HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Popul Ageing. 2018 March ; 11(1): 7–21.

Return to Religion? Predictors of Religious Change Among

Baby-Boomers in their Transition to Later Life
Merril Silverstein and
Syracuse University

Vern L. Bengtson
University of Southern California
Author Manuscript

INTRODUCTION
Evidence suggests that engagement in meaningful activities in later life produces a variety of
benefits to physical health, mental health, longevity, and overall quality of life (Levin, 1993;
McFadden, 1995; Krause, 2003; Hill, Burdette, & Idler, 2011). Religion represents a key
activity domain in which older adults participate at relatively high levels, particularly in the
United States where religion plays an outsized role compared to other developed countries.
Religious involvement operates at both personal and institutional levels. At the personal
level, religion provides for many a belief system and moral philosophy, as well as a
framework for approaching difficult and ineffable events. These functions are closely related
to the capacity of religion to infuse life with meaning, offer a route for personal growth, and
Author Manuscript

provide moral guidance.

The institutional role of religion involves more public displays of worship, and social and
organizational activities such as volunteering. These more public manifestations of religious
life may also benefit society by strengthening communities and improving the well-being of
the populations that religious institutions serve (Idler, 2014). As such, religious
organizations represent something of a haven for older adults who are desirous of
meaningful roles, social integration and the opportunity to contribute to society (Idler, Kasl,
& Hays, 2001).

Yet we know relatively little about how religion—and which aspects of religious
involvement—changes following the transition from late middle age to early old age. In this
Author Manuscript

paper, we examine the correlates of change in religiosity as individuals age from the their
50s to their 60s as a function of cognitive and behavioral manifestations of religious
involvement, religious participation in childhood, and challenges that emerge over this
period of life.

Religion and aging—Research has generally found age differences in religiosity with
older adults having stronger religious beliefs and involvement compared to younger adults
(Ellison & Hummer, 2010; Krause, 2010). Only at the end of life, with increasing frailty,

Correspondence to: Merril Silverstein.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 2

does religious participation appear to decline (Krause, 2010; Idler, McLaughlin & Kasl,
Author Manuscript

2009). Other aspects of religiosity, such as subjective religiousness and the strength of
religious beliefs, are relatively consistent across age groups (Moody, 2006; Levin, 1989).
The most convincing evidence for aging effects come from longitudinal analyses
demonstrating that subjective aspects of religiosity declines across early and middle
adulthood before increasing in later life (Dillon and Wink, 2007; Bengtson, Silverstein,
Harris, Putney, & Min). Research by Hayward and Krause (2013) shows that attendance at
religious services rapidly increases in early old age, after a period of stability, and only starts
to reverse in late old age. On balance, the evidence about age changes in religiosity is mixed,
but generally point to an increase in subjective religiosity into old age, as well as a rise in
religious participation when health permits.

Why should religion become more important with increasing age? Several strains of theory
can be cited to explain why, as people grow closer to the end of their lives, religious or
Author Manuscript

spiritual concerns gain in prominence (Johnson 2009, Krause 2009). These explanations can
roughly be divided into those perspectives that consider developmental/cognitive aspects of
religiosity and those that consider social/behavioral aspects.

Developmental/cognitive changes with aging are reflected in the work of lifespan

personality theorists such as Erikson ([1959] 1982), Jung (1953), Kohlberg (1972), and
Munnichs (1966) concerning the need of individuals to move beyond worldly pursuits and
examine existential issues as a fundamental developmental challenge of later life. More
recently, Tornstam (2005) advanced a theory of gerotranscendence, proposing that in
advanced years, individuals experience “a shift in meta-perspective from a midlife
materialistic and rational vision, to a more cosmic and transcendent one, accompanied by an
increase in life satisfaction” (42). Literature suggests that altruistic tendencies strengthen in
Author Manuscript

later life (Midlarsky & Kahana, 1994), and pro-social motives to better the lives of others
may manifest themselves under the auspice of religious institutions. Consistent with this
perspective is the finding that religiously based volunteer work tends to be of particular
relevance among older adults (Van Willigen, 2000).

Whether it is because of an awareness of finitude (Munnichs, 1966), a sense of completion

(Butler, 1955), or a concern for immortality (Jung, 1953), there may be a turning toward
spirituality in the later years. Moreover, there may be more practical reasons for becoming
more religious in the later years, reflected in the growing literature on congregational
involvement and adjustment to the various losses associated with advancing years—health
declines, widowhood, the shrinking of social support networks, and loneliness (Idler 2006;
Krause 2006). Finally, retirement from paid work and relief from family pressures of mid-
Author Manuscript

life may afford more time available for engaging in religious and spiritual activities. A less
explored reason for religious change in later life relates to what may be labelled “pull
factors” in the form of outreach by religious organizations to retain older congregants and
increase their involvement (Bengtson, Endacott, Copping, & Kang, in press).

Based on the above arguments, change in religious involvement and spiritual engagement
would seem to be expected in the early stages of later years—with an increase more likely
than a decline occurring. Challenges and transformative family events associated with later

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 3

life may trigger religious involvement and religiously oriented behavior. For instance,
Author Manuscript

Ferraro and Kelley-Moore (2000) found that bereavement, poor health, and being out of the
labor force prompted individuals to seek consolation by making use of religious resources.
Adverse life experiences strengthen religious connections throughout the life course
(Ingersoll-Dayton, Krause, & Morgan, 2002), with those experiences being more common in
later life.

In this research, we take a developmental perspective on religious change in later life by

examining how religious exposure in childhood is related to religious change from mid- to
later life. This perspective derives from the principles of life course theory, which maintains
that earlier life experiences provide a basis for which roles are adopted later in the adult
lifespan (see Elder, 1998). Research by Sherkat (1998) found that traditional socialization
agents, such as parents and school, were most responsible for the religious beliefs and
involvement of baby-boomers. Thus, we take into account retrospectively assessed reports
Author Manuscript

about religious participation in childhood, and relate them to contemporaneous religious

involvement and change in religiosity over the past decade. While we expect early religious
exposure to be related to current religious activities and beliefs, it may be that those who
were less religious in childhood are more likely to become more religious between midlife
and later life.

Finally, we note that the population of interest, the baby-boom generation, possess
characteristics that may mark them as religiously unique in their transition to later life.
Scholars have noted that baby-boomers were first generation to behave as religious
“seekers” who selectively adopted belief systems within a marketplace of ideologies and
spiritual communities (Roof, 1999; Wuthnow, 2008). Moving away from more rigid and
institutionalized religious practice and beliefs, the transition of this generation to old age
Author Manuscript

may present another opportunity for religious change and reinvention. Yet, as Sherkat (1998)
has found, religious traditionalism rooted in the childhood socialization of baby-boomers
competes with the tendency of this generation toward innovation in religious matters. Given
evidence in the literature that religiosity might increase as individuals pass into old age, we
speculate that baby-boomers may return to their religious roots or seek meaning in new
religious practices.

Based on the preceding discussion of the literature on this topic, we address the following
research questions in this paper:

1. To what degree has religiosity changed among baby-boomers as they age from
their 50s to their 60s?

2. Among those reporting an increase in religiosity, what reasons are given for this
Author Manuscript

change?

3. Is change in religiosity independently related to cognitive and behavioral forms

of religiosity?

4. What role does religious practice earlier in the life course play in religious
change?

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 4

5. Are life course transitions—specifically retirement, widowhood, economic

Author Manuscript

decline, and worsening health—associated with religious change?

METHOD
Sample
Data for this investigation derive from the Longitudinal Study of Generations, a
multigenerational and multi-panel study of 418 three-generation families that began in 1971
and has continued for eight additional waves up to 2016. The original sample of three-
generation families was identified by randomly selecting grandfathers from the membership
of a large health maintenance organization in Southern California. For the current analysis,
we rely on data from the 2016 survey which was administered to 693 members of the third
generation, for an effective follow-up rate of 73.2%. The large majority (79.8%) of this
sample responded via a web-survey with the remainder responding with a mail-back paper
Author Manuscript

survey. We selected 599 respondents who were 60–70 years of age at the time of the survey,
corresponding to early and middle waves of the baby-boom generation. This age-range
provides a demographically relevant period of life when, for many, paid work ceases, and
risk of health decline and widowhood increases. We note that the period between the last
two surveys (2006–2016) straddles the financial crisis of 2007–2008, which may have
caused economic distress for those nearing or entering retirement, introducing precarity to
work roles, disrupting or accelerating retirement plans, and possibly providing reasons for
engaging in religious pursuits.

Measures
Religious change—Respondents were asked to retrospectively assess their religious
change over the previous decade by responding to the following question: In the last ten
Author Manuscript

years, have you become more religious, become less religious, or stayed about the same. The
option of “I was never religious” was provided as an additional response option.

The survey also asked respondents to provide the reason or reasons why they became more
religious if they indicated this option (reasons for religious decline were not asked). These
reasons were ascertained in previous research using in-depth interviews about religious life
(Bengtson, 2013). The checklist included the following options: the amount of free time you
had changed; you experienced a loss; your interest in worldly things changed; you became
concerned about the religious development of your children or grandchildren. Multiple
reports were possible. In addition, an open-ended response option was offered for
respondents who chose to provide their own narrative explanation.
Author Manuscript

Contemporary and childhood religiosity—In considering religiosity, we conceptually

and empirically distinguish between cognitive and behavioral aspects of religiosity,
corresponding to private and public manifestations of religious life. This distinction also
differentiates between religion as a source of personal meaning and beliefs, and religion as a
social institution with attendant practices and normative behaviors. Because these domains
may relate differently to religious change, we treat them independently after ascertaining
their measurement properties.

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 5

The cognitive dimension describes religious intensity, religious influence, private prayer,
Author Manuscript

spirituality, and belief in God, measured with the following survey questions (anchor
response categories and their numerical coding shown in parentheses):

• Regardless of whether you attend religious services, do you consider yourself to

be...(religious) (Coded 1=4, with 1= not at all religious and 4=very religious)
• Religion is the most important influence in my life. (Coded 1–4, with 1=strongly
disagree and 4=strongly agree)

• How often do you pray privately in places other than religious services? (Coded
1–4, with 1=never and 4=several times a day)

• Regardless of whether you are religious, do you consider yourself to be…

(spiritual) Coded 1–4, with 1=not at all spiritual to 4=very spiritual
Author Manuscript

• How much do you believe in God? (Coded 1–4, with 1= believes with certainty
and 4=does not believe or atheist)

The behavioral dimension of religiosity included religious practice and participation, as

measured with the following survey questions (anchor response categories and coding
shown in parentheses):

• How often do you attend religious services these days? (Coded 1–6, with
1=never and 6=more than once per week)

• Besides attending religious services, how often do you take part in other
activities at a religious congregation, such as committee work, and social
activities? (Coded 1–6, with 1=never and 6=more than once a week)
• In the last year, have you done volunteer work for a religious organization?
Author Manuscript

(Coded 1 or 6, with 1=no and 6=yes)

The following item measured participation in religious services during childhood:

• When you were a young child, how often did you attend religious services?
(Coded 1–5, with 1=never and 5=very often)

Transitions and challenges—Of particular interest were transitional events and

challenges that may have precipitated a change in religiosity. These included loss of partner
(divorced or widowed), retirement, experiencing an economic decline, and poor self-rated
health. In terms of their prevalence, 11% lost a partner, 46% retired, 31% experienced an
economic decline, and 19% evaluated their health as fair or poor. In predictive models, we
controlled for age (mean = 64.1 years), gender (57% female), and education (82% college
Author Manuscript

graduates).

RESULTS
We begin by discussing the prevalence of retrospectively assessed change in religiosity over
the past 10 years, and reasons for increased religiosity among those reporting an increase.
Figure 1 shows that the majority of the sample (56%) indicated that their religiosity was
stable over the period, but more than one in five (21%) reported an increase in religiosity.

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 6

Smaller proportions reported a decline in religiosity (11%) or stated that they were never
Author Manuscript

religious (12%). Whether or not the “never religious” should be interpreted as being stable is
arguable, but we chose to omit this group from subsequent analyses because religion is not
relevant to them.

The percentage of respondents endorsing each of four reasons for increased religiosity are
shown in Figure 2. The most commonly endorsed reason was that interest in worldly things
changed (64%), followed by concern for the religious development of children or
grandchildren (53%), experiencing a loss (46%), and amount of free time changed (24%).

Next, we examine open-ended responses from 72 of 125 respondents who reported

becoming more religious. It is important to note that providing open-ended responses was
optional and followed the four structured questions above. The two authors evaluated these
responses and, by consensus, grouped them into five broad thematic categories that we
Author Manuscript

describe below with illustrative quotes. The largest group, representing 39% of responses,
reflected the search for spirituality and connection to a higher power, with responses such as
“personal desire for spiritual growth” , “getting closer to God”, and “seeing the power of
faith”. The next most common category, representing 22% of responses, reflected challenges
and losses, such as “a husband’s prostate cancer”, “the death of parents”, and “a marital
crisis”. Representing 15% of responses, a third category consisted of social factors related to
family, congregation, and community, with responses such as “to be a good example for my
children”, “sing in a gospel group”, and “have greater social connections”. The desire for
personal growth as related to growing older was mentioned by 11%, with such responses
such as “greater insights, growth and maturity”, “(getting) older and wiser”, and “wisdom of
aging”. Finally, a fifth theme, consisting of 8% of responses, reflected worrisome global and
societal issues, such as feeling that “the" spiritual dimension is sorely lacking in society”,
Author Manuscript

concern over the “moral decay of the USA” and the sense that the “world is increasingly
more dangerous”.

Taken together, structured and open-ended responses suggest that processes related to
spiritual growth, the experience of health and social loss, and the maintenance of social and
family connections were important factors in whether religiosity increased in the transition
from late middle age to early old age. These results inform our speculation that adverse life
events enhance religious involvement and inhibit religious disengagement. Given that the
survey measures these events, we focus on the experience of personal loss as a key factor
predicting religious change in the following quantitative analysis.

Quantitative model—The distributions of contemporary religiosity variables, which form

Author Manuscript

the basis for the multivariate model, as well as childhood religious service attendance, are
presented in Table 1. In terms of cognitive religiosity, about half the sample (49%) was
either pretty or very religious, 40% agreed that religion is the most important influence on
their lives. 45% privately prayed at least weekly, two-thirds (66%) considered themselves to
be pretty or very spiritual, and 64% believed in God either strongly or with certainty. The
distribution of behavioral religiosity variables reveal that 30% attended religious services at
least weekly, 20% were involved with congregational activities at least weekly, and 24%
were engaged in volunteering under a religious auspice. In general, these figures suggest a

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 7

robust religious orientation among sample members that is somewhat consistent with their
Author Manuscript

age-peers in the nation. However, these figures also suggest a generational or life-time
diminution in religious participation, as about two-thirds (67%) attended religious services
often or very often during childhood.

In order to assess the dimensionality of the eight contemporary religiosity items, we used
exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation. Factor loadings shown in Table 2, indicated
good measurement properties for a two-factor structure which corresponded to cognitive and
behavioral dimensions of religiosity. Factor loadings were greater than .7 on the appropriate
factor and less than .4 on the alternative factor. The correlation between the factors was .59.

Next, we build an empirical model to predict religious change, testing the contribution of
cognitive and behavioral religiosity, religious practice in childhood, and life transitions and
challenges. We employed structural equation modeling with latent variables to examine how
Author Manuscript

early and contemporary religious involvement, and life transitions and challenges were
associated with religious change as retrospectively assessed over a ten-year period. Religious
change was assessed as a three category outcome, contrasting increasing religiosity and
declining religiosity with no change in religiosity (the reference category). As suggested by
the factor analysis, we represented cognitive and behavioral religiosity as separate but
correlated constructs, each with item-level measurement error. The model specifies a direct
relationship between early religious involvement and religious change, as well as indirect
relationships through each dimension of contemporary religiosity. Although the model
presented is depicted as a causal model, we do not infer causality from it. Our intent was to
identify whether cognitive and behavioral religiosity were independently associated with
self-assessed religious change rather than being the cause of that change. Theoretically
relevant variables related to potentially disruptive transitions (loss of partner, retirement,
Author Manuscript

economic decline, and poor health) were also included as predictors, as were several control
variables (gender, education, and age).

Models were estimated using the Generalized Structural Equation Modeling (GSEM)
procedure in Stata v. 14.2. GSEM has desirable features for the current analysis because it
incorporates multinomial logistic regression for predicting categorical outcomes and allows
the estimation of robust standard errors to account for familial clustering in our data
(StataCorp, 2015). Full information maximum likelihood estimation allowed retention of
respondents with missing values, which, while minimal (<10%), minimized selection bias
and allowed for a more inclusive representation of sample members.

The results of the GSEM estimation are found in Table 3. Because GSEM does not yield
goodness-of-fit statistics, we relied on the size of the estimated coefficients to determine the
Author Manuscript

adequacy of the measurement model. Consistent with the exploratory factor analysis, the
pattern of measurement coefficients in this confirmatory analysis led us to accept the two-
factor model of cognitive and behavioral religiosity as a parsimonious representation the
observed data. As in the exploratory analysis, the factors were allowed to correlate.

Statistically significant estimates from the structural model are shown graphically in Figure
3 for ease of interpretation. There are positive associations between childhood religious

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 8

attendance and contemporary cognitive and behavioral religiosity, but no association

Author Manuscript

between early exposure and increasing religiosity. However, having greater religious
exposure in childhood was associated with declining religiosity over the last ten years.

Turning to contemporary religiosity, we see that cognitive and behavioral aspects of

religiosity were positively associated with religious increase and negatively associated with
religious decline. That is, strong religiosity of both types was more likely to be reached by
increasing religiosity and less likely to be reached by decreasing religiosity, as contrasted
with being religiously stable during this period.

Examining the indirect effects of childhood religious attendance, we see that greater
religious exposure early in life heightened the risk that religiosity increased over the ten-year
period by strengthening cognitive and behavioral religiosity. Similarly, greater early
exposure lowered the risk of declining religiosity by strengthening both types of religiosity.
Author Manuscript

Associations between life course transitions and religious change revealed that those
individuals who experienced an economic decline in the last ten years were more likely than
those who did not experience such a decline to become more religious, as contrasted with
being religiously stable. In addition, losing a partner was associated with increased
religiosity over the period. Poor health inversely predicted declining religiosity, with those in
poorer health less likely than those in better health to decline in their religiosity compared to
being stable.

DISCUSSION
In this paper, we examined perceived change in religiosity in a sample of baby-boomers over
which time they transitioned from late-middle age to early old age. In general, we found that
Author Manuscript

religiosity is characterized more by stability than by change; however, an important segment

of the sample—about one in five—increased in their religiosity during this period.

Relatively few individuals ascribed their motivation for increased religiousness to practical
matters of time availability and engagement in formal religious activities, contradicting our
speculation that an expansion of free time might be a driving force behind increased
religious involvement. The availability of free time was infrequently endorsed in the survey
measure and was little cited as a reason in the open-ended responses. Neither did retirement
predict increased religiosity as a time-availability perspective might suggest. Instead,
common reasons included a newfound affinity for spiritual matters, gaining insight into the
fleeting nature of life, personal growth and development, insuring religious continuity in
descending generations, and providing a resource for coping with family loss and crises.
Author Manuscript

Many of the reasons cited for increased religiosity revolved around private and family
concerns rather than benefits deriving from public participation in organized religion.

Overall, our results suggest that reasons for religious strengthening come primarily from
internal processes such as spiritual desire, as well as religion’s capacity to provide a sense of
meaning beyond the material world, and serve as a psychic resource for coping with
distressing life events. For many, religion provides a coherent schema for comprehending the
inevitability of loss and the finitude of life. These findings are informative about the highly

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 9

personal basis on which religious identities are constructed, at least in terms of self-
Author Manuscript

attributed reasons for religious transformation.

In the structural equation model, predictors of religious change complemented descriptive

findings regarding religion’s value for coping with adverse events. In both sets of analyses,
stressful, disruptive events were associated with strengthening or preserving religious
engagement, suggesting a compensatory or salutary role of religion in dealing with social,
financial, and health losses in the transition to later life.

Increased economic stress and loss of a partner present challenges for which religion may
provide solace and social outlets that help individuals cope with the challenges imposed by
such negative events. Interestingly, retirement was statistically significant without economic
decline included in the model (not reported), suggesting that, economic strain induced by
retirement from paid work serves a viable explanation for increased religiosity among
Author Manuscript

retirees. To the extent that the economic crisis of the last decade led to premature or
unwanted retirement, this interpretation seems reasonable. In general, the Great Recession of
the last decade lowered standards of living for many middle-aged individuals and their
families, possibly leading them to rely on informal community resources of which religion
represents a key institutional domain.

Notably, both cognitive and behavioral aspects of religiosity independently predicted the two
types of religious changes, suggesting several routes by which religious increase is achieved
and religious decline is avoided. Religious attendance in childhood did not predict increased
religiosity but positively predicted the two forms of contemporary religiosity; this pattern of
findings suggests that the influence of early exposure to religion lies in structuring
contemporary religiosity but not in producing a boomerang back to the religious practice of
Author Manuscript

childhood. Those with greater early exposure were more likely to experience religious
decline, implying continued moderation of religious commitment in the transition to later
life.

Several limitations of this research deserve mention. First, religious change and early
religious exposure were measured retrospectively, thereby introducing elements of memory
bias as well as unknown sources of error into the data. Retrospective assessments may
imperfectly map onto objective changes in religiosity, and individuals may differ in their
interpretation as to what constitutes religious involvement and change. Although the LSOG
dataset provides an opportunity to examine pre-post change in several elements of
religiosity, it was not until the 2016 survey that a module of detailed questions on religion
were added to the survey. Although methodological research on retrospectively assessed
religious change is scant, recent research by Rotolo (2017) found that prospectively
Author Manuscript

measured religious change strongly predicted retrospectively assessed religious change, with
the author concluding that retrospective measures are valid and effective, if imperfect,
indicators of real-time religious change.

A related concern revolves around our use of retrospective assessments of religious

participation in childhood. Research by Hayward, Maselko, & Meador (2012) found high
levels of stability in retrospective evaluations of religious behavior (unlike religious

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 10

identity), with almost 90% concordance in reports of past religious attendance over a ten-
Author Manuscript

year period. This suggests that contemporary religiosity plays little role in conditioning
memories of early religious attendance.

Second, our sample consisted of individuals who were grandchildren of the original
grandparents in the study who originally derived from Southern California. Although, baby-
boomers in the sample were not geographically restricted, they were disproportionately
living in California and the western United States. Thus, we urge caution in generalizing our
results to the national level.

Third, the sample was disproportionately white and non-Hispanic, resulting in different
forms of religious participation than would have been found among older African Americans
(Levin, Taylor, & Chatters, 1994) and Hispanics (Stevens-Arroyo & Diaz-Stevens, 1998),
both of which have had life-long connections to their respective dominant faith
Author Manuscript

communities. Future research will explore the role of denomination in accounting for
religious change and stability in later life.

Finally, the question of whether non-religious activities and beliefs provide benefits equal to
those provided by religious involvement is a relevant one. Secular individuals facing losses
of the types studied may find alternative belief systems and supportive communities to help
them cope with the vicissitudes of aging.

We end by addressing the question raised on our title: Is there a “return to religion” among
baby-boomers as they pass the threshold into old age? The answer is yes and no. Religiosity
is more likely to be stable than to change, but a significant minority report a strengthening of
their religious identity during this period of life. Those gravitating toward religion are
characterized by their growing interest in spiritual matters and their need to cope with
Author Manuscript

challenges caused by social, health, and economic losses. These are issues that will magnify
as baby-boomers advance to later stages of the life course when the salience of religion
intensifies and the seeds of religious experiences planted earlier in the life course come to
fruition. This may be the last generation to have had such widespread exposure to religion in
childhood and to have been active religious consumers in their earlier lives—providing
another example of how baby-boomers are a transitional cohort, even now in their later
years.

References
Allport GW, Ross JM. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 1967; 5:432–443. [PubMed: 6051769]
Bengtson VL, Endacott C, Copping HL, Kang SP. Older adults in churches: Differences in perceptions
Author Manuscript

between clergy and older congregation members. Journal of Religion, Spirituality and Aging. in
press.
Bengtson VL, Silverstein M, Lendon JP, Min J, Putney N, Harris S. Stability and change in religion
and spirituality: Does religiosity increase with age? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. in
press.
Donahue MJ. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1985;
48:400–419.

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 11

Elder GH. The life course as developmental theory. Child Development. 1998; 69(1):1–12. [PubMed:
9499552]
Author Manuscript

Ellison, CG., Hummer, RA., editors. Religion, families, and health: Population-based research in the
United States. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 2010.
Erikson, EH. The Life Cycle Completed: A Review. New York: Norton; 1982.
Ferraro KF, Kelley-Moore J. Religious consolation among men and women: Do health problems spur
seeking? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2000; 39:220–234.
Hayward RD, Maselko J, Meador KG. Recollections of childhood religious identity and behavior as a
function of adult religiousness. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 2012;
22(1):79–88. DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2012.635064 [PubMed: 22844186]
Hayward RD, Krause N. Patterns of change in religious service attendance across the life course:
Evidence from a 34-year longitudinal study. Social Science Research. 2013; 42(6):1480–1489.
[PubMed: 24090846]
Hill, T., Burdette, A., Idler, E. Religious involvement, health Status, and mortality risk. In: Settersten,
R., Angel, J., editors. Handbook of Sociology of Aging. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 533-546.
Hunt RA, King M. The intrinsic-extrinsic concept. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1971;
Author Manuscript

10:339–356.
Idler, EL., editor. Religion as a social determinant of public health. Oxford University Press; USA:
2014.
Idler E. Religion and aging. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. 2006; 6:277–300.
Idler EL, Kasl SV, Hays JC. Patterns of religious practice and belief in the last year of life. The
Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2001; 56(6):S326–
S334.
Idler E, McLaughlin J, Kasl S. Religion and the quality of life in the last year of life. Journal of
Gerontology: Social Sciences. 2009; 64B(4):528–537.
Ingersoll-Dayton B, Krause N, Morgan D. Religious trajectories and transitions over the life course.
The International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 2002; 55(1):51–70. [PubMed:
12400725]
Jung, CG. C J Jung Psychological Reflections. Jacobi, J., Hull Ends, RRC., editors. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press; 1953.
Author Manuscript

Kirkpatrick LA, Hood RW Jr. Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion. 1990; 29:442–462.
Kohlberg L. Stages and aging in moral development. The Gerontologist. 1972; 13(4):497–502.
Krause N. Religious meaning and subjective well-being in late life. The Journals of Gerontology
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2003; 58(3):S160–S170.
Krause, N. Religious involvement in the later years of life. In: Pargament, KI., editor. American
Psychological Association Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association; 2010.
Levin, JS., editor. Religion in aging and health: Theoretical foundations and methodological frontiers.
Vol. 166. Sage publications; 1993.
Levin JS, Taylor RJ, Chatters LM. Race and gender differences in religiosity among older adults:
Findings from four national surveys. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 1994; 49:S137–
S145.
Levin JS. Religious factors in aging, adjustment, and health: A theoretical overview. Journal of
Author Manuscript

Religion & Aging. 1989; 4(3–4):133–146.

McFadden SH. Religion and well- being in aging persons in an aging society. Journal of Social Issues.
1995; 51(2):161–175.
Midlarsky, E., Kahana, E. Altruism in later life. Sage Publications, Inc; 1994.
Moody HR. Is religion good for your health? The Gerontologist. 2006; 46:147–149.
Morrow-Howell N. Volunteering in later life: Research frontiers. The Journals of Gerontology Series
B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2010; 65(4):461–469.
Munnichs, JMA. Old Age and Finitude. Basel: Karger; 1996.

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 12

Roof, WC. Spiritual marketplace: Baby boomers and the remaking of American religion. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press; 1999.
Author Manuscript

Rotolo, M. Measuring religiousness: Conventional measures vs. self-evaluation from adolescence to

young adulthood. Paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion; Washington
DC. October, 13, 2017; 2017.
Sherkat DE. Counterculture or continuity? Competing influences on baby boomers’ religious
orientations and participation. Social Forces. 1998; 76:1087–1114.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2015.
Stevens-Arroyo, A., Diaz-Stevens, A. The Emmaus paradigm: The Latino religious resurgence.
Boulder: Westview Press; 1998.
Tornstam, L. Gerotranscendence: A developmental Theory of Positive Aging. New York: Springer
Publishing; 2005.
Van Willigen M. Differential bene ts of volunteering across the life course. Journal of Gerontology,
Social Sciences. 2000; 55B:S308–S318.
Wuthnow, R. After heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950s. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press; 1998.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 13
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Author Manuscript

Have You Become More Religious, Less Religious, or Remained the Same Over the Last 10
years? (N=599)
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 14
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Percent Endorsing Reasons for Increased Religiosity (N=125)
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 15
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Estimates from GSEM Predicting Religious Change (N= 528)
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 16

Table 1

Distribution of religiosity variables in subsample experiencing religious increase, decline or stability (N=528).
Author Manuscript

Religiosity variables N %
Religious intensity

Not at all/somewhat religious 271 51.4

Pretty/very religious 256 48.6

Religion most important

Strongly disagree/disagree 312 59.9

Agree/strongly agree 209 40.1

Private prayer

Never 97 18.5

Less than weekly 192 36.6

Weekly or more 236 45.0

Author Manuscript

Spiritual intensity

Not at all/somewhat spiritual 180 34.2

Pretty/very spiritual 347 65.8

Belief in God

Does not believe/atheist/agnostic 78 14.8

Believes with some/strong doubts 112 21.2

Believes strongly/with certainty 338 64.0

Service attendance

Never 195 37.0

Less than weekly 175 33.2

Weekly or more 157 29.8

Author Manuscript

Congregational activities

Never 281 53.2

Less than weekly 144 27.3

Weekly or more 103 19.5

Religious volunteer

No 404 76.5

Yes 124 23.5

Childhood attendance

Never 82 15.6

Rarely/sometimes 91 17.3

Often/very often 354 67.2

Author Manuscript

Note: Total numbers for each variable may vary due to missing values.

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 17

Table 2

Standardized factor loadings of religiosity variables.

Author Manuscript

Item Cognitive Factor Behavioral Factor

Religious intensity .796
Religious importance .722
Private prayer .850
Spirituality .863
Belief in God .934
Religious service attendance .763
Congregational activities .916
Volunteer for religious organization .967

Note: 75.8% item variance explained by two factors. Promax rotation used with inter-factor correlation of .59. Loadings below .4 are suppressed.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 18

Table 3

Estimates for GSEM Model Predicting Religiosity and Religious Change (N = 528).
Author Manuscript

Model Effects Unstandardized Estimates Standard Errors p

Measurement model
Cognitive religiosity → Intensity 1.00 --- ---
Cognitive religiosity → Importance 0.97 .01 .000
Cognitive religiosity → Spirituality 1.14 .02 .000
Cognitive religiosity → Private prayer 1.03 .02 .000
Cognitive religiosity → → Belief in God 1.25 .02 .000
Behavioral religiosity → → Service attendance 1.00 --- ---
Behavioral religiosity → Congregational activities 0.80 .01 .000
Behavioral religiosity → Religious volunteering 0.83 .02 .000
Error variance: Intensity 0.35 .03 .000
Author Manuscript

Error variance: Importance 0.32 .02 .000

Error variance: Spirituality 0.58 .04 .000
Error variance Private prayer 0.52 .04 .000
Error variance: Belief in God 0.38 .03 .000
Error variance: Service attendance 0.55 .07 .000
Error variance: Congregational activities 0.66 .06 .000
Error variance: Religious volunteering 2.26 .15 .000
Structural model
Childhood attendance → Cognitive religiosity 0.58 .01 .000
Childhood attendance → Behavioral religiosity 0.66 .02 .000
Childhood attendance → Religious increase −0.07 .08 .367
Cognitive religiosity → Religious increase 0.95 .28 .000
Behavioral religiosity → Religious increase
Author Manuscript

0.44 .11 .001

Age → Religious increase 0.03 .04 .454
Female → Religious increase 0.02 .26 .941
Education → Religious increase −0.65 .31 .035
Poorer health → Religious increase −0.27 .32 .396
Retired → Religious increase 0.41 .26 .112
Lost partner → Religious increase 0.66 .37 .073
Economic decline → → Religious increase 0.73 .27 .006
Childhood attendance → Religious decline 0.31 .10 .002
Cognitive religiosity → Religious decline −0.58 .29 .041
Behavioral religiosity → Religious decline −0.32 .18 .082
Age → Religious decline −0.04 .05 .422
Female → Religious decline
Author Manuscript

−0.37 .29 .197

Education → Religious decline −0.19 .40 .631
Poorer health → Religious decline −0.89 .44 .043
Retired → Religious decline −0.19 .30 .512
Lost partner → Religious decline 0.03 .44 .950

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.

 Silverstein and Bengtson Page 19

Model Effects Unstandardized Estimates Standard Errors p

Economic decline → Religious decline 0.40 .32 .210
Author Manuscript

Residual variance: Cognitive religiosity 1.40 .09 .000

Residual variance: Behavioral religiosity 3.48 .24 .000
Residual covariance: Cognitive with Behavioral 1.69 .13 .000

Note: LL= − 6587.4, DF=41, AIC=13256.83, BIC=13432.86

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Popul Ageing. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 March 01.