Financial hardship and psychological distress: Exploring the buffering effects of religion
Thoughts
Head empty
Annotations
bradshaw2010 - p. 2
Throughout modern industrialized societies, socioeconomic conditions affect the distribution of mental health by shaping: (a) the degree of exposure to social stressors (i.e., chronic and acute conditions that tax individual capacities to respond); and (b) the degree of vulnerability to those stressors (i.e., the quantity and quality of available resources with which individuals can deal with these problems).
bradshaw2010 - p. 3
To date, most research in this area has focused on “objective” measures of SES, such as personal income, and explanations have centered on the presence or absence of material, social, and psychological resources. For example, individuals with inadequate financial resources are more prone to face difficulties in meeting personal or family needs, paying bills, and obtaining mental or physical health care, as well as lower risk of legal, interpersonal, familial, and other types of stressors.
bradshaw2010 - p. 3
For these reasons, individuals with low SES commonly suffer from financial hardship and elevated levels of psychological distress.
bradshaw2010 - p. 3
Research in this area suggests that social comparisons based on one’s perceptions of their relative position in the socioeconomic hierarchy of society predict psychological well-being net of objective factors. Recent work has shown that subjective assessments of one’s financial condition are influenced, but not entirely predicted, by one’s occupational position, education, household income, satisfaction with their standard of living, past financial experiences, and feelings of financial security regarding the future (Singh-Manoux, Adler, & Marmot, 2003).
bradshaw2010 - p. 3
As discussed in self-determination theory, individuals in the United States and other capitalist societies are often socialized to regard material gain (e.g., wealth, possessions, luxurious lifestyles) as indicators of success and worth (Kasser & Ryan, 1993).
bradshaw2010 - p. 3
Those persons who perceive—rightly or wrongly—that they are failing to compete successfully for these resources, and to maintain or enhance their material quality of life relative to those of persons in their reference group(s) (e.g., friends, coworkers, neighbors, others), may be prone to experience emotional disturbance.
bradshaw2010 - p. 3
The literature suggests at least two sets of possible explanations for the linkage between subjective socioeconomic conditions and mental health. One line of argument centers on the mediating role of self-perceptions, particularly feelings of self-esteem (i.e., one’s intrinsic moral self-worth) and personal control (i.e., one’s ability to manage personal affairs and life direction) (Branscombe et al., 1999; Crocker et al., 1998).
bradshaw2010 - p. 4
A second set of explanations focuses on affective responses to (real or perceived) deprivation. Consistent with the arguments of equity theory, individuals with low subjective SES are likely to experience a range of negative emotions, such as anger, resentment, shame, guilt, and/or anxiety, among others—common results of perceived inequity and unfairness in the way in which societal resources and rewards are distributed (Van Willigen & Drentea, 2001; Zagefka & Brown, 2005)
bradshaw2010 - p. 4
Overall, then, the literature suggests that both objective and subjective aspects of socioeconomic deprivation may contribute
bradshaw2010 - p. 4
n studies of religion and mental health, three of the most important dimensions of religiousness have been: (a) organizational involvement, often gauged in terms of attendance at worship services and/or other congregational activities; (b) nonorganizational involvement, including prayer, meditation, scriptural study, and/or other devotional practices; and (c) beliefs and ideologies, often tapped via items on core doctrinal issues, such as beliefs about scriptural interpretation, the nature of God, the existence of an afterlife, and other aspects of belief (Ellison & Levin, 1998; Levin et al., 1995).
bradshaw2010 - p. 5
There are several reasons to expect that organizational religious involvement (i.e., service attendance) may mitigate the deleterious effects of both objective and subjective financial hardship. First, religious congregations often serve as conduits for formal and informal social and material support (Krause, 2006, 2002). Second, for persons suffering from a lack of financial resources, particularly subjective assessments, religious communities may provide new reference groups for comparison that are based on non-competitive, non-material characteristics such as spirituality, wisdom, and kindness (Ellison, 1993).
bradshaw2010 - p. 6
Non-organizational religious practices such as prayer and meditation may also help these individuals in several ways. First, the perception that one enjoys a personal relationship with a higher power that (a) is engaged directly in human affairs, (b) intervenes on behalf of individuals, (c) desires a unique connection with each person, and (d) has a plan and purpose for each person is likely to enhance feelings of intrinsic moral self-worth (e.g., Ellison, 1993; Pargament, 1997).
bradshaw2010 - p. 6
Belief in an afterlife may also be psychologically valuable for persons experiencing financial hardship. First, this conviction provides a sense of enduring, eternal significance that transcends the frustrations and failures of this life (Dworkin, 2000; Exline, 2002; Flynn & Kunkel, 1987; Smith, Range, & Ulmer, 1991–1992). Second, the promise of eternal life offers an alternative perspective by which to interpret one’s earthly circumstances. Third, belief in an afterlife may change the way one experiences daily life. For persons who experience financial hardship, everyday life may seem unrewarding and frustrating. However, for those who believe in an afterlife, even small opportunities or rewards may be interpreted as blessings from by God.
bradshaw2010 - p. 7
data from the 1998 General Social Survey (Davis, Smith, & Marsden, 1998), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of US adults conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC).
bradshaw2010 - p. 7
The outcome measure was a six-item mean index (alpha = 0.836) of psychological distress (Kessler et al., 2002). Respondents were asked the following six questions: “In the past 30 days, about how often did you feel: (1) so sad nothing could cheer you up, (2) nervous, (3) restless or fidgety, (4) hopeless, (5) that everything was an effort, and (6) worthless.” Each component of this index is coded: 1 = none of the time, 2 =a little bit of the time, 3 = some of the time, 4 =most of the time, and 5 = all of the time.
bradshaw2010 - p. 7
Objective financial hardship was gauged with personal income
bradshaw2010 - p. 7
Subjective financial hardship was gauged with a measure of perceived income or relative deprivation where respondents were asked: “Do you think your income is (1) far below average, (2) below average, (3) average, (4) above average, or (5) far above average?”
bradshaw2010 - p. 8
Important control variables included: age (in years), gender (female = 1), marital status (married = 1), race/ethnicity (black =1), region of residence (south = 1), and urban/rural (coded 1–10, where 1 is a large central city and 10 is open country). All of analyses also contained a control for educational attainment using a dichotomous variable for individuals with less than a high school diploma.
bradshaw2010 - p. 21
0.074***
bradshaw2010 - p. 21
−0.011*
bradshaw2010 - p. 21
−0.013*