosity was associated with decreased crisis meaning at high levels (?1 SD) of EQ,
b = -0.28, SE = .08, t = -3.50, p \ .001. However, religiosity no longer predicted
crisis of meaning at low levels (-1 SD) of EQ, b = -0.04, SE = .10, t = -.38, p = .71.
Looked at differently, high EQ was associated with decreased crisis of meaning at high
levels (? 1 SD) of religiosity, b = -.1.53, SE = .33, t = -4.61, p \ .001. Though the
effect was much smaller, EQ remained a significant predictor of decreased crisis of
meaning at low levels (-1 SD) of religiosity, b = -.65, SE = .30, t = -2.16, p \ .05.
123
610 J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613
Fig. 2 Effects of mentalizing 7 Low EQ High EQ
Search for Meaning
and religiosity on search for 6
meaning. Higher scores on the
5
y-axis indicate higher levels of
search for meaning. EQ and 4
religiosity values represent ±1 3
SD from the mean
2
1
Low Religiosity High Religiosity
Fig. 3 Effects of mentalizing 6
Low EQ High EQ
and religiosity on crisis of 5
meaning. Higher scores on the Crisis of Meaning
y-axis indicate higher levels of 4
crisis of meaning. EQ and
3
religiosity values represent ±1
SD from the mean 2
1
Low Religiosity High Religiosity
Discussion
The present study is consistent with past research linking religiosity, mentalizing, and
meaning in life. That is, zero-order relationships were observed between these variables.
Critically, the present study further elucidated these relationships by testing and observing
interaction effects. The overall pattern across all meaning measures was that religiosity
contributes to existential health among those with high, but not low, mentalizing ten-
dencies. Specifically for people high, but not low, in mentalizing, higher levels of reli-
giosity were significantly associated with higher levels of perceived meaning, lower levels
of search for meaning, and lower levels of crisis of meaning. Looked at differently,
mentalizing typically only contributed to existential health among highly religious indi-
viduals. That is, it was for highly religious people that high mentalizing was associated
with higher levels of meaning, lower levels of search for meaning, and lower levels of
crisis of meaning. There was a significant effect of EQ on crisis of meaning at low levels of
religiosity, suggesting that even among relatively nonreligious individuals, mentalizing
abilities may help reduce existential distress. However, this was the only significant effect
on a meaning variable at low religiosity and this effect was much smaller than the effect of
EQ at high religiosity. That being said, this effect may indicate that mentalizing abilities
have existential health implications even among those who tend to not identify as religious.
Critically, the present research represents the first consideration of how social cognitive
characteristics associated with religious belief influence religiosity’s contribution to
existential health. Many studies implicate religious belief as an important component of
what makes life meaningful, but to date, none of these studies considered whether the
social cognitive capacities related to Theory of Mind moderate religion’s ability to provide
meaning. Thus, the present study offers an important step toward interfacing cognitive
approaches to the study of religion with more social, health, and clinical/counseling psy-
chological approaches to the study of religion and health. Future research should consider
the downstream health consequences of mentalizing proclivities among religious indi-
viduals. If high mentalizers gain more meaning from religion, might they also enjoy to a
123
J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613 611
greater extent the broader psychological and physical health benefits associated with
religiousness?
The current study also complements recent research identifying supernatural religious
beliefs as contributing to meaning in life. Specifically, Routledge et al. (2015) demon-
strated that people increase their belief in miraculous events involving supernatural reli-
gious agents (i.e., God, guardian angels) following a threat to perceived meaning in life. If
mentalizing is an important cognitive foundation for beliefs that implicate supernatural
agents, then individual differences in mentalizing may also influence the extent to which
people utilize religion to cope with life stressors and existential concerns. Future research
should thus consider the potential for mentalizing abilities to modulate people’s coping
strategies and meaning-making endeavors. One limitation of the current research is that it
involved a nonexperimental design. This was necessary, as we wanted to test how indi-
vidual differences in mentalizing and religiosity relate to meaning. In addition, it could be
difficult to experimentally manipulate mentalizing tendencies or religiosity. However,
future studies using established experimental methods to manipulate meaning could pro-
vide evidence that it is high mentalizers who are most inclined to turn to religion to
regulate existential concerns related to meaning.
The present work also has potential implications for future research considering out-
comes associated with low levels of mentalizing among religious people. Of course, as the
zero-order correlations demonstrate, low mentalizers are less likely to be religious.
However, this correlation is relatively small. Thus, there are people low in mentalizing
who are religious. As previously discussed, there are noncognitive forces that also inspire
religiosity (e.g., family environment). However, if low mentalizers are not receiving any
existential benefits from religion are they receiving other benefits or might they be the
individuals most inclined to abandon religion or at least experience high levels of religious
doubt and uncertainty? Future research should consider the other possible benefits (e.g.,
social connections) that low mentalizers may receive from religious involvement as well as
the possibility that individual differences in mentalizing predict the extent to which reli-
gious people are actively involved in and committed to their religious beliefs and practices.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest Authors have no conflicts of interest.
Humans and Animal Rights All procedures performed in the reported studies involving human partici-
pants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the
American Psychological Association Ethics Code.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the reported studies, and all
participants were fully debriefed after they participated in the study.
References
Atran, S. (2007). Religion’s social and cognitive landscape: An evolutionary perspective. In S. Kitayama, D.
Cohen, S. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 417–453). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Aydin, N., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Turning to God in the face of ostracism: Effects of social
exclusion on religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 742–753.
Banerjee, K., & Bloom, P. (2013). Would Tarzan believe in God? Conditions for the emergence of religious
belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 7–8.
123
612 J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with
Asperger Syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 34, 163–175.
Barrett, J. L. (2000). Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends n Cognitive Sciences, 4, 29–34.
Batson, C. D., & Stocks, E. L. (2004). Religion: Its core psychological functions. In J. Greenberg, S.
L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 141–155).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bloom, P. (2007). Religion is natural. Developmental Science, 10, 147–151.
Bower, J. E., Kemeny, M. E., Taylor, S. E., & Fahey, J. L. (2003). Finding positive meaning and its
association with natural killer cell cytotoxicity among participants in a bereavement-related disclosure
intervention. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 146–155.
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Davis, W. E., Juhl, J., & Routledge, C. (2011). Death and design: The terror management function of
teleological beliefs. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 98–104.
Debats, D. L. (1996). Meaning in life: Clinical relevance and predictive power. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 35, 503–516.
Edwards, M. J., & Holden, R. R. (2001). Coping, meaning in life, and suicidal manifestations: Examining
gender differences. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 1517–1534.
Emmons, R. A. (2005). Striving for the sacred: Personal goals, life meaning, and religion. Journal of Social
Issues, 61, 731–745.
Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Gunnoe, M. L., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Predictors of religiosity among youth aged 17–22: A longitudinal
study of the National Survey of Children. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 613–622.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014). Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69, 561–574.
Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2008). Religious commitment and positive mood as information about meaning
in life. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 43–57.
Hicks, J. A., & Routledge, C. (Eds.). (2013). The experience of meaning in life: Classical perspectives,
emerging themes, and controversies. New York, NY: Springer.
Hill, P. L., & Turiano, N. A. (2014). Purpose in life as a predictor of mortality across adulthood. Psy-
chological Science, 25, 1482–1486.
House, J. S. (1994). Americans’ changing lives: Waves I and II, 1986 and 1989 [computer file]. ICPSR
version. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor],
1997.
Kapogiannis, D., Barbey, A. K., Su, M., Zamboni, G., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2009). Cognitive and
neural foundations of religious belief. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 106, 4876–4881.
Kinnier, R. T., Metha, A. T., Keim, J. S., Okey, J. L., Adler-Tabia, R. L., Berry, M. A., & Mulvernon, S. W.
(1994). Depression, meaninglessness, and substance abuse in ‘normal’ and hospitalized adolescents.
Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 39, 101–111.
Mascaro, N., & Rosen, D. H. (2005). Existential meaning’s role in the enhancement of hope and prevention
of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality, 73, 985–1014.
Norenzayan, A., & Gervais, W. (2012). The cultural evolution of religion. In E. Slingerland & M. Collard
(Eds.), Creating consilience: Integrating science and the humanities (pp. 243–265). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Norenzayan, A., Gervais, W. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2012). Mentalizing deficits constrain belief in a
personal God. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036880.
Norenzayan, A., & Hansen, I. G. (2006). Belief in supernatural agents in the face of death. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 174–187.
Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General
Psychology, 1, 115–144.
Park, N., Park, M., & Peterson, C. (2010). When is the search for meaning related to life satisfaction?
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2, 1–13.
Routledge, C., Roylance, C., & Abeyta, A. A. (2015). Miraculous meaning: Threatened meaning increases
belief in miracles. Journal of Religion and Health. doi:10.1007/s10943-015-0124-4.
Schjoedt, U., Stødkilde-Jørgensen, H., Geertz, A. W., & Roepstorff, A. (2009). Highly religious participants
recruit areas of social cognition in personal prayer. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4,
199–207.
123
J Relig Health (2017) 56:604–613 613
Schnell, T. (2009). The Sources of Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe): Relations to demographics and
well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 483–499.
Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: One link in the chain from religiousness to well-being.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 574–582.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the
presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the search for meaning
in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning.
Journal of Personality, 76, 199–228.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2012). Who explains Hurricane
Katrina and the Chilean Earthquake as an act of God? The experience of extreme hardship predicts
religious meaning-making. Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 606–619.
Van Tongeren, D. R., & Green, J. D. (2010). Combating meaninglessness: On the automatic defense of
meaning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1372–1384.
Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Goldenfeld, N., Delaney, J., Fine, D., et al. (2006).
Development of short forms of the Empathy Quotient (EQ-Short) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQ-
Short). Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 929–940.
Willard, A. K., & Norenzayan, A. (2013). Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and
belief in life’s purpose. Cognition, 129, 379–391.
Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
123
Journal of Religion & Health is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
