University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the differences in family functioning and meaning in life between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish families

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the differences in family functioning and meaning in life between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish families

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EXAMINING THE DIFFERENCES IN FAMILY FUNCTIONING AND
MEANING IN LIFE BETWEEN REFORM, CONSERVATIVE,
AND ORTHODOX JEWISH FAMILIES
e 2000
by
Ramin Moshe Sadeghi
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment o f the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Counseling Psychology)
August 2000
Ramin Moshe Sadeghi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U M I Number 3065748
UMI’
U M I Microform 3065748
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
A ll rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor. M l 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
Ramin Moshe Sadeghi
under the direction of h..X .?.. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean of Graduate Studies
Date
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dedication
To my mother and father, Violet and Danial Sadeghi,
who have sacrificed for me, guided me,
and taught me the most important lessons of my life.
To my brother, Faramarz Sadeghi,
without who’s help I can truly say,
I would never be where I am.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Dr. Michael Newcomb, my dissertation chairman. He generously
shared his knowledge, time, and guidance. He offered his advice and support when I
needed it on this research project. It has been a pleasure working with him.
I also wish to thank my other committee member, Dr. Thomas Lasswell and Dr.
Bill McComas. They both made helpful comments and suggestions on my dissertation.
Many thanks to Paula Van Gelder, M.L.S., for her tremendous editorial
assistance.
I am grateful to the following for their emotional support and encouragement
throughout the years: Dr. Fiona Chalom, Rabbi Levi Meier, Ph.D., Rabbi and Mrs.
Zargari, and my old friends: Lucia, Bari, Chris, and Roxanne.
My greatest appreciation for my sisters Homa Golshani and Jena Houman. Your
love and caring for me has always and will continue to carry me.
Most importantly, to my wife Sophia, who’s support, love, and encouragement fill
me with strength and hope, and make it possible for me to pursue my aspirations.
I would like to express my thankfulness to The Master of the universe, who has
kept me alive, sustained me, and has brought me to this occasion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication........................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................... iii
List of Tables.................................................................................................... vi
Abstract............................................................................................................. viii
Chapter
1. Introduction and Literature Review................................................. I
Introduction.......................................................................... 1
Relationship Between Religiosity and Family
Functioning................................................................. 3
Relationship Between Meaning and Family Functioning 9
Relationship Between Meaning and Religiosity................. 18
Statement of the Problem.................................................... 20
Purpose of the Study........................................................... 21
Research Questions.............................................................. 22
Hypotheses............................................................................ 22
Limits of the Study............................................................... 23
Definitions............................................................................ 23
Outline of the Remainder of the Study................................ 24
2. Method .......................................................................................... 25
Participants........................................................................... 25
Sample Description............................................................. 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Chapter Page
Procedure.............................................................................. 32
Instruments........................................................................... 34
The Purpose in Life Test..................................................... 38
Meir Religious Commitment Scale..................................... 40
Data Analysis....................................................................... 40
3. Results............................................................................................. 42
Reliability............................................................................. 42
Multivariate Analysis o f Variance...................................... 42
Factor Analysis.................................................................... 52
4. Discussion....................................................................................... 58
The Findings as They Relate to the Hypotheses................ 58
Implications for Theory....................................................... 63
Implications of Other Findings........................................... 70
Implications for Counseling and Interventions.................. 76
Limitations and Future Research........................................ 80
Conclusion............................................................................ 82
References........................................................................................................ 85
Appendices....................................................................................................... 99
A. Cover Letter..................................................................................... 100
B. Questionnaire................................................................................... 102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
List of Tables
Tables Page
1. Religious Affiliation...................................................................... 26
2. Gender.............................................................................................. 27
3. Education Level............................................................................. 28
4. Income in 1998.............................................................................. 29
5. R ace................................................................................................. 30
6. Born in U. S.................................................................................... 3 1
7. Parents Bom in U. S....................................................................... 3 1
8. Illness in Fam ily............................................................................. 3 1
9. Previously M arried......................................................................... 32
10. Descriptive Statistics....................................................................... 33
11. Cronbach Alpha Coefficients for FACES II................................ 39
12. Reliability Analysis......................................................................... 43
13. MANOVA - Dependent Variables: Purpose in Life, Religiosity,
Cohesion, and Adaptability................................................ 43
14. MANOVA — Dependent Variables: Purpose in Life, Religiosity,
FACES Total Scale.............................................................. 44
15. ANOVA: Test of the Effect of Religious Affiliation.................. 45
16. Purpose in Life: Breakdown by Religious Affiliation................. 46
17. Religiosity: Breakdown by Religious Affiliation........................ 46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
Tables Page
18. ANCOVA: Test o f the Effect of Religious Affiliation and
Gender Controlling for Age, Education, Income98,
Religiosity, Bom in U.S., Parents Bom in U.S.,
Illness in Family, and Previously Married......................... 47
19. Two Factor Oblique Solution: Rotated Factor Matrix................. 50
20. Factor Correlation Matrix.............................................................. 53
21. Three Factor Oblique Solution: Rotated Factor Matrix.............. 54
22. Religiosity One Scale: Breakdown by Religious Affiliation 57
23. Religiosity Two Scale: Breakdown by Religious Affiliation 57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
This study examined the relationships between types of Jewish religious
affiliation and meaning in life, as well as family functioning. The sample consisted
o f Reform (42), Conservative (46), and Orthodox (75) Jewish families within the Los
Angeles area. There were almost an even number of men (82) and women (79) who
responded. Over 95% of the subjects identified themselves as White, over 85%
identified as having a total household income of $50,000 or more, and 65%
identified as having been bom in the United States.
The questionnaire consisted o f 4 main sections. General demographic
information was gathered; the FACES II family inventory was used to measure
family functioning (cohesion and adaptability scales); the Purpose In Life inventory
was used to measure meaning/purpose in life; and an initial attempt was made in
developing an instrument measuring religiosity specific to Judaism.
An initial MANOVA statistical analysis was conducted with religious
affiliation and gender as independent variables, and was found to be significant.
Univariate ANOVA’s were then conducted to determine for each dependent variable
individually, whether or not Religious Affiliation or Gender or their interaction had a
significant effect on either of the dependent variables of family functioning or
meaning in life. To control for the influence o f potentially extraneous variables.
Analysis of Covariance ANCOVA, was performed and was found to be insignificant
for each of the following variables: age, education. Income, bom in US. parents bom
in US. illness in family, and previously married
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The results did not support the hypothesis that religious affiliation is related
to the family’s level of functioning, but did support the hypothesis that religious
affiliation is related to the level o f meaning in life in family members. Implications
for theory, counseling and interventions, as well as directions for future research are
noted. Factor analysis o f the Religiosity scale was conducted in an attempt to
determine the dimensionality o f the scale. The scale item intercorrelations were
examined and then factor analyzed using both orthogonal and oblique rotation
methods. Two scales were developed focusing on religious observance and religious
beliefs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Chapter I
Introduction and Literature Review
This study examined the relationships between types of Jewish religious af
filiation and family functioning, as well as meaning in life. The FACES H family
inventory was used to measure family functioning (cohesion and adaptability scales),
and the Purpose in Life inventory was used to measure meaning in life. It was hy
pothesized that religious affiliation is related to family functioning, as well as mean
ing in life. The results did not support the first hypothesis that religious affiliation is
related to family functioning, but did support the hypothesis that religious affiliation
is related to the level o f meaning in life in family members.
Introduction
American society includes a vast array o f religious and spiritual groups
(Harrison & Lazerwits, 1982). Gallup Poll data consistently show that approxi
mately 95% of the American population believe in G-d, and almost half o f the
population is active in religious organizations on at least a weekly basis (Gallup &
Castelli, 1989). However, the impact of the religious component on the client's life
has been considered off limits by most therapists and researchers. During psychol
ogy’ s formative years, the psychology of religion was a topic of interest for many
leading scholars, including William James and G. Stanley Hall. However, the study
of religion has never received much attention within any of the traditional subdisci
plines (e.g., developmental, social, personality) o f research psychology. The psy
chology of religion continues to lie outside the mainstream of psychology, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
religion receives remarkably little attention in psychology textbooks (Lehr & Spilka,
1989).
Family and religion have a long history o f interrelationship. Many philoso
phers, anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists have concluded that, from the
beginning of time, beliefs about the unknown have affected individual, family, group
and societal behavior (Crankshaw, 1986). Religion, in one form or another, is found
in every known culture and plays a major, often central, role in the lives of its mem
bers (Paloutzian & Kirkpatrick, 1995).
Religion was traditionally viewed as an illusory defense against the unpre
dictable nature o f the universe, wherein the believer's faith in an all-powerful G-d
was viewed as diminishing an otherwise overwhelming sense of personal vulnerabil
ity and helplessness (Hillowe, 1985). Some clinicians felt that being religious was
tantamount to being psychologically impaired or neurotic (Derr, 1991). Others
found that while religious affiliation is not damaging to mental health, it is not neces
sarily predictive of good mental health (Payne, Bergin, Beilema, & Jenkins, 1991).
In recent years, Americans have once again come to recognize the value of
religious beliefs (Worthington, 1986). Religion has considerable potential influence
on positive mental health and psychosocial functioning. Caplan (1972) states that
next to families, religious institutions are the most universal o f all groups that pro
vide support Reynolds (1982) notes that there are organized religious groups in
nearly every community in the United States, with total membership in such organi
zations in excess of 127.000.000 There are at least 250.000 clergy who can serve as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
resource persons. Clinebell (1970) describes religious institutions as "a sleeping
giant, a huge potential of barely tapped resources for fostering positive mental
health" (pp. 14-35).
As more families seek therapy, it will become increasingly important for
theorists and therapists, to understand the function of religion in family dynamics in
order to effectively understand and intervene in dysfunctional family systems. For
example, a family’ s level of religiosity may be linked to issues of meaning, purpose
and direction. The dearth of research in the area of religiosity and its impact on the
family system has led to the current study.
Chapter 1 of this paper is divided into ten sections. The first three sections
discuss (a) the relationship between religiosity and family functioning, (b) the rela
tionship between meaning in life and family functioning, and (c) the relationship
between religiosity and meaning in life. The next four sections present (a) the state
ment of the problem, (b) the purpose o f the study, (c) the research questions, and (d)
the hypotheses. Finally, the last three sections delineate the limits of the (a) study,
(b) definitions, and (c) the outline of the remainder of the study.
Relationship Between Religiosity and Family Functioning
Individual well-being is the most general focus of studies attempting to relate
religiosity to mental health. It is difficult to generalize these findings due to the great
variation in instruments used to measure religiosity and well being. Nevertheless,
studies point to a positive relationship between these two variables (Koenig, Kvale,
& Ferrel. 19SS: Payne etal.. 1991; Roth. 1988; Willits& Crider. 19SS)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Numerous studies have focused on the relationship between the entire famil
ial system and religiosity, yet these studies have resulted in conflicting findings. The
following review of research presents a wide range of areas where religiosity and
family functioning may overlap. Moreover, the sociology of American Jewry will be
discussed as it is relevant to this study.
Religion and the Family
The family system is an extremely complex entity. Therefore, psychological
and sociological studies attempting to study the relationship between religiosity and
the family have had to limit their focus to certain aspects of family functioning at one
time. Such studies have examined such issues as (a) the relationship between religi
osity and familial hierarchies and gender, (b) marital satisfaction, (c) adolescent as
well as marital sexual behavior, (d) social interaction, (e) child and sexual abuse, (f)
alcohol and substance abuse, (g) domestic violence, (h) the development of psycho
logical pathologies, (i) the elderly, and (j) children’ s attitudes toward parents. The
following literature review examines some of the above stated areas, as they relate to
this study.
Marital satisfaction has often been the focus of such research. A review by
Payne and others (1991), found that the most important predictor of marital stability
is church attendance. Hunt and King (1978) found religion to be positively related to
better marital adjustment, happiness, and satisfaction. Church attendance was found
to correlate positively with duration of marriage, commitment to the institution of
marriage, and satisfaction with family life (Larson & Goltz, 19S9). Several other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between religiosity and marital sta
bility and happiness (Kunz & Albrecht, 1977; Schumm, Bollman, & Jurich, 1982).
Other studies indicate that religion also deters divorce and that religious cou
ples are less likely to divorce because of values (Payne et al., 1991). Religious ac
tivity (church attendance) was found to be strongly related to such variables as the
absence of disagreement over marital roles, the willingness to marry the same spouse
again, as well as the absence of divorce (Kunz & Albrecht, 1977). Of course, these
findings do not prove that the marriages of such couples are in fact happier.
Religiosity has a direct effect on family functioning in terms of the homoge
neity of religious beliefs among married couples. Religiously homogeneous
(spouses of the same faith) marriages are characterized by greater marital happiness
than are heterogamous marriages (Heaton, 1984; Ortega, Whitt, & William, 1988).
Many nonreligious observers view sexual repression and religiosity as syn
onymous. They appear to believe that religion has a negative effect on the sexual
fulfillment of married couples. However, Tavris and Sadd (1977) found that very
religious women reported greater happiness and satisfaction with marital sex than
either moderately religious or non-religious women. Moreover, a higher percentage
of the religious group also claimed to be orgasmic more often and more satisfied
with the frequency o f their sexual activity than their non-religious counterparts.
Bell (1974) found that lower levels of sexual gratification had greater nega
tive impact on the overall marital satisfaction of less religious women than those who
were more religious. Religious commitment appeared to counter the impact o f low
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
sexual gratification in marital satisfaction. Religious women were also found to be
more conservative in their sexual behavior than non-religious women, in reference to
extramarital sex and fellatio (Bell, 1974; Hong, 1983). Religion does not appear to
have the predicted negative effect on marital sex. On the contrary, Tavris and Sadd
(1977) concluded that religiosity may be advantageous for the sexual aspect o f mar
riage and may help prevent sexual problems.
The United Presbyterian Church-U.S.A. (Fairchild & Wynn, 1961) carried
out a study which supports this position. Families who responded to a national sur
vey reported viewing religious participation as similar to participation in other com
munity groups. The authors concluded that religious faith and participation in
church activities, seemed to have no unique qualities to distinguish them from many
other family activities. The church was viewed primarily as a source of personal
friendships. Furthermore, attendance at a particular church of any denomination was
more the result of finding compatible associations and a convenient location than
reflecting specific religious or doctrinal values.
Science has had a history of tending not to credit the impact of belief on
health. However, this correlation was demonstrated in a study conducted in 1988,
comparing a group of patients remembered in prayer groups with patients who were
not prayed for. Prayed-for patients tended to be five times less likely than the un-
prayed-for group to require antibiotics, were 2 1/2 times less likely to suffer conges
tive heart failure, and were less likely to suffer cardiac arrest (Dossey. 1996).
Dossey commented that if such healing had resulted tfom a new drug or surgical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
procedure rather than prayer, these findings would have been far more acceptable to
physicians.
Mental health practitioners also frequently neglect the role of religion in
mental health issues. This trend may reflect the disparity between the beliefs of
mental health professionals and those of the population at large. One survey found
that only 55% of psychiatrists and 43% of psychologists stated a belief in the tradi
tional Judeo-Christian concept o f G-d (Kroll & Sheehan, 1989). Other, perhaps
more pertinent research, found that 36% of mental health professionals reported
holding an atheistic, agnostic or no religious position, while only approximately 6%
of the American population reported holding one of these stances (Henry, Sims, &
Spray, 1971; Sevensky, 1984).
The idea that religion works to undermine the aims of psychotherapy may
account for the schism between religion and psychotherapy. There is a perception
among many clinicians that religion works to undermine efforts to confront and
change individuals. Moreover, clinical mental health literature include examples of
religion as passivity, as a means of escape or avoidance of personal problems, or as
a preoccupation or fixation. These negative references to religion may raise psy
chologists’ concerns about their clients’ psychological health (Pargament & Park,
1995). Again, the psychotherapist’s own values may affect his or her perceptions of
appropriate behavior and/or beliefs of clients.
Despite the evidence in favor of a positive correlation between religiosity and
mental health, there have also been findings which showed otherwise. Family
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
church going appears to have little impact on ethical decision-making or family
functioning (Crankshaw, 1986). Factors such as high geographic mobility o f fami
lies (Heim, 1979), the American emphasis on individuality (D'Antonio, 1980; Reiss,
1971), and the demythologizing o f the world and life in general (Lindskog, 1974)
have contributed to the view that religious activity is merely one o f the various ap
proved values of American culture (Herberg, 1955).
Lea (1982) found that most studies have failed to show any causal relation
ship between religiosity and mental health. According to Lea (1982), the explana
tions for the correlations presented above are inconclusive, and higher levels o f fam
ily functioning and individual states o f well-being could have been related to social
support rather than religion.
Contrary to earlier viewpoints presented above, Lea’ s findings pointed to little
or no contribution of religion to the social health of the community or the individual,
except for the small number of people who are very involved in their churches.
However, there have been many studies that have successfully demonstrated
a positive relationship between religiosity and family functioning, with religiosity
shown to have a life-enhancing quality (Hall, I985;Lenski, 1961;Moberg, 1979).
The above studies further indicate that religious families differ from nonreligious
families, and that religion plays an important role in the organization of the family.
The American Jewish Subculture
Denominational differences have often been regarded as marginal phenom
ena in studies of contemporary American Judaism However, some studies treat
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
denominational preference as an indicator o f the strength o f Jewish identification and
show, that with Americanization, preference for the more traditional-oriented Ortho
dox groups declines, while preference for the Conservative and Reform groups and
nonaffiliation increases (Harrison & Lazerwitz, 1982).
Other studies have demonstrated considerable ideological and behavioral dif
ferences among members o f the three major denominational groups, such as differ
ences in religious observance, traditionalism and ethnic loyalty (Harrison &
Lazerwitz, 1982). The Orthodox rank highest in these areas: (a) conservative Jews
in the intermediate range and (b) the Reform, lowest (Lazerwitz & Harrison, 1979).
Heilman (1982) suggests that the different denominational groups may be
divided into those aiming for a certain amount of isolation from American life, ver
sus those seeking acculturation to it. Jewish parochial schools organized along de
nominational lines have continued to grow and contribute to the heightened impact
of denominational differences.
While Jewish denominations share many social and cultural similarities,
they continue to be sharply differentiated in terms of the beliefs, traditions, and prac
tices of their members. At least within American Jewry, denominations do make a
difference.
Relationship Between Meaning and Family Functioning
The purpose of this section is to present a review of the theories and research
that investigate the relationship between meaning and family functioning. Despite
the relative lack of research studies investigating this relationship through empirical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
means, numerous theories have been posited by various theorists. These theorists
present their ideas from two distinctly different camps. One, such as the Franklinian
Existential perspective, understands meaning to be inherent in the experience;
whereas the Social-Constructivist views all meaning as being constructed and pro
jected by the individual doing the experiencing. The differences between these two
theoretical approaches will be delineated.
The research which has been conducted in this area also falls within two
camps. One group has looked at the relationship between meaning and pain or suf
fering. These studies have primarily focused on the relevance o f meaning or Purpose
in Life (or the lack thereof) when an individual or family has confronted illness,
tragedy, or other painful events (Dakof 1996; Gilbert, 1996; Meier, 1981; Mu &
Tomilson, 1997).
A second group of researchers has investigated the relationship between
meaning or Purpose in Life and a number of other factors, such as depression, alco
holism (Crumbaugh & Carr, 1979; Jacobson, Ritter, & Mueller, 1977), drug use
(Harlow, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1986; Hutzel & Peterson, 1986; Klinger, 1977;
Newcomb & Harlow, 1986; Padelford, 1974; Shean & Fechtmann, 1971; Sclabassi,
1993), suicidal behavior (Harlow et al., 1986; Linehan, Goodstein, Nielsen & Chiles,
1983), hopelessness (Grygielski, Januszewska, Januszewski, Juros. & Oles, 1984),
stress and coping (Stevens, Pfost, & Wessels, 1987), religious values (Crumbaugh,
Raphael, & Shrader. 1970: Paloutzian. 1981). and physical and psychological well
being (Reker. Peacock. & Wong, 1987).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
The above research studies have found meaning and purpose to be positively
correlated with reduced rates o f addiction and antisocial behavior. Furthermore,
each of the factors noted above reflects how family members deal with pain or suf
fering, as well as the family’ s overall level o f functioning. However, none of these
studies specifically looks at the family system, and therefore, the family’s level of
functioning as a whole. Therefore, there exists a dearth o f research investigating the
relationship between meaning and the family as a unit. The above mentioned topics
will now be delineated.
Franklian Meaning
Family systems theory and the work o f Viktor Frankl (1969) have led to an
existential approach to family therapy. Two primary concepts are central to this ap
proach: (a) the major importance of the human search for meaning; and (b) the rec
ognition that the family provides most humans with their best hope and opportunity
for the discovery, recognition, and acceptance of meaning. Franklian Family Ther
apy has enabled the practitioner to explore the relationship between the family and
meaning, as well as facilitating a family’s search for meaning in their existence to
gether as a group (Lantz 1978, 1982a, 1985).
In order to view the relationship between the family and meaning from this
perspective, it is necessary to understand the basic elements of Frankl’s theory. Lo-
gotherapy, or meaning therapy, is directed toward helping people find meaning in
their existence as human beings. This theory o f personality, as well as treatment ap
proach, was developed by Viktor Frankl (1959. 1965. 1969).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
Frankl developed his basic ideas prior to World War IT . During the war, his
experiences as a prisoner in a number o f concentration camps strengthened his com
mitment to these ideas and led him to expand on them. Man’s Search for Meaning
(1959), in which Frankl describes his concentration camp experiences, his ideas
about human behavior, and some of his treatment methods, has won considerable
public acceptance. However, very little has been published about Logotherapy’s
relevance to the family as a unit.
The underlying premise o f Logotherapy is that meaning exists under all cir
cumstances and that the desire to find meaning in human existence is the primary
and basic motivation for most human and family behavior. Frankl (1969) believes
that we have the freedom to find meaning in our existence and psychosocial situa
tions and that an existential vacuum results when we fail to find such meaning. Hu
man beings always fill such a vacuum, at times with psychiatric and existential
symptoms such as anxiety, depression, despair, confusion, and the experience of
anomie (meaninglessness).
Logotherapy’s primary goal is to help .clients find meaning in their lives and
existential situations, thus filling the existential vacuum and limiting the opportunity
for symptoms to develop (Fabry 1981; Frankl 1965).
From the perspective of Logotherapy, there are three aspects to meaning: (a)
the meaning of life, (b) the will to meaning, and (c) the freedom to will (Frankl,
1969). By viewing life as having inherent meaning. Frankl is at odds with other ex
istential thinkers, as well as with other psychologists, sociologists, and philosophers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
who believe that neither life as a whole, nor specific actions or events contain inher
ent meanings. This opposing view, the Social-Constructivists perspective, will be
discussed later.
In Frankl’s (1969) view, life’s meaning can be discovered in many different
ways. These are unique to each individual. In Logotherapy, the will to meaning is
regarded as the primary motivation for most human behavior. This desire is found in
all cultures and civilizations and under all living conditions (Frankl, 1969).
Many therapies attempt to reduce a client’s tension and increase happiness.
However, Frankl’s psychotherapeutic goals are different. He understands tension as
a natural part of human existence, and he does not believe that equilibrium results in
mental health. On the contrary, he posits that disequilibrium or tension between life
as it is, and life as it could be, can strengthen the individual’s spiritual muscles
(Frankl, 1975). Frankl (1969) likewise believes that the direct pursuit of happiness
will inevitably end in failure and unhappiness. For Frankl, happiness is a by-product
of a meaningful life, and therefore, happiness cannot be pursued for it only ensues.
He believes that the only way to achieve happiness, is to replace the search for hap
piness with a search for ways to find meaning in life.
From the Franklinian perspective, meaning and family interaction have a
close and reciprocal relationship (Lantz 1982a, 1982b, 1984). The awareness of
meaning within the family can stimulate healthy interactions. These, in turn, can
stimulate increased awareness o f family meaning. On the other hand, a lack of
awareness about meaning may stimulate dysfunctional interaction which, in turn, can
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
further cloud the member’s awareness of family meanings (Lantz 1982a; Lantz &
Thorward, 1985).
Logotherapy has made an immense contribution toward a theoretical under
standing o f the relevance and role of meaning in family functioning. This has
formed the framework, which has led to the development of research on the role o f
meaning as it relates to individual and family functioning. One principal contribu
tion has been the development of the Purpose in Life test (Crumbaugh & Maholick,
1964), which has come to be used as a standard measure within the fields of the so
cial sciences, examining such issues.
Social-Constructivist’s View of Meaning
This section approaches the topic of meaning and family from a Social-
Constructivist viewpoint. From this perspective, “reality” is not just experienced.
Rather, it requires the active involvement of each person in constructing meaning
and in forming their own interpretation of what is “real.”
Symbolic interactionism, a philosophical perspective to study the nature o f
human beings, interaction, and social structure, regards human experience as a proc
ess. During this process, meaning arises from the interactions between subject and
object (Mead, 1934). Blumer (1986) has emphasized the significance of meaning in
understanding human behavior from this perspective, which recognizes the impor
tance of each individual’s definition of the situation. Symbolic interactionists have
long argued that meaning also arises when individuals become aware of their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
relationship to the social process o f experience as a whole and to the other individu
als participating in it.
Schwandt (1994) summarized the tenets of symbolic interactionism in the
following way: Individuals act toward their environment on the basis o f meanings
that they derive, at least in part, from social interaction with others. This symbolic
process, which uses languages and other symbols, creates yet other significant sym
bols. The construction of meaning is part o f this process, as one attempts to make
sense of both implicit and explicit messages and purposes in the experience. The
inner experience of the individual, which defines the situation as reality, is constantly
modified through the interpretive process (Blumer, 1986; Mead, 1934).
It is clear that from the symbolic interactionist’s perspective, one does not
merely experience life. Rather, individuals utilize models to help them understand
their past and present experiences, as well as predict what might happen in the fu
ture. These models are also seen as socially constructed (Neimeyer & Neimeyer,
1994). The individual’s subjective views are confirmed through interaction with oth
ers. These are then given an objective reality that appears to be independent o f the
social setting. Thus, in a sense, the social setting is used to confirm one’s internally
constructed model of reality. Conclusively, the family plays a central role in this so
cial construction of reality.
Action Identification
People often provide differing accounts o f the same action. The "true" nature
o f a social behavior is often uncertain and ambiguous, since particular actions have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
different meanings for different people. The theory of action identification (Val-
lacher & Wegner, 1985; Wegner & Vallacher, 1986) suggests the difficulty in de
termining the meaning o f any action. Individuals may understand their own actions
in many different ways over time. Their subsequent behavior changes can thus ex
press their new understanding o f what they are doing. According to Mead (1938),
many social behaviors are "emergent" in this sense. They arise from the person's
own developing understanding o f what he or she can do, rather than from some bio
logical imperative. Action identification theory accepts this view, and further speci
fies the circumstances under which the emergence of action should occur.
The view o f action identification theory is that people know what they are
doing (Vallacher, Wegner, & Frederick, 1987). However, the identifications people
have in mind for the actions they perform are not particularly complete. Further
more, they may change from one moment to the next. This theory assumes that at
any particular moment, a person adopts only a single proponent identity for an ac
tion, that is, what dominates the enactment and evaluation of the action. The theory
further suggests that this identity serves as a cognitive referent for the initiation o f
the action (Wegner, Vallacher, Macomber, Wood, & Arps, 1984). Therefore, in
some situations, individuals may undertake an action with a particular understanding
of it in mind, and then continue to understand it that way during and after its occur
rence. However, in other cases, people may begin an act with one understanding,
only to have that understanding evolve into something quite different later on. This
theory indicates that the understanding of action can remain constant, guiding action
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
throughout its course, or that it can change to lead action on a new course (Vallacher
& Wegner, 1985).
Vallacher & Wegner (1985) suggest that act identities, the different ways an
individual can think about a particular action, systematically relate to each other in
an organized cognitive representation, which they call the action identity structure.
This structure is a hierarchical arrangement of the various identities that might be
attached to a given action. Low levels identify the specifics o f an action. Higher
levels indicate a more abstract understanding of the action, indicating factors such as
motive and purpose.
For example, washing the dishes represents a low action identity. Washing
the dishes so that one's children can eat dinner represents a middle-level action iden
tity, and washing the dishes so that one is fulfilling a spiritual or religious mission in
this lifetime would be a high-level action identity. Thus, different levels of identifi
cation might be applied to the same underlying action.
Action identification theory posits that people have certain ideas about what
they are doing or want to do. Furthermore, they use this identification as a frame of
reference for implementing an action, monitoring its occurrence, and reflecting on it
(Vallacher et al., 1987). Any particular action can be identified at either a low level
or a high level. Research indicates that a higher-level identity tends to be "propo
nent," that is, to dominate the enactment and evaluation of the action (Wegner et al.,
1984). An action tends to drop to a lower level of prepotency when it cannot be
maintained at a higher level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Numerous factors appear to determine the level at which an action is identi
fied. The higher the level o f identification for a specific action, the more likely it
will be done. Within the realm of family functioning, washing the dishes serves as a
good example.
The greater the level o f meaning ascribed to an action as contributing to fam
ily functioning, the more likely it is that a family member will engage in it. It may
be suggested that the ranking and frequency of a particular "family action" (an action
which contributes to the functioning o f the family) will vary across cultures.
Relationship Between Meaning and Religiosity
Campbell (1981) suggested that three essential needs must be satisfied in or
der to create a sense o f well-being: (a) the need for having, which includes the ap
propriation o f material necessities; (b) the need for relating, which refers to social
relationships; and (c) the need for being that has to do with self-fulfillment. Ac
cording to Ellison (1983), we also have a fourth need, the self-transcendent need.
This refers to the human need to commit oneself to that which includes the ultimate
meaning of life. Ellison categorized this fourth need, for a Purpose in Life, as a
spiritual dimension.
Schweiker (1969) found that religious beliefs proride an integrative structure
with which one can made sense of life stresses. Believers have generally been asso
ciated with higher life purposes than those who do not hold religious beliefs (Dufton
& Perlman. 1986; Crandall & Rusmussen. 1975; Paloutzian. 1981) Deiner(l984)
also concluded that religious faith is generally related to subjective well-being.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
Similarly, Petersen and Roy (1985) suggested that religious salience (deep commit
ment to one’s faith followed by active religious participation) has a positive effect on
Purpose in Life).
Peterson and Roy (1985) defined meaning and purpose as “the extent to
which the individual perceives that he/she leads a worthwhile, goal-oriented, or
meaningful existence.” They found that “people whose lives lack meaning and pur
pose experience psychic discomfort which is characterized by feelings of emptiness
or a lack of direction” (p. 50). Yalom (1980) distinguished the cosmic meaning (the
meaning of life) from the terrestrial meaning (the meaning of my life). He under
stood the question o f cosmic meaning as “whether or not life in general or at least
human life fits into some overall coherent pattern” (p. 423). He then defined an in
dividual who has a terrestrial meaning as one who “experiences life as having some
purpose or function to be fulfilled, some overriding goal or goals to which to apply
oneself’ (p. 423).
Frankl (1986) underscores the importance of possessing meaning in one’s
life. As covered in greater detail in previous sections, Frankl considers the pursuit of
meaning as the fundamental drive in life. He also notes that the absence of such
meaning (which he terms the “existential vacuum”), is the root cause of many of to
day’s mental disorders such as depression and/or anxiety (Frankl, 1978). Frankl
strongly distinguishes between the life o f a religious individual and that of one who
is not involved in deep religious beliefs and/or activities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Frankl (1986) understands that on some level, all people ask themselves the
question “what is the meaning o f my life?” The secular individual’s answer to this
question is not so apparent, since society as a whole promotes a nihilistic philosophy.
Frankl contended, however, that the religious person differs from the irreligious in
dividual by experiencing his or her existence as a mission. He notes that for thou
sands of years, the source and guiding principle o f such a mission has been called G-
d (Frankl, 1986). Thus, existing research and theory point to a relevant and signifi
cant relationship between religiosity and meaning and Purpose in Life.
Statement of the Problem
It is not yet clearly known if religious belief and behavior have far-reaching
influences on personal, familial and social life, in either or both beneficial and dele
terious ways. The impact o f religion on family functioning has been a much ne
glected area of empirical study. Lindskog (1974), noting the lack of research with
respect to family religiosity, points out the need to examine how different religions
and/or denominations influence family life.
Some past sociological theories of religion have focused on adherence to
group norms and the degree to which members interact with nongroup members
(Gaede, 1976; Welch, 1981). This concept closely parallels the systems theory’s
concept of boundaries. Steinglass (1978) believes that the permeability of a family's
boundaries dictates the potential access of external influence upon the family. Thus,
a religious family with a highly impermeable exterior boundary would be less open
to relationships and associations outside of its religious group
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
This concept helps to explain members' commitment to the norms of the
group. A parallel may be drawn to the above-mentioned differences between the re
ligiously oriented Orthodox group and the more assimilated Conservative and Re
form groups. Whereas Conservative and Reform value the amalgamation of relig
ious and secular values, the Orthodox value and live with a highly impermeable
boundary. While commitment to group norms has been studied, the effect o f this
commitment on specific elements of family functioning remains unclear.
Purpose o f the Study
It is important that therapists and theorists learn more about the interrelation
ship between religiosity and family functioning. Growing numbers o f families are
seeking help from professional therapists. To facilitate the process of joining the
family, it is helpful for the therapist to have information about the family’s function
ing a priori. If, indeed, the functioning of religious and non-religious families is sig
nificantly different, being aware of these differences aids the therapist in recognizing
the uniqueness of the family system. Such tasks as building metaphors and planning
interventions are based on precise knowledge of the family. The therapist may pre
dict more accurately the result of an intervention given an understanding and appre
ciation for the family's style o f interaction.
This study has implications for the professional growth of therapists. Thirty-
six percent of mental health professionals report holding atheistic, agnostic or no re
ligious position, while only approximately 6% o f the American population report
holding one of these stances (Henry. Sims. & Spray. 1971; Sevensky. I9S4).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
Explanations for the over-representation o f therapists in nonreligious postures can
only be speculative. However, 25% of these therapists are classified by Henry and
others (1971) as being religious apostates, or having rejected the religious beliefs o f
their parents.
Beit-Hallahmi (1975) suggests that rejection of religious beliefs on the part of
therapists may lead them to under-emphasize the importance of religious beliefs in
clients or misunderstand the role of religion in family life. The present research may
help to clarify which components of family functioning are associated with certain
denominational affiliations and levels of religiosity. Therapists may use this infor
mation for re-evaluating their perceptions of religious families which may have been
biased by their own religious experiences.
Research Questions
This research will answer the following questions:
1. What is the relationship between family functioning and religious
affiliation?
2. What is the relationship between family functioning and level o f
meaning in life?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
The level of family functioning will be found to have a significant relation
ship with religious affiliation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Hypothesis 2
The level o f family functioning will be found to have a significant relation
ship with the level o f meaning in life.
Limits of the Study
1. This study was restricted to families who had one or more child reg
istered in Jewish day-schools within the Los Angeles area. The sample was pre
dominately White, and from an Ashkenazi (European) Jewish heritage.
2. Participation in this study was voluntary, and was a result o f a mass
mailing done using school rosters for Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish
day-schools. These conditions may have skewed the sample represented in this
study.
3. The instruments used in this study were not normed for the subject
population. This could pose as an inherent confound to the results discovered.
Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined as follows:
Meaning in Life
According to Yalom (1980), meaning and purpose have different connota
tions. “Meaning” refers to sense or coherence. It is a general term for what is in
tended to be expressed by something. A search for meaning therefore implies a
search for coherence. “Purpose” on the other hand refers to intention, aim, or func
tion. When asking about the purpose of something, it is the role of the function that
is inquired upon (i.e.. What does it do? To what end?) Yalom. however, concludes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
that in conventional usage, meaning o f life and purpose of life are used inter
changeably, and thus views them as being synonyms. This study follows Yalom’ s
later view, and will use these terms interchangeably.
Religious Affiliation
In the present study, the term religious affiliation is predicated on the demar
cated differences in religious beliefs and observances comprised in the theological
platforms o f Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish communities.
Family Functioning and Life Adaptability
In the present study, the definition provided by Olson, Sprenkle and Russell
(1979) are used for these terms. Family adaptability is defined by Olson as “the
ability o f the marital/family system to change its power structure, role relationships,
and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress (Olson
et al., 1979).
Outline of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of this paper will follow the following sequence. Chapter 2 presents
information regarding the community and settings where the study took place,
demographic facts about the subjects, procedures used in data collection, descrip
tions o f the instruments used in the study, and a description of the statistical tech
niques used in the analysis o f the data. The third chapter presents the results, and the
fourth chapter discusses the results of the study as they relate to the hypotheses and
other areas of concern, addresses the implications of theory and intervention, and
discusses implications for future research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Chapter 2
Method
This chapter presents information regarding the selection of the sample,
demographic facts about the subjects, procedures used in data collection, descrip
tions of the instruments used in the study, and a description o f the statistical tech
niques used in the analysis of the data.
Participants
In order to examine differences in family functioning among people o f differ
ent denominational affiliation, three populations were sampled: Reform, Conserva
tive and Orthodox Jewish families. These populations were defined based on affilia
tion with Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Temples and Synagogues. This study
drew subjects from all o f these denominations.
Initially, an attempt was made to contact an officer of the Temples and Syna
gogues within the Los Angeles area, in order to seek their participation in this study
by mailing out the questionnaires to their congregation members. However, only
one responded affirmatively. At this point, a list o f the school rosters for Reform,
Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish day-schools were acquired, and used as the sub
ject pool for the study.
Sample Description
As discussed in the previous chapter, the sample consisted of 163 subjects.
The breakdowns for the independent variables for the entire sample. Religious Af
filiation and Gender, are presented in Tables I and 2. As can be seen, there were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Table 1
Religious Affiliation
Frequency %
Reform 42 25.8
Conservative 46 28.2
Orthodox 75 46.0
Total 163 100.0
Table 2
Gender
Frequency %
Male 82 50.3
Female 79 48.5
Total 161 98.8
Missing
2 1.2
Total 163 100.0
almost an even number of subjects that identified themselves as Reform and
Conservative, and a larger percentage, almost double, that identified themselves as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Orthodox. There were about as many women in the sample as there were men. For
two of the subjects, gender information was missing.
There were seven variables used as covariates in this study: (a) age; (b) edu
cation; (c) income in 1998; (d) race; and (e) the demographic background informa
tion variables of bom in U. S., parents bom in U.S., illness in family, and previously
married. Descriptive statistics for these variables is presented in Tables 3 through 9.
Table 3 indicates the frequency and percent for which different education
levels were represented in the sample. Bachelors and masters degree holding sub
jects were the most frequent. One subject recorded an invalid entry for this variable
and for 8 subjects this information was missing. These variables were coded 1 to 4.
Information about the subject’s income in 1998 is presented in Table 4. Al
though the option was given, no subject reported earning no income or income o f
less that $10,000 per year. By far the most common response was a report of annual
income of more than $80,000. This variable was coded 1-7. Information on race is
displayed in Table 5. The sample was almost exclusively White.
Frequency breakdowns for the other background demographic variables of
bom in U. S., parents bom in U. S., illness in family, and previously married, is pre
sented in Tables 6-9. The majority of the subjects in the sample were U. S. bom, al
though 35% were bom outside the United States. Almost 40% of the sample had
parents bom outside the U. S. Almost 15% of the sample reported a family member
suffering from a serious physical or mental illness, and 18% reported that either they
or their spouse were previously married.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Table 3
Education Level
Frequency %
High school 22 13.5
Bachelor’s degree 57 35.0
Master’s degree 56 34.4
Doctorate 19 11.7
Total 154 94.5
Missing 9 5.5
Total 163 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Table 4
Income in 1998
Frequency %
10-22.5 1 .6
22.5-36 6 3.7
36-50 9 5.5
50-80 34 20.9
>80 105 64.4
Total 155 95.1
Missing 8 4.9
Total 163 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Table 5
Race
Frequency %
White 155 95.1
Latino I .6
Other 3 1.8
Total 159 97.5
Missing 4 2.5
Total 163 100.0
Table 6
Bom in U.S.
Frequency %
No 54 33.1
Yes 106 65.0
Total 160 98.2
Missing j 1.8
Total 163 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Table 7
Parents Bom in U. S.
Frequency %
No 64 39.3
Yes 99 60.7
Total 163 100.0
Table 8
Illness in Family
Frequency %
No 137 84.0
Yes 24 14.7
Total 161 98.8
Missing 2
1.2
Total 163 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Table 9
Previously Married
Frequency %
No 133 81.6
Yes 30 18.4
Total 163 100.0
For the variables that may be viewed on an ordinal level scale, summary sta
tistics are presented in Table 10. The age of the subjects ranged from 24 to 84 with a
mean o f about 42.
Procedure
The questionnaires were mailed to the prospective subjects’ homes noted on
the school rosters. A total of 818 questionnaire packets were mailed out. These
packets included a cover letter, which provided a brief introduction and overview of
the study (Appendix A), a copy o f the questionnaire (Appendix B), as well as a self-
addressed envelope. Of these, 227 were sent to families who had one or more chil
dren in a Reform Jewish day-school, 279 were sent to families who had one or more
children in a Conservative Jewish day-school, and 312 were sent to families who had
one or more children in an Orthodox Jewish day-school. To increase the response
rate, all 818 names and addresses were handwritten, with the assumption that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Standard
Deviation
Age 161 24.00 84.00 42.0311 9.6232
Income in 1998 155 3.00 7.00 6.5226 .8244
Education level 154 1.00 4.00 2.4675 .8869
prospective subject would be more willing to open and pay close attention to a per
sonally addressed envelope.
A period of four weeks were allowed for responses. A total of 11 question
naire packets came back due to incorrect addresses. A total o f 164 questionnaires
(20% total return rate) were sent back. Those questionnaires which arrived after the
cutoff deadline were not included in the study. Out of the 164 questionnaires (a) 42
belonged to families affiliated with a Reform Jewish day-school (19 percent return
rate), (b) 47 were from families affiliated with a Conservative Jewish day-school
(17% return rate), and (c) 75 were from families affiliated with an Orthodox Jewish
day-school (24% return rate).
The final sample of 164 (24- to 84-year-old) subjects included: (a)79
(48.5%) females; (b) 82 (50.3%) males; (c) 155 (95.1%) Caucasian; (d) (0.6%)
Latino; and (e) 3 (1.8%) of subjects identified as Other, almost all o f which had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
handwritten “Jewish” next to the circled response. The mean age of the subjects was
42.03 years at the time the study was conducted.
Instruments
Demographic Questionnaire
Jewish individuals in general, but in particular Orthodox Jews, are private in
nature and may be reluctant to disclose personal information. In an effort to maxi
mize the response rate, only basic demographic information were requested. These
included (a) sex, (b) age, (c) level of education, (d) level of income, and (e) race. In
addition, several other questions were included inquiring about any previous mar
riages, if any family member suffered from a serious physical and/or mental illness,
as well as if any one spouse or their parent were bom outside of the United States.
FACES n
The FACES II is a 30-item, self-report questionnaire with an administration
time of approximately 10 minutes. It was created to measure what Olson and others
(1979) found to be the two underlying dimensions of family functioning; namely,
adaptation and cohesion.
In reviewing the extensive literature on family functioning, Olsen and others.
(1979) identified over 50 concepts used to describe family dynamics. Further review
found that these concepts were similar, dealing with highly-related family pro
cesses. These processes conceptually clustered as three foundational dimensions o f
family functioning: (a) family adaptability, (b) family cohesion, and (c) family
communication.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Family communication was found to operate as a facilitating dimension and
was therefore “not considered central to the model” (Green, Harris, Forte, & Robin
son, 1991, p. 56). Positive communication skills help the family system in achieving
and maintaining a balance in the dimensions o f adaptability and cohesion. Negative
communication skills prevent or impede this process, resulting in poor functioning.
As the communication dimension o f this measure affects the dimensions o f adapt
ability and cohesion, rather than functioning independently, only adaptability and
cohesion are used in the FACES II instrument as measures o f classification o f family
functioning (Olson et al., 1979).
Originally developed as circumplex modes, the FACES II was assumed to
have a curvilinear relation to family functioning in which moderate degrees of adapt
ability and cohesion were assumed to indicate positive family functioning. Extreme
scores were thought to represent dysfunctional family functioning. Numerous later
studies sought to validate the curvilinear hypothesis o f the circumplex modes (An
derson & Gavazzi, 1990; Fristad, 1989; Green, Kolevzon, & Vosler, 1985; Kuehl,
Schumm, Russell, & Jurich, 1988; Pratt & Hansen, 1987; Sigafoos, Reiss, Rich, &
Douglas, 1985). Most o f these studies found FACES II to be a linear measure o f
family functioning rather than a curvilinear one. Thus, high scores on the dimen
sions of cohesion and adaptability were linearly associated with functional degrees of
connectedness and flexibility (i.e., cohesion and adapatability), rather than being
curvilinearally associated with dysfunctional degrees of enmeshment and family
chaos as originally proposed by Olson (Pratt & Hansen, 1987)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
This research resulted in a wealth o f established empirical information re
garding the theoretical, clinical, and psychometric properties o f the FACES H Ol
son (1986) reported that over 300 research projects had focused or were currently
focusing on some aspect o f the theoretical and clinical issues related to the circum-
plex/FACES model. In the ensuing years, the model has continued to receive atten
tion in the family research literature. This extensive body of knowledge, as well as
acceptable validity and reliability scores, contributed to the confidence in the use of
this instrument in this study.
The FACES II is a simple and straightforward self-report measure comprised
of 30 one-sentence descriptions of family interaction and relationships. Of the 30
items, 16 measure the construct of cohesion and 14 measure adaptability. The in
strument has two subscales, with corresponding scores as well as a total scale score.
Responses are given in a Likert format, with “ 1 ” indicating “almost never true,” and
“5” indicating “almost always true.” Scores range from a possible low of 16 to a
possible high o f 80 on the cohesion subscale, and from a low o f 14 to a high of 70 on
the adaptability subscale. The scores for both adaptability and cohesion are added
together, giving a possible range of 30 on the low end to 150 on the high end. This
index serves as a global indicator of family functioning. Low scores correspond to
dysfunctional family functioning and high scores indicate adaptive family function
ing (Pratt & Hansen, 1987).
The development of normative data for the FACES II occurred in two
phases. In 1981, 90 initial items purporting to measure cohesion and adaptability
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
were administered to 464 adults (mean age 30.S years) for the purpose of factor
analysis (Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982). Reliability and factor analysis reduced the
instrument to 50 items. This 50-item instrument was then administered to 2,412 in
dividuals in a national survey o f couples and families at all stages o f the life cycle
(Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen, & Wilson, 1983). Participants were a
random sample of the national membership o f a life insurance company covering
seven stages of the life cycle, from young couples without children to retired cou
ples. Factor analysis resulted in the final 30-item scale. Based on this national sam
ple, norms were established for both parents and adolescents. The parent norms
were calculated from the responses o f2,082 parents. The mean cohesion and adapt
ability score for parents in this sample was 64.9 (SD = 8.4) and 49.9 (SD = 6.6),
respectively. The normative data for adolescents consisted o f responses from 416
adolescents with a mean cohesion score of 56.3 (SD = 9.2) and a mean adaptability
score of 45.4 (SD = 7.9) (Olson et al., 1982). For this dissertation, the above noted
norms were not utilized.
in a related study, FACES II was administered to a community sample o f 147
adults o f Anglo descent and 146 adults of Mexican descent (Vega, Patterson, Sallis,
Nader, Atkins, & Abramson, 1986). The sample included husbands and wives. The
mean age o f Anglo respondents was 38.5 years of age, and that of Mexican respon
dents was 36.6 years of age. No significant differences were found between the two
groups on measures of cohesion and adaptability, even when the findings were con
trolled for acculturation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
Validity has been established between the FACES II and other scales meas
uring constructs similar to adaptability and cohesion. Significant correlations were
found between the FACES H and the SFI— Dallas Self-Report Family Inventory
(Hampson, Beavers, & Hulgus, 1988). Construct validity has been established by
factor analysis of the 30 items of the FACES. The items loaded on two factors; co
hesion scale-items loaded on factor one, and adaptability scale-items loaded on fac
tor two (Olson et al., 1982). Other evidence of construct validity included studies
where the FACES II accurately discriminated between symptomatic and nonsymp-
tomatic families (Anderson & Gavazzi, 1990). The FACES II has been found to ac
curately discriminate between families with and without a juvenile offender (Rodick,
Henggeler, & Hanson, 1986), families in family therapy and those who were not,
families at high risk and those at low risk for destructive interactions in the parent-
child dyad (Garbarino, Sebes, & Schellenbach, 1985), families with and without a
chemically-dependent member (Olson & Killorin, 1985), and families with and
without a runaway adolescent (Bell, Avery, Jenkins, Feld, & Schoenrock, 1985).
Internal consistency and test-retest measures were used to establish reliability
for the FACES II. The total sample of 2,412 participants was divided into two equal
subgroups. Reliability coefficients using Cronbach Alpha are high and listed as
follows (Olson & Tiesel, 1991).
The Purpose in Life Test
The PIL (Crumbaugh & Maholick. 1969) is an attitude scale constructed
from the orientation of Victor Frankl’s Logotherapv. a system o f existential
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
psychotherapy. This scale was designed to measure the subject’s sense o f meaning
in life and consists o f 20 items related on a seven-point, Likert-type scale. Thus, the
range of possible score is from 0 (no Purpose in Life) to 140 (the highest Purpose in
Life).
Table 11
Cronbach Alpha Coefficients for FACES II
FACES SCORE Total Sample Sample I Sample 2
Cohesion .88 .87 .86
Adaptability .78 .78 .79
Total Scale .90 .90 .90
The PIL was intended for use in both clinical and research settings. The fol
lowing norms were established through standardization against a sample o f 1,151
cases: Raw scores o f 113 or above suggest the presence of clear purpose and mean
ing in life. Raw scores o f 91 or below suggest the lack of these factors. Two sepa
rate determinations of split-half reliability yielded coefficients of .81 and .85, the
latter Spearman-Brown corrected to .92.
The PIL has been found valid using a variety of methods. Construct valida
tion has been conducted via the finding of significant mean differences among sev
eral different categories of patient populations. Concurrent or criterion validity has
been determined by means o f correlating scores with therapist and minister ratings o f
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
the degree o f purpose and meaning in the life o f patients and parishoners. Signifi
cant correlation has been found between the PIL and other psychometric instruments.
These measures include selected MMPI scales, Crowne-Marlow Social Desirability
Scale, California Personality Inventory, Srole Anomie Scale, and Cattell 16-
Personality Factor Test (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1969).
Meier Religious Commitment Scale
Meier (1981) created a scale to be used in a dissertation, to help measure the
relationship between chronic pain, suffering, and different religious approaches. The
entire scale was not used for it was designed to measure such variables as spiritual
well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being; variables which go be
yond the scope of this study. The items that were chosen from the Meier Religious
Scale were meant to be correlated with the nominal categories of Reform, Conserva
tive, and Orthodox Judaism. This composite of questions will be addressed as the
religiosity scale in this study.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was carried out in a series of stages, and will be presented in
greater detail in chapter 3, the results section. First, the summary information for
each variable was considered for the entire sample. Each variable’s mean, variance,
range of values, and distributional properties were examined. This facilitated the
ensuring that the data was clean and that there were no unreasonable or miscoded
values present. The presentation of this summary information in the results section
is divided into three sections, one for each of the independent variables (gender and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
religious affiliation), the covariates (age, education, income98, race, bom in U.S.,
parents bom in U. S., illness in family, and previously married), and the dependent
variables (PIL, ADAPTABILITY, COHESION, FACESTOTAL, and RELIGIOS
ITY). Scale reliability information was calculated for the dependent variables, which
are in the form of scales.
A main objective o f the study was to examine whether religious affiliation
and gender have an effect on the dependent measures. Initially this was tested con
sidering all dependent variables simultaneously in a MANOVA with Religious Af
filiation and Gender as factors. The purpose of this part of the analysis is to test
whether there is an effect for the independent factors, i.e., are there group differ
ences, when considering all the dependent measures together. Univariate ANOVAs
were conducted in order to determine for each dependent variable individually,
whether or not Religious Affiliation or Gender or their interaction had a significant
effect. In order to control for the influence of potentially extraneous variables.
Analysis o f Covariance ANCOVA, was performed. In the ANCOVAs, the influence
of Religious Affiliation and Gender was considered for each variable after taking
into account age, education, income98, bom in U. S., parents bom in U. S., illness in
family, and previously married.
Since the Religion scale is new, factor analysis of the scale items was con
ducted in an attempt to determine the dimensionality of the scale. The scale item
intercorrelations were examined and then factor analyzed using both orthogonal and
oblique rotation methods.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Chapter 3
Results
This chapter presents the results o f the study, followed by the statistical
analyses performed in the study.
Reliability
The dependent measures were scales that were created from a number of
items. For these variables, reliability analyses were conducted, the results o f which
are summarized in the following table. For the FACES measure, reliability informa
tion was obtained for the subscales o f adaptability and cohesion, as well as for the
total FACES scale. Examination o f the alpha statistics indicates that each o f the
scales has an acceptable level of internal consistency. Additionally, for each scale,
the individual items were inspected to determine whether or not the alpha statistic
would significantly increase upon exclusion o f that item. In all cases, the exclusion
of the items did not appear to efFect the internal consistency o f the scales in a signifi
cant way.
Multivariate Analyses of Variance
In this section, the results of analyses aimed at understanding the effects of
Religious Affiliation and Gender on the dependent measures are described. Al
though the individual dependent measures are o f interest, initially a MANOVA was
conducted in order to get an omnibus indicator as to whether the groups differed
overall on the dependent measures when considered together. The results of this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Table 12
Reliability Analysis
# of items Cronbach’s Standardized
Alpha
Average Inter-item
Alpha Correlation
Purpose in Life (PEL) 20 .704 .730 .122
FACES (Total) 30 .844 .852 .165
Adaptability 14 .729 .741 .173
Cohesion 16 .756 .767 .174
Religiosity 21 .833 .835 .202
Table 13
MANOVA— Dependent Variables: Purpose in Life, Religiosity, Cohesion, and
Adaptability
Pillais Trace/Approximate FP- Value
Effect
Religious Affiliation x Gender .0688/1.344 .221
Gender .0160/.6087 .657
Religious Affiliation .8349/27.050 < 001
MANOVA are presented in Table 14. In this table dependent variables used in the
analysis were PIL, Religiosity, Cohesion and Adaptability.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Table 14
MANOVA— Dependent Variables: Purpose in Life, Religiosity, FACES Total Scale
Pillais Trace/Approximate P- Value
Effect
Religious Affiliation x Gender
Gender
Religious Affiliation
.0596/1.555
.0152/.7756
.8336/36.209
.160
.509
<.001
The MANOVA results o f when the FACESTOTAL scale was used instead of
the subscales o f cohesion and adaptability are presented in Table IS. In both in
stances, the findings were similar. There was no significant difference effect o f the
religious affiliation by gender interaction, nor for gender. However, there was a sig
nificant difference overall on the dependent variables between the religious affilia
tion groups.
To determine which of the dependent variables were contributing to the sig
nificant MANOVA findings, univariate analyses were conducted for each o f the de
pendent variables. In none of the univariate analyses conducted were any significant
results found for Gender or for the Gender by Religious Affiliation interaction. This
was expected as these factors were not found to be statistically significant in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Table 15
ANOVA: Test o f the Effect of Religious Affiliation
F Statistic P - Value
Dependent Variable
Purpose in Life 7.53 .001
Adaptability 2.46 .089
Cohesion 1.93 .148
Religiosity 171.71 <.001
Faces Total Scale 2.55 .081
MANOVA analyses. For Religious Affiliation, however, some of the individual
measures showed between group differences. These findings are presented in
Table 16.
For the Religious Affiliation factor, significant group differences were found
for Purpose in Life and Religiosity but not for Adaptability, Cohesion, or for the
FACES Total Scale measure. The group means for these variables are displayed in
Tables 17 and 18. For the Purpose in Life, statistical tests indicated that the conser
vative group had significantly lower value than either the reform or orthodox groups.
On the Religiosity measure (Table 17), Reform had the lowest score, followed by
Conservative, and then the Orthodox.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Table 16
Purpose in Life: Breakdown by Religious Affiliation
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Group
Reform 117.21 9.33
Conservative 110.80 11.44
Orthodox 117.07 10.05
Full Sample 115.34 10.61
Table 17
Religiosity: Breakdown by Religious Affiliation
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Group
Reform 25.50 3.68
Conservative 28.02 3.40
Orthodox 35.19 1.89
Full Sample 30.67 5.16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Table 18
ANCOVA: Test o f the Effect o f Religious Affiliation and Gender for Age, Educa
tion, Income98, Religiosity, Bom in U. S., Parents Bom in U. S., Illness in Family,
and Previously Married
F Statistic P - Value
Purpose in Life
Gender x Religious Affiliation .76 .468
Gender .04 .841
Religious Affiliation 5.49 .005
Adaptability
Gender x Religious Affiliation .90 .410
Gender 1.34 .249
Religious Affiliation 1.51 .225
Cohesion
Gender x Religious Affiliation L01 .366
Gender .82 .367
Religious Affiliation 1.24 .292
FACES Total Scale
Gender x Religious Affiliation 1.04 .357
Gender 1.24 .268
Religious Affiliation 1.61 .203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
Table 18 (continued)
F Statistic P - Value
Relieiositv
Gender x Religious Affiliation 1.92 .151
Gender 1.95 .165
Religious Affiliation 123.36 <001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Analyses of Covariance
In order to determine whether or not these effects may be attributable to other
factors, and at the same time to possibly enhance the sensitivity of the statistical tests
by controlling for such factors, analysis of covariance, ANCOVA, was performed.
In conducting the ANCOVA, the covariates age, education, income in 1998, and the
demographic background information variables of bom in U.S., parents bom in U.S.,
illness in family, and previously married, were included together in the analysis.
These factors were specifically chosen to help control for possible con
founding variables. For example, the fact that a subject was raised in a foreign cul
ture, or was raised by a parent or parents who were themselves raised in one, could
significantly contribute to their level o f family functioning and meaning in life, in
relation to their level o f religiosity. Moreover, a family's having as its member a
child or adult who suffers from a serious physical illness or mental illness (i.e., Bi
polar or Schizophrenia Disorder), could also significantly contribute to their level of
family functioning and meaning in life, in relation to their level of religiosity. Thus,
controlling for these factors would help derive at more conclusive conclusions. The
results of this analysis are displayed in Table 18.
As indicated in the table, the ANCOVA did not provide any support for a hy
pothesis that the covariates are responsible for the observed group differences on PIL
and Religiosity. Similarly controlling for the covariates did not reveal any new sig
nificant findings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
Table 19
Two Factor Oblique Solution: Rotated Factor Matrix
Factor I Factor 2
TWOSETS (of dishes used, miik-meat) .86 -.11
NODRIVE (on the Sabbath) .62 -.21
STU DY (Judaism at least once a week) .57 -.17
FAST (on Yom Kippur) .56 .39
FAMTLYLIFE (is important part of religious life) .55 -.11
HIGHHOLLIDAYS (only attend) .54 .22
BELIEVE (services don't matter, only belief) .48 0
NOBREAD (on Passover) .47 0
POPULAR (follow The Law when convenient and) .46 0
DAILYLIFE (is governed by The Law) .40 .19
TENCOM M ANDM ENTS (able to recite) .34 0
LOVE (thy neighbor is most important) .18 -.14
GUIDER (Believe in G-d that guides the universe) -.22 .85
TORAH (Believe The Torah was given by G-d) 0 .80
TALMUD (Believe G-d gave us a method of interpreting Torah) 0 .71
CREATOR (Believe G-d is The Creator) -.15 .71
CONFLICTLAW (When conflicted. I follow The Law) -. 14 .56
PRIVATHPRAYER (I pray privately) .34 .55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Table 19 (continued)
Factor I Factor 2
HELPNEED (Religion helps in times of need) 0 .44
PRAY (I feel closest to G-d when I) 0 .18
RELATIONSHIPS (make me feel religiously content) 0 .14
Note: Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Factor Analysis
In order to investigate whether the religiosity scale is composed of a number
of subdimensions, exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The items in the re
ligiosity scale were factor analyzed in a number of different ways. A screen plot
based on a principal components analysis is presented in Table 20. The screen plot
provides an indication o f how many factors may be present in the data. The screen
plot provides support for the investigation o f either a two or three factor solution.
The correlation matrix for the religiosity items is presented in Table 21.
Factor analysis results were obtained for two and three factor solutions using
both orthogonal and oblique rotation methods. There were no distinctive differences
between the orthogonal and oblique solutions with regards to which variables loaded
on their factors. For the purpose o f this study, however, the results of the oblique
solutions were the only ones focused upon. These results are displayed in Tables 17
and 18.
In the two factor oblique solution, the following variables showed high load
ings on factor one: TWOSETS, FAST, FAMILYLIFE, NODRIVE, fflGHHOLLI-
DAYS, STUDY, NOBREAD, POPULAR, BELIEVE, DAILYLIFE. and TEN-
COMMANDMENTS; while the following variables showed high loadings on factor
two: GUTDER. TORAH, TALMUD, CREATOR, PRTVATEPRAYER, CON-
FLICTLAW, and HELPNEED. Variables LOVE. PRAY, and RELATIONSHIPS
did not have high loadings on either factor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Table 20
Factor Correlation Matrix
Factor 1 2
1 1.000 .537
2 .537 1.000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Table 21
Three Factor Oblique Solution: Rotated Factor Matrix
Factor Factor Factor
I 2 3
TWOSETS (of dishes used, milk-meat) .84 0 -.15
NODRIVE (on the Sabbath) .79 0 0
STUDY (Judaism at least once a week) .71 .26 -.18
FAST (on Yom Kippur) .69 0 0
FAMILYLIFE (is important part of religious life) .57 -.37 .27
HIGHHOLLIDAYS (only attend) .54 .31 0
BELIEVE (services don't matter, only belief) .43 0 .14
NOBREAD (on Passover) .14 0 0
POPULAR (I follow the law when convenient and) -.14 .13 0
DAILYLIFE (is governed by The Law) -.22 .80 -.16
TENCOM M ANDM ENTS (able to recite) 0 .69 -.20
LOVE (thy neighbor is most important) -.11 .62 .35
GUIDER (Believe in G-d that guides the universe) 0 .47 0
TORAH (Believe the Torah was given by G-d) .39 .45 .17
TALMUD (Believe G-d gave us a method of interpreting Torah) .19 .36 0
CREATOR (Believe G-d is The Creator) 0 .34 .17
CONFLICTLAW (When conflicted. I follow the law) .18 19 -.11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Table 21 (continued)
Factor
1
Factor
2
Factor
PRIVATEPRAYER (I pray privately) 0 -.26 .83
HELPNEED (Religion helps in times of need) -.11 .26 .40
PRAY (I feel closest to G-d when I) -.17 .30 .38
RELATIONSHIPS (make me feel religiously content) .22 .30 .34
Note: Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
In the three factor oblique solution, the following variables showed high
loadings on factor one: GUIDER, TORAH, TALMUD, CREATOR, PRI-
VATEPRAYER, CONFLICTLAW, and HELPNEED; variables FAST, NOBREAD,
TWOSETS, POPULAR, NODRIVE, DAILYLIFE, and BELIEVE showed high
loadings on factor two; while variables TENCOMMANDMENTS, HIGHHOLLI-
DAYS, FAMILYL1FE, and STUDY showed high loadings on factor three. As with
the two factor solution, variables LOVE, PRAY, AND RELATIONSHIPS did not
have high loadings on any o f the factors.
In order to further investigate the degree to which the identified factors may
be viewed as subscales, alpha reliability coefficients for these subscales were calcu
lated. For the two factor solution, the alphas were .8076 and .8234. For the three
factor solution, the alpha coefficients were .7708, .5806, and .8234.
ANQVA Results
In order to determine which religiosity scale was contributing to the signifi
cant ANOVA findings o f the test o f the effect o f religious affiliation (Table 15), uni
variate analyses were conducted for each of the religiosity scales. A significant dif
ference was found between the three religious affiliation groups, on both religiosity
scales. For religiosity one scale, an /-value of 157.701 was found, (d f= 2,147), along
with a significant level o f <.001. Forthe religiosity two scale, an /-value o f 81.61
was found, (df= 2,147), and a significant value of <.001. Post-hoc tests of between
group differences were performed for the Reform. Conservative, and Orthodox
groups. All of the groups were found to be statistically different, except the Reform
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
and Conservative groups for the second religiosity scale. The group means for these
variables are displayed in Tables 22 and 23.
Table 22
Religiosity One Scale: Breakdown by Religious Affiliation
Group Mean
Standard
Deviation
Reform 9.84 1.80
Conservative 13.02 1.35
Orthodox 14.70 1.03
Full sample 13.02 2.37
Table 23
Religiosity Two Scale: Breakdown by Religious Affiliation
Group Mean
Standard
Deviation
Reform 14.63 3.08
Conservative 13.74 2.51
Orthodox 18.72 1.30
Full sample 16.42 3.17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Chapter 4
Discussion
This chapter discusses the results o f the study, and considers the wider impli
cations of its findings. The chapter is divided into six sections: (a) The Findings as
They Relate to the Hypothesis, (b) Implications for Theory, (c) Implications o f Other
Findings, (d) Implications for Counseling and Interventions, (e) Limitations and Fu
ture Research, and (f) Conclusion.
The Findings As They Relate to the Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
The level o f family functioning will be found to have a significant relation
ship with religious affiliation. Studies have shown that there is a positive correlation
between religious participation and emotional well-being and happiness (McClure &
Loden, 1982;Moberg, 1979; Reed, 1991). Ness and Wintrob (1980) showed that the
greater their participation in fundamentalist religious activities, the less likely they
were to report symptoms o f emotional distress. Furthermore, Roberts (1990) demon
strates that religion provides meaning and understanding for individuals involved in
religious activities.
Studies focusing more on the significance of denominational differentiation
have shown that there are still considerable ideological and behavioral differences
among adherents of the various denominations (Harrison & Lazerwitz, 1982).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Jensen and Jensen (1993), found stronger family values among more religious adults.
They also concluded that increased religiosity is reflected in men becoming more
similar to women in their family values, thus leading to a more coherent family unit.
Studies dealing more specifically with the American Jewish community have
shown that a great degree of social and demographic homogeneity seem to exist.
Yet, studies have also shown that there continue to be substantial differences be
tween the denominational groups in the ethno-religious behavior and orientations of
their affiliates (Harrison & Lazerwitz, 1982). The three major denominational
groups are ranked in the degree o f traditionalism of their members, their ethnic loy
alties, and their religious observances. Those identifying with Orthodoxy rank high
est on these dimensions, the Conservative Jews are intermediate in rank, and the Re
form Jews rank the lowest. It is therefore concluded, that the families that identify
themselves as Orthodox are the most religious, followed by families that identify
themselves as Conservative, and lastly by those that identify themselves as Reform.
It was hypothesized in this study, that the degree of religiosity a family prac
ticed would be statistically related to its level of family functioning. Thus, the more
religious families were hypothesized to possess a greater degree of functionality.
This hypothesis was not supported by the findings of the current study. In the statis
tical analysis of the effect of religious affiliation, the FACES II (total scales) pro
vided an insignificant p value o f .081, while its subscales of adaptability and cohe
sion provided insignificant p values of .089 and . 148. respectively
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
In an effort to determine whether these findings may be attributable to other
factors, a number of covariates were analyzed. These included (a) age, (b) educa
tion, (c) level of family income in 1998, (d) whether or not the parents were bom in
the U. S., (e) whether or not the grandparents were bom in the U. S., (f) if the family
possessed any member with a significant physical and/or mental illness, and (g)
whether or not any o f the parents where previously married. The statistical analysis
showed that none of these covariates provided a significant p-value, thus ruling them
out as possibly possessing any significance.
Numerous studies have attempted to focus on the relationship between the
two variables of family functioning and religiosity. A number o f these point to a
positive relationship, while others have resulted in conflicting findings (Koenig et
al., 1988; Payne et al., 1991; Roth, 1988; Willits & Crider, 1988). These studies
have examined such issues as the relationship between religiosity and marital satis
faction, adolescent as well as marital sexual behavior, social interaction, familial hi
erarchies, child and sexual abuse, alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence,
the development of psychological pathologies, the elderly, and children's attitudes
towards parents.
This study has focused on the relationship between religiosity, as measured
by religious affiliation, and family functioning as measure by the FACES H. These
findings contradict previous research findings by suggesting that a family's level
of religiosity does not statistically impact its level o f family functioning In the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
implication for theory section, the various reasons for these findings will be ex
plored, as well as their meaningfulness to existing theory and research.
Hypothesis 2
The level of family functioning will be found to have a significant relation
ship with the level o f meaning in life. Historically, there has been relatively little
research done investigating the relationship between family functioning and the level
o f meaning in life. The research that has been conducted has looked primarily at the
various aspects or components of the family, but has not looked at the family’s sys
tem as a whole.
Despite the relative lack of research examining the relationship between
family functioning and meaning in life, numerous theories have been developed to
help account for the interaction between these two variables. O f these, two theories
might be considered most applicable to the subject matter addressed in this study.
One is an existential approach to family theory developed by Viktor Frankl (1969)
and his disciples; and the other is a social-contructivist’s perspective on the interac
tion of these two variables, more specifically, the views put forth by Vallacher and
Wegner (1985) with their theory of action identification.
It was hypothesized that the level of meaning in life would have a statistically
significant relationship with the level of family functioning. Moreover, the more re
ligious families were hypothesized to possess a greater degree of meaning and pur
pose. Although the findings of the current study found a significant relationship
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
between the variables of meaning in life and family functioning, the main hypothesis
of the directionality of this relationship was not supported.
The initial MANOVA results showed a significant difference overall (p
<.001), between the independent variable of religious affiliation, and the dependent
variables o f Purpose in Life, the religiosity scale, and the FACES II. In order to de
lineate which o f these dependent variables was responsible for the significant find
ings, ANOVA statistical procedures were implemented. The univariate analyses
conducted showed between group differences for religious affiliation and Purpose in
Life.
The statistical tests indicated that the Conservative group had significantly
lower meaning (x = I 10.80), than either the Reform (x = 117.21) or Orthodox
(x.= 117.07) groups. In fact, the Reform and Orthodox groups registered as pos
sessing the same level of meaning, with the Orthodox showing a slightly greater
standard deviation (10.05 versus 9.33), expressing a greater degree of range in the
orthodox subjects’ sense of meaning.
The results of this study run counter to the findings of the previous studies
that have looked at the relationship between meaning in life and family functioning.
Such research, though studying various components of the family unit, have gener
ally found meaning and purpose to be positively correlated with family functioning.
These studies have attempted to examine the relationship between these two factors,
by looking at such factors as depression (Westgate. 1996), alcoholism (Crumbaugh
& Carr, 1979; Jacobson et al., 1977), drug use (Harlow et al.. 1986; Hutzel &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Peterson, 1986; Klinger, 1977; Newcomb & Harlow, 1986; Padelford, 1974; Shean
& Fechtmann, 1971; Sclabassi, 1993), suicidal behavior (Harlow et al., 1986; Line-
han et al., 1983), hopelessness (Grygielski et al., 1984), stress and coping (Stevens,
Pfost & Wessels, 1987), religious values (Crumbaugh et al., 1970; Paloutzian, 1981),
and physical and psychological well-being (Recker, Peacock, & Wong, 1987).
These results suggest that a family’s level of meaning does not statistically
impact its level of family functioning, and they do contradict previous research
findings. In the next section, the various factors that may account for these results
will be examined, in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the complex rela
tionship between these variables.
Implications for Theory
Relationship Between Religiosity and Family Functioning
Religion is a complicated topic for psychological study. Studies show that
(a) 95% to 99% o f the population claim a belief in G-d, (b) 92% express a preference
for a religion, (c) 89% report that they pray, (d) 69% are affiliated with religious in
stitutions, (e) 59% state their religious beliefs are very important to them, (f) ap
proximately 40% attend church or synagogue once a week, and (g) 49% believe re
ligious influence is increasing (Spilka, 1986).
A review of the relevant literature reveals strong support for the existence o f
a relationship between religiosity and various components o f family functioning
(Gruner. 1985; Wilson & Filsinger. 1986). Other research studies report that greater
happiness, adjustment, and satisfaction in family life is related to positive beliefs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
about religion, greater effort toward religion, more religious participation, and
agreement about religions. Husbands and wives have reported that levels of relig
ious practice are extremely important to marital satisfaction (Silverman & Urbaniak,
1983), and highly religious people have consistently been found to have lower di
vorce rates than low-committed or nonreligious people (Spilka, Hood, & Gorsuch,
1985).
Research in this area has traditionally shown that religious norms provide an
ideal for marriage (Hall, 1986), and shared religious experience provides a way to
maintain a sense o f “awe” in a marriage (Wallace, 1985). Moreover, it has been
suggested that highly religious individuals are more likely to work toward the suc
cess of their relationship, since they see marriage as a permanent union that should
be broken only for very serious reasons (Krishman, 1994).
Originally, it was thought that SES might play a big factor in the findings o f
the present study, since the Reform and Conservative schools in the community were
thought to include more well-to-do families. This was proven not to be the case
through the Covariate statistical analyses. This finding is in accordance with previ
ous research (Poloma & Pendleton, 1990), which found that control variables such as
age, education, income, sex, and race did not play a statistically significant role in
studies with religiosity.
So how is it that given the above noted research, the findings o f this study
point to different conclusions? One possibility is that the previous studies might be
outdated, since most are 10- to 15-years-old. Perhaps, the nature and practice o f
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
religion in the home has altered within that time. It couid be that the changes in val
ues of the dominant culture in the U. S. have led to a different understanding, thus
different application of religious beliefs and practices. It may be that the children of
the religious individuals studied in previous research may view themselves as relig
ious and report themselves as such, yet their understanding of religious values and
practices has been altered throughout the years.
More than 40 years ago, Eric Fromm (1956) critically analyzed societal
changes in the understanding and practice of religion. He criticized the change in the
use o f religion, seeing it as having gone from a transcending, elevating theology, one
positing only the highest values and most desirable good, to one used to help the in
dividual become “more productive.” Thus, the result may be the more narcissistic
use of religion, in an effort to acquire and advance in more individualistic and self
directed goals.
Could it be that the culture of today, which values individualism more than in
the years past, has produced a more self-centered view of life in its members?
Morgan and Scanzoni (1987) theorize that individuals who are more religiously de
vout are less strongly committed to individualism, and instead are more committed to
relationship maintenance and stability. Along the same lines is the supposition that
religion’s basic support o f family values, opportunities for family activity and facili
tation of solutions to life’s problems may all make family life more attractive
(Filsinger & Wilson, 1984). and therefore, point to the direct positive effects of
religion on family functioning. Yet the results of this study conducted in 1999 do
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
not support such theories. Neither does it support the theory put forth by Yates
(1985), who suggested that religion effects family functioning by helping individuals
grow in their ability to deepen their commitment to each other, become rooted in
conventional virtues o f trust, honesty, self revelation and acceptance, and become
more responsible for the well-being of each other.
Another possible explanation for the differing results found in this study
could be the complexity o f the hypothetical construct of religiosity. Relatively little
is known about this construct, posing yet another problem in the existing literature.
Moreover, there exists a lack of reliable instruments to measure religiosity, or to dis
tinguish between facets o f religion such as belief, practice, and affiliation (Yates,
1985). Grunner (1985) highlights the failure to adequately discriminate among types
of religious practices, beliefs, and groups as being a critical mistake.
One factor in particular is a direct result of one of the most important limita
tions of this study. As noted in the previous chapter, an attempt was originally made
to mail the questionnaires of this study to a list compiled by the Jewish Federation.
This list was a result o f a mass telemarketing effort, which identified its Jewish
members by calling numbers randomly from the phone book, asking if the person
answering was Jewish, and whether they were Unaffiliated, Reform, Conservative,
or Orthodox. This would have greatly increased the generalizability of this study.
However, after contacting the appropriate person in charge, the Jewish Federation
refused to cooperate by providing this list for this study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Then, an attempt was made to have the questionnaires mailed to the congre
gational members o f various temples and synagogues; but most of the temples and
synagogues refused to participate, with the exception o f several Orthodox ones. At
this point, school rosters for Reform and Conservative schools were acquired, as well
as a community listing for the Orthodox. These lists were used as the subject pool.
It is important to note, that unlike Orthodox Jews who predominantly have
their children in Jewish day schools, Jews who consider themselves Reform or Con
servative rarely have their children in Jewish day-schools. As a result, the subject
pool of this study was extremely biased, and not representative of the denominations
as a whole. It could be, that the current results indicate that families who have their
children in Jewish day-schools are more “religious,” and their values and approach to
family life are more representative and closer to traditional religious life. Thus
pointing to a hypothesis positing greater uniformity between families who have their
children in religious day schools.
Another important contributing factor to the findings of this study could also
be the result of the use of the subject biases addressed above. In particular, the Re
form sample was based on the roster of a preschool, while the Conservative sample
was based on a K-8 school roster, and a community list was used to obtain the Or
thodox subjects. Research strongly points to the theory that various components o f
family functioning decreases with the increase of the number of children, and espe
cially with teenage children in a household. Given that the demographic information
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
o f the number of children per family, and the age o f these children were not col
lected, these could pose as serious confounding variables to the results found.
What if ignoring the confounding variables noted above, the results of this
study were accurate? These results certainly do not stand alone, for a number of
previous studies have arrived at the same findings (Koenig et al., 1988; Payne et al.,
1991; Roth, 1988; Willits & Crider, 1988). The ramifications of such findings are
important both for researchers and for clinicians. Simply put, if these studies are
valid, the level o f religiosity of a family would have no significance in terms o f the
level of family functioning. The importance o f the family’s level of religiosity, even
as a cultural phenomenon, would be null and void, and it would require no further
attention.
Two possible explanations for the disparity between the findings of this study
and those of previous studies remain to be explored. Combined, they form my most
comprehensive and logical explanation for the conflicting results found. Firstly, it is
important to highlight the difficulty inherent in comparing studies which have ana
lyzed the relationship between family functioning and religiosity, since different
studies often use different dimensions or definitions as their criteria for these com
plex variables. Therefore, the complexity o f such hypothetical constructs leads to
the questioning of the validity o f the instruments. Moreover, the generalizability o f
such findings is also questioned, given that most studies compare a relatively small
and isolated population.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finally, Hansen (1987) writes that it is important to consider specific groups
within the religious domain, and to clarify which aspects of their religion have the
greatest impact on family functioning and its various components. Perhaps religios
ity is too complex of a variable to be measured as a whole, particularly as an inde
pendent variable. Perhaps in this domain, we should learn from our colleagues in the
natural sciences, and break this variable into more simple components; at which
point we might be able to measure its effects on family functioning better. One thing
remains very clear, that the relationship between these two variables cannot be sim
plified to the old adage that “the family who prays together stays together.”
Relationship Between Meaning and Family Functioning
The results of this study run counter to the theoretical perspectives posited
earlier by FrankI, but not necessarily against the ones posited by Vallacher and Weg-
ner (1985). Frank! believed that the greatest need for the human being was the need
for meaning and purpose, and that the religious individuals, with their religious be
liefs and practices, would more easily and naturally possess a greater degree of
meaning and purpose in their lives (Frankl, 1986). From FrankI, one could deduce
that the more religious an individual and/or family is, the greater their level of
meaning and purpose. The findings of this study do not support such a hypothesis.
The theory posed by Vallacher and Wegner (1985), however, might shed
more light on the matter. Their theory states that people are faced with the dilemma
of determining what meaning they should ascribe to a particular action, if any.
Therefore, individuals who are less religious are just as likely to ascribe meaning and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
purpose to their daily activities and to their entire lives as those who are more relig
ious. Thus, given the example provided in chapter one, a Reform Jew is as likely to
ascribe meaning to their washing dishes as an Orthodox Jew. Could there be possi
ble differences? I would think so. Such a difference might manifest itself in the
meaning the individual ascribes to a particular activity. So, to follow the above ex
ample one step further, the Reform Jew might be as likely to ascribe a meaning to
washing dishes, but not necessarily a religiously oriented meaning. Given the results
and theories posited above, we put forth the notion that religiosity, as measured in
this study, does not impact the level of meaning in an individual’s life.
Implications o f Other Findings
Religious faith is a highly personal and subjective experience that is difficult
to quantify and measure objectively. Prior research on this concept has focused
solely on Christian values and Christian families, because the most commonly used
instruments measuring religiosity were normed on Christian samples.
The definition of religiosity varies widely among researchers. The estimation
of piety might involve tabulating such variables as frequency of church attendance,
membership in religious or spiritual fellowships, possession of sacred artifacts, and
so on. However, such indicators may not be entirely valid. They do not take into
account such factors as conformity for purposes o f social desirability, participation in
church life for social rather than religious reasons, possessing religious objects for
emotional reasons, rather than for piety, etc (Wulff. 1991. p. 204)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
It is difficult to define what religion and religiosity are, let alone measure
these factors. A number of tools, supporting different theories, purport to measure
religion, but these instruments are often devices of convention that serve the needs of
the particular theory being expounded at the time (King & Hunt, 1975). Perhaps
what must be considered is whether or not religion is a one dimensional concept, or a
multi-dimensional concept.
Support for a Multidimensional Concept of Religion
Gorsuch (1934) argued that religion could be described as both a single
common factor in the population as well as a multidimensional one. A single factor
may relate to more general concepts in the population while a multi-dimensional one
may identify exceptions to general trends (Wulff, 1991).
There are many conceptualizations of religion as multidimensional in the lit
erature. Von Hugel (1908) described traditional, rational, intuitive, and volitional
elements o f religion. Many years later, Fukuyama (1961) described other dimen
sions of religion: (a) cognitive (knowledge-based), (b) cultic (ritual-based), (c)
creedal (belief), and (d) devotional (experiential).
One commonly used concept is Allport’s (1959) description of intrinsic and
extrinsic religiousness. Intrinsically religious people find life’s purpose and structure
in their spirituality. Faith is the framework around which they build their lives. Ex
trinsic individuals use religion as a means to an end. Faith and religious life serve to
provide emotional solace and security, as well as an active social life. Extrinsics of
ten use religion as an external justification for their beliefs and ideations about the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
world (Allport, 1966, p. 455), and extrinsic religiousness is frequently correlated
with dogmatism and prejudice (Wulff, 1991, p. 228).
Allport and Ross (1967) extended Allport’s classification to include the cate
gory of Indiscriminate Proreligiousness. These people indiscriminately endorsed all
items on religiosity measures in favor of religion. For these types of people, every
thing religious was viewed positively (Allport & Ross, 1967, p. 441) and uncritically
(Pargament et. al., 1987).
Glock (1962) described five dimensions o f religiosity: (a) ideological (one’s
held religious beliefs), (b) ritualistic (consisting o f practiced religious rituals and
ceremonies), (c) experiential (one’s feeling about and towards religion), intellectual
(consisting of factual knowledge held about religion), and (d) consequential (the ef-
fects of religion on one’s life). Although the term consequential implies causality,
Stark and Glock (1968) remarked that “It is not entirely clear the extent to which re
ligious consequences are a part of religious commitment, or simply follow from it.”
DeJong, Faulker, and Warland (1976) developed an instrument designed to
assess religiosity according to Glock’s dimensions. The scale measuring religious
beliefs was composed of items such as “What do you believe about G-d?” Possible
answers ranged from the orthodox, “I know G-d really exists and I have no doubts
about it,” to the other extreme of “I don’t believe in G-d.” Higher scores indicated a
more conservative religious stance.
Experiential religiosity is linked to the reported number of religious experi
ences. A sample item is “I know what it feels like to repent and experience
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
forgiveness o f sin.” The ritualistic, or practical, aspect of religiosity is measured
based on items concerning extent o f participation in religious organizations, church
attendance, and the frequency o f financial donations to the church. Religious knowl
edge is measured by items discerning the subject’s ability to identify various histori
cal or Biblical figures.
The consequential subscale includes items concerning moral, as well as social
issues. Individual consequential scores measure attitudes towards stealing, premari
tal sex, abortion; and social consequences by items dealing with such issues as capi
tal punishment, civil disobedience, and poverty. Items concerning knowledge of re
ligious figures were the only ones that met the criteria of cross-cultural validity. In a
later study, King and Hunt (1972) were also able to define an indicator for cognitive
religiosity, or intellectual knowledge of historical content in religious literature.
Stark and Glock (1968) proposed nine dimensions of religiosity: (a) ortho
doxy, (b) particularism, (c) ethicalism, (d) ritual, (e) devotional, (f) experience, (g)
knowledge, (h) communal, and (i) friendship. Subsequently, King and Hunt (1975)
constructed their own questionnaire. They used factor analysis to identify nine pos
sible dimensions o f religiosity, which they proposed be studied further: (a) creedal
assent and personal commitment, or ideological and doctrinal orthodoxy; (b) partici
pation in congregational activities, or ritualistic practice; (c) personal religious expe
rience, or experiential devotion; personal ties in the congregation; (d) commitment to
intellectual search despite doubt; (e) openness to religious growth: (f) dogmatism and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
extrinsic orientation, financial behavior and attitudes; and (g) talking and reading
about religion, or religious salience.
Certainly there are many other possibilities of descriptions of religiosity and
other instruments that could be constructed to measure this hypothetical construct.
Von Hugel (1908, p. 50) writes that if religion were too simply and sparsely de
scribed, it would not fit humanity’s experience of religion, and if religion were de
scribed as an aggregation of parts without multidimensional coherence, it would be
without meaning. It would seem that the researcher should select his or her tools
cautiously, and examine the benefits and limitations o f the scale selected with care
(Wulff 1991, pp. 214-215).
The Religiosity Scale
In the present study, religiosity was defined by religious affiliation. How
ever, in addition to the instruments measuring family functioning and meaning in
life, a prototype o f a religiosity instrument was also utilized and the results calcu
lated. No significant differences were found between the responses from the three
various religious affiliations. This means that the instrument was not able to identify
any differences between the various groups with regard to religious issues (beliefs
and/or observances).
Exploratory factor analysis was also conducted on this instrument in order to
assess any possible subdimensions that might exist. The results seem to indicate that
the items on this instrument load higher and more clearly on a two-factor rotation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
than any other solutions. A three- factor rotation was also considered, but due to the
high correlation that existed between these variables, its possible use was ruled out.
Factor one consisted o f items that presented with a theme focusing more on
religious observance, while factor two thematically focused more on religious beliefs
and elements of faith. These two factors can be titled as such, and the instrument can
possibly serve as an investigative tool in future research.
The instrument was able to identify differences between the religious beliefs
and/or observances o f the subjects who responded. These results were in alignment
with the general understandings put forth by the three religious affiliations. Factor
one found statistically significant differences between all three groups with regards
to their adherence to religious observances, with Reform raking lowest. Conservative
ranking in the middle, and Orthodox ranking the highest. Factor two found no dif
ference between the Reform and Conservative groups with regards to their elements
of faith, but differences were found between both these groups and the Orthodox
group.
The results o f this study suggest that differences in religious observances, nor
elements of faith have an impact upon family functioning, but they do have an im
pact upon the level o f meaning achieved within the family. The discrepancy be
tween these two factors are not clear, but do provide direction for important future
research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Implications for Counseling and Interventions
Psychology and religion have had a long and complex interrelationship.
Vande Kemp (1996) described psychology and religion as being intertwined from
the inception o f modem psychology. From psychology’s medieval origins in phi
losophy to the present day, the fields o f psychology and religion have sometimes
been intermingled, and at other times, been at odds.
Throughout most o f the history of psychology, traditional psychologists
viewed religion as minimally important in terms of both clinical intervention and re
search. Contributing to psychology’s lack of interest was the difference in the level
of religiosity between helping professionals and the rest of the population. Clini
cians and researchers might not have understood the importance of religious faith in
their patients’ or subjects’ lives.
Religion is central to the lives o f many people, particularly in the United
States. Americans tend to place a great deal of importance on spiritual life, and on
religious interests and activities. A recent Gallup poll found that about 94% o f the
population in the United States believed in a supreme deity (Waldfogel & Wolpe,
1993). This suggests that the United States is one of the most religious nations in the
modem world. This finding was confirmed in an international poll on the impor
tance of religion among young adults ages 18-24. The study found that 90% o f the
Americans affirmed religion’s importance in their lives, ahead of Brazilians at
80%, and other nations such as Singapore at 74%. and Korea at 68% (Kosmin &
Larchmont. 1993. p. 8).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Yet, physicians and other helping professionals often neglect this area of in
quiry when interviewing their patients (Waldfogel & Wolpe, 1993). This lack of in
terest in religious issues seems particularly ironic at a time when scientists are dis
covering what believers have always known: religion can be good medicine. A re
view of the literature points to religion’s positive effect on health. For example, re
ligious people are less likely to smoke and drink, and are likely to have strong net
works of friends to help them cope with life stressors (Martin & Carlson, 1988).
While mental health professionals may not see religion as important or rele
vant, some clients seem to regard religion as highly significant in their lives. A
group study by Quackenbos, Privette and Klentz (1985) found that most churchgoing
people in a Florida county distinguished between religious and secular psychother
apy. Thirty-five percent o f the group preferred a version o f the former, while 79%
felt that religion should be talked about at some time during the course of treatment.
Beit-Hallahmi (1975) suggested that rejection of religious beliefs on the part
of therapists may lead them to under-emphasize the importance of religious beliefs in
clients or misunderstand the role of religion in family life. Quackenbos and others
(1985) felt that this stance was best exemplified by Albert Ellis, who characterized
religion as a pathological and irrational set of beliefs. It can be inferred from these
various viewpoints that in general, psychotherapists tend to be less traditionally re
ligious than the general population. The fact that most clinicians tend to place more
value on individual freedom o f choice and self-acceptance than on religion appears
to sometimes set them at odds with the beliefs of their more traditional clients.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Despite the evidence in favor of a positive correlation between religiosity and
mental health, there have also been findings which showed otherwise. Factors such
as high geographic mobility o f families (Heim, 1979), the American emphasis on
individuality (D’ Antonio, 1980; Reiss, 1971), and the demythologizing of the world
and life in general (Lindskog, 1974) have contributed to the view that religious ac
tivity is merely one o f the various approved values of American culture (Herberg,
1955).
The results o f this study do not support the hypothesis that the family’ s level
of religiosity has a positive effect o f its tevel o f functioning. This is inline with the
above noted research. However, a client’s religious beliefs may contain important
and meaningful information about his or her past, values, and relationships. Relig
ious beliefs can also be useful in describing the person’s way o f relating to the world.
A reconciliation between religion and psychotherapy could provide mental health
clinicians with the skills and understanding necessary to help their religiously ori
ented clients. This need is becoming increasingly apparent as more and more clients
seem to be searching for a religiously sensitive psychotherapist. Based on the re
search findings of this study, the therapist may be encouraged to question the help
fulness of their client's religious beliefs, but should not ignore it all together.
It might be important to note, that clergy are also receiving clinical training in
order to better assist members o f their congregations. One managed health care or
ganization recently set up a special telephone line for clergy. Pastors use this service
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
to consult with religiously sensitive clinicians so that they can more effectively
counsel their congregates (Ross, 1990).
Psychologists can better assess and counsel clients, as well as conduct better
research, by understanding the religious development of many o f their clients
(Worthington, 1989). Despite the general tendency to separate religion from psy
chotherapy, there is a place for religion in psychotherapy and mental health research.
Religion is a strong force in our culture, and it may provide the distressed with
meaning, a sense o f control, and self esteem (Spilka, 1986).
Worthington (1989) writes that there are at least four compelling reasons for
counseling psychologists to assess religious faith in attempting to understand both
normal development and that requiring remediation. First, a high percentage o f the
United States population identifies itself as religious. Second, many people in the
throes of emotional crisis spontaneously consider religious implications o f their di
lemmas, even if they have not recently been active in formal religion. Third, despite
their private consideration of religion, many clients, especially religious clients, are
reluctant to bring up their religious considerations as part o f secular therapy. Such
clients may fear either being misunderstood or having their values judged. This hy
pothesis was supported by McLatchie and Draguns (1984). Lastly, in general,
therapists are still not as religiously oriented as their clients. This gap may lead to
potential difficulties within the therapeutic dyad. These may include (a) disparate
values and language systems, (b) difficulty establishing and maintaining trust, (c)
difficulty managing client resistance, and (d) problems with remaining attuned to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
countertransference issues. As a result o f being less religiously oriented than their
clientele, many therapists might not be as informed about religion as would be
maximally helpful.
Limitations and Future Research
Limitations
There are a number of limitations that must be addressed. The most impor
tant limitation of this study is the confounding variables noted above, having to do
with the recruitment of the subjects. In addition, the instruments used in this study
were not normed for this population. This fact could pose as a possible confound to
the results discovered.
Moreover, generaiizability o f the findings is limited due to the small sample
of subjects used for this study. A larger and more diverse sample may have uncov
ered more variability in responses. Further exploration of this topic with a larger
number of families is strongly encouraged.
Future researchers should be aware of the extreme difficulty of recruitment
with this population, particularly when going through traditional channels such as
synagogues and temples. Another difficulty was the personal nature of the ques
tions, which more traditionally oriented Jews might have found difficult to discuss
and/or to address, despite their being informed that their responses were confidential
and anonymous. As with all research utilizing self-report measures, the possibility
of social desirability influencing results is possible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
Future Research
Although researchers have repeatedly issued the challenge to study the relig
ious domain, it remains neglected as a factor in research. Leaders in this field have
deemed religion as a second class member in the family o f factors relevant to family
functioning (Poloma & Pendleton, 1990).
The relationship between family functioning and religiosity is just one aspect
of religion’s effect on people, psychologically and behaviorally. Hansen (1987) con
sidered it important to consider specific groups within the religious domain and to
clarify which aspects of their religion have the greatest effect on the various compo
nents o f family functioning.
Stander, Piercy and MacKinnon (1994) suggest that religion and spirituality
be integrated into training programs, and they offer practical suggestions for such
implementation. They also make known their concerns about the absence o f such
training. Similarly, Stewart and Gale (1994) insist that clinical work with clients of
varying religious persuasions should be approached from an “ethno-sensitive”
perspective.
Other areas of research might include how more religious individuals cope
with the elements of a more secular society. Clinicians engaged in crosscultural
counseling might also benefit from a basic understanding o f the major religious tra
ditions of the world. This background might be useful in helping them understand
cultural differences between ethnicities. Furthermore, the topic of addressing relig
ious issues in counseling needs further empirical exploration. It is also important to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
determine how researchers can begin to educate mental health clinicians about the
importance of religion in their clients’ lives.
Personal religiosity has been viewed as augmenting mental health (Bezilia,
1993), as well as a consequence of an individual’s mental attitude (Freud, 1961).
Research into this entire area has received very little attention. Further exploration
of clients’ religious and spiritual lives could greatly benefit our overall understanding
of this topic.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that there exists a complication in the
present findings about religiosity and psychological health, in that they can be con
founded by experimental errors such as measurement problems and social desirabil
ity. There still exists a great need for detailed analysis o f additional dimensions of
religiosity, and the development of research tools that could measure them in a more
comprehensive and accurate manner.
Conclusion
The psychology of religion is a legitimate, respectable, and practical area of
study (Collins, 1986). Although a rigorous and innovative research effort on relig
ious variables is lacking, the need for a heightened awareness among counselors re
garding the impact o f religious involvement of clients is urgent. This impact must be
considered both in terms o f development and the therapeutic process of change
(Bergin, 1989).
Quackenbos (1985) reported that 35% of the subjects responding to his
study preferred some form of religious counseling. Two-thirds of the respondents
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
indicated that they preferred religious counseling for family-oriented problems.
Eighty percent considered religious values to be an important topic to be discussed in
psychotherapy, and 53% reported that they would seek counseling at a pastoral cen
ter if one were available. Despite these and other similar findings, clinical training
problems remain essentially free of content concerning the effect of religious vari
ables on psychological functioning. At the same time, however, courses in multi-
culturalism pay much needed attention to race and ethnic origin. Training programs
also provide insight into gender issues. While modem psychology’s support of cul
tural diversity has been exemplary, that same level of understanding, empathy and
tolerance has not yet adequately been extended to the religious client.
The study o f the religious domain remains neglected as a factor in research,
and even more so in the clinical environment. Religion is often regarded as not very
significant among the many factors relevant to well being (Poloma & Pendleton,
1990). Well-trained counselors would not neglect considering a client’s culture or
ethnicity, yet they might very well not take into account the influential nature of the
client’s religious identity (Worthington, 1989). At a minimum, the clinician should
ask directly what role religion plays in the client’s perception of the causes and cures
for his or her problems.
Three elements are necessary in order to address religious issues more sys
tematically (Conway, 1989). First, psychologists need to become more aware of re
ligious issues and more willing to address them. Second, training programs must
address religious issues in a more systematic way than is presently the case. Third,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
empirical research in this domain is needed. Such studies would help determine to
what degree, for whom, how, and under what circumstances religion is involved in
creating, maintaining, or resolving problems. Psychologists might then be better
able to counsel in a way that corresponds to the types of religious concerns presented
by their clients.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
References
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
References
Allport, G. W. (1959). Religion and prejudice. The Crane Review. 2. 1-10.
Allport, G. W. (1966). The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific
Study o f Religion. 5. 447-457.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 5 .432-443.
Anderson, S. A., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1990). A test of the Olson circumplex model:
Examining its curvilinear assumption and the presence o f extreme types.
Family Process. 29. 309-324.
Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). Encountering orthodox religion in psychotherapy. Psy
chotherapy: Theory. Research, and Practice. 12. 357-359.
Bell, N. J., Avery, A. W., Jenkins, D., Feld, J., & Schoenrock, C. J. (1985). Family
relationships and social competence during late adolesence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence. 14. 109-119.
Bell, R. R. (1974). Religious involvement and marital sex in Australia and the
United States. Journal o f Comparative Family Studies. 5(2). 109-116.
Bergin, A. E. (1989). Religious faith and counseling: A commentary on
Worthington. The Counseling Psychologist. 17. 621-623.
Bezilia, R. (Ed). (1993). Religion in America: 1992-1993. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Religion Research Center.
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: Recent patterns and
trends. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Caplan, G. (1972). Support systems and community mental health: Lectures on
concept development. New York: Behavioral Publications.
Clinebell, H. J. (1970). The local church’ s contribution to positive mental health.
In H. J. Clinebell (Ed.), Community mental health: The role of church and
temple (pp. 14-35). Nashville, TN: Abington Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Collins, G. R. (1986). The psychology of religion today. Journal of Professional
Counseling. 5. 26-30.
Conway, C. G. (1989). The relevance of religious issues in counseling. The Coun
seling Psychologist. 17. 624-628.
Crandal, J. E., & Rasmussen, R. D. (1975). Purpose in life as related to specific
values. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 31. 483-485.
Crankshaw, R. N. (1986). Family cohesion, family adaptability and value consen
sus as perceived by church attending and non-attending parents. Dissertation
Abstracts International -#(12), 4323A-4324A.
Crumbaugh, J. C., & Carr, G. L. (1979). Treatment o f alcoholics with Iogotherapy.
The International Journal of the Addictions. 14. 847-853.
Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental study in existential
ism: The approach to Frankl's concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal of
Clinical Psychology. 20. 200-207.
Crumbauch, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1969). Manual of instructions, the purpose in
life test. Munster, IN: Psychometric Affiliates.
Crumbaugh, J. C., Raphael, Sr. M., & Shrader, R. R. (1970). Frankl’ s will to mean
ing in a religious order. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 26. 206-207.
D’Antonio, W. (1980). The family and religion: Exploring a changing relationship.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 19. 89-104.
Dakof, G. A. (1996). Meaning and measurement of family: Journal of Family Psy
chology. 10(21. 142-146.
Deiner, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin. 95. 542-575.
DeJong, G. F., Faulkner, J. E., & Warland, R. H. (1976). Dimensions o f religiosity
reconsidered: Evidence from a cross-cultural study. Social Forces. 54. 866-
889.
Derr, K. M. (1991). Religious issues in Psychotherapy: Factors associated with the
selection o f clinical interventions. (Doctoral dissertation) University of
Southern California, California.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Dossey, L. (1996). Psychology o f religion. In Gardner Linzey & Elliot Aronson
(Eds.), The Handbook o f Social Psychology (pp. 56-74). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Dufton, B. D., & Perlman, D. (1986). The association between religiosity and the
purpose in life test: Does it reflect purpose or satisfaction? Journal of Psy
chology and Theology. 14. 42-48.
Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement.
Journal o f Psychology and Theology. 11. 330-340.
Fabry, J. (1968). The pursuit of meaning. San Francisco, C A: Harper & Row.
Fabry, J. (1981). The frontiers of logotherapy. International Forum of Logotherapy.
4,3-11.
Fairchild, R., & Wynn, J. (1961). Families in the church: A Protestant survey.
New York: Association Press.
Filsinger, E. E., & Wilson, M. R. (1984). Religiosity, socioeconomic rewards, and
family development: Predictors of marital adjustment. Journal o f Marriage
and the Family. 46. 663-670.
Fabry, J. (1968). The pursuit of meaning. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man's search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
FrankI, V. E. (1965). The concept of man in logotherapy. Journal of Existentialism.
6, 53-58.
Frankl, V. E. (1969). The will to meaning: Foundation and applications of loeo-
therapv. New York: World Publishing.
Frankl, V. E. (1975). The Unconscious G-d. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Frankl, V. E. (1978). The unheard crv for meaning: Psychotherapy and humanism.
New York: Washington Square Press.
Frankl, V. E. (1986). The doctor and the soul: From psychotherapy to logotherapy.
New York: Random House, Inc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Freud, S. (1961). A religious experience. In The standard edition of the complete
psychological works o f Sigmund Freud (vol. 21, 1st German edition 1928,
pp. 167-172). London: Horgarth Press.
Fristad, M. A (1989). A comparison of the McMaster and circumplex family as
sessment instruments. Journal o f Marital and Family Therapy. 15. 259-269.
Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. Harper & Row: New York.
Fukuyama, Y. (1961). The major dimensions o f church membership. Review of
Religious Research. 2. 154-161.
Gaede, S. (1976). A causal model o f belief-orthodoxy: Proposal and empirical test.
Sociological Analysis. 37. 205-217.
Gallup, G. h., & Poling, D. (1980). The search for America's faith. New York:
Doubleday.
Gallup, G. H., Jr., & Castelli, J. (1989). The people’ s religion: American faith in
the 90's. New York: Macmillan.
Gallup G. H., & Poling, D. (1980). The search for America’s faith. New York:
Doubleday.
Garbarino, J., Sebes, J., & Schellinbach, C. (1985). Family at risk for destructive
parent-child relations in adolescence. Family Process. 24. 385-398.
Gibson. W C .& Herron, W G. (1990). Psychotherapists’ religious beliefs and
their perception o f the psychotherapy process. Psychological Reports. 66.
3-9.
Gilbert, K. R. (1996). We've had the same loss, why don't we have the same grief?
Loss and differential grief in families. Death Studies. 20(31.269-283.
Glock, C. Y. (1962). On the study o f religious commitment. Religious Education.
Research Supplement. 57(41. S98-S100.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Measurement: The boon and bane of investigating religion.
American Psychologist. 39. 228-236.
Green, R. G., Kolevzon, M. S., Vosler, N. R (1985). The Beavers-Timberlawn
model o f family competence and the circumplex model of family adaptability
and cohesion: Separate, but equal? Family Process. 24. 356-3S4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Green, R., Harria, R., Forte, J., & Robinson, M. (1991). Evaluating FACES Ht and
the circumplex model: 2440 families. Family Process. 30. 55-73.
Gruner, L. (1985). The correlation o f private, religious devotional practices and
marital adjustment. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 16. 47-59.
Grygielski, M., Januszewska, E., Januszewski, A., Juros, A., & Oles, P. (1984).
Meaning in life and hopelessness: Interrelationships and intergroup differ
ences. Polish Psychological Bulletin. 15. 277-284.
Hall, C. M. (1985). Religion and aging. Journal of Relieion and Health. 24. 70-77.
Hall, C. M. (1986). Cosmology and therapy. Journal o f Religion and Health. 25.
254-263.
Hampson, R. B., Beavers, W. R., & Hulgus, Y. F. (1988). Commentary: Compar
ing the Beaver’s and circumplex models of family functioning. Family Proc
ess. 27. 85-92.
Hansen, G. L. (1987). The effect o f religiosity on factors predicting marital adjust
ment. Social Psychology Quarterly. 50. 264-269.
Harlow, L. L., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Depression, self
derogation, substance use, and suicide ideation: Lack of purpose in life as a
mediational factor. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 42. 5-21.
Harrison, M. I., & Lazerwitz, B. (1982). Do denominations matter? American
Journal o f Sociology. 88(2). 356-377.
Heaton, T. B. (1984). Religious homogamy and marital satisfaction reconsidered.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 46(31. 729-733.
Heilman, S. C. (1982). The sociology o f American Jewry: The last ten years.
Annual Review of Sociology. 8. 135-160.
Heim, W. (1979). Religious practice within the family: A contribution to the theol
ogy of intimate belonging in the light of popular beliefs and customs in the
past. In A. Greely (Ed.), The family in crisis or in transition (pp. 97-124).
New York: Seabury Press.
Henry, W. E.. Sims, J. H., & Spray, S. L. (1971). The fifth profession. San
Francisco. CA: Josev-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Herberg,W. (1955). Protestant. Catholic. Jew. New York: Doubleday.
Hillowe, B. V. (1985). The effect o f religiosity o f therapist and patient on clinical
judgment (Doctoral dissertation, Adlephi University, 1985). Dissertation
Abstracts International. 46. 1687B.
Hong, S. M. (1983). Gender, religion, and sexual permissiveness: Some recent
Australian data. The Journal of Psychology. 115. 17-22.
Hunt, R. A., & King, M. B. (1978). Religiosity and marriage. Journal for the Sci
entific Study o f Religion. 17C4T 399-406.
Hutzell, R. R., & Peterson, T. J. (1986). Use of the life purpose questionnaire with
an alcoholic population. The International Journal o f Addictions. 21. 51-57.
Jacobson, G. R., Ritter, D. P., & Mueller, L. (1977). Purpose in life and personal
values among adult alcoholics. Journal o f Clinical Psychology. 33. 314-316.
Jensen, L., & Jensen, J. (1993). Family values, religiosity, and gender. Psychologi
cal Reports. 73. 429-430.
King, M. B., & Hunt, R A. (1972). Measuring the religious variable: Replication.
Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion. 11. 240-251.
King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1975). Religious dimensions: Entities or contructs?
Sociological Focus. 8. 57-63. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Koenig, H. G., Kvale, J. N., & Ferrel, C. (1988). Religion and well-being in later
life. The Gerontologist. 28f 11. 18-29.
Kosmin, B. A., & Larchmont, S. P. (1993). One nation under G-d. New York:
Harmony Books.
Krishman, V (1994). The impact o f wives’ employment on attitude toward divorce.
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 22(1-21. 87-101.
Kroll. J.. & Sheehan. W ( 1989). Religious beliefs and practices among 52 psychiat
ric inpatients in Minnesota. American Journal of Psychiatry. 146. 67-72.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Kuehl, B. P., Schumm, W. R., Russell, C. S., & Jurich, A. P. (1988). How do sub
jects interpret items in Olson’s family adaptability and cohesion evaluation
scales (FACES)? Educational and Psychological Measurement. 48. 247-253.
Kunz, P. R., & Albrecht, S. L. (1977). Religion, marital happiness, and divorce.
International Journal of Sociology of the Family. 7. 227-232.
Lantz, J. (1978). Family and marital therapy. New York: Appletion-Century-
Crofts.
Lantz, J. (1982a). Meaning in family therapy. International Forum of Logotherapy.
5,44-46.
Lantz, J. (1982b). Dereflection in family therapy with schizophrenic clients. Inter
national Forum of Logotherapy. 5. 119-121.
Lantz, J. (1984). Responsibility and meaning in treatment o f schizophrenics. Inter
national Forum of Logotherapy. 7. 26-28.
Lantz, J. (1985). Never trust a family therapist who is younger than forty. Voices.
21, 18-19.
Lantz, J., & Thorward, S. (1985). Inpatient family therapy approaches. The Psychi
atric Hospital. 16. 85-89.
Larson, L. E., & Goltz, J. W. (1989). Religion participation and marital commit
ment. Review of Religious Research. 30(4V 387-400.
Lazerwitz, B., & Harrison M. (1979). American Jewish Denominations: A social
and religious profile. American Sociological Review. 44. 656-666.
Lea, G. (1982). Religion, mental health, and clinical issues. Journal o f Religion and
Health. 21. 336-351.
Lehr, E., & Spilka, B. (1989). Religion in the introductory psychology textbook: A
comparison o f three decades. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 28.
366-371.
Lenski, G. (1961). The religious factor. New York: Doubleday.
Ltndskog. B. (1974). The sacred family order. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies. 5. 17-25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
Linehan, M M., Goodstein, J. L., Nielsen, S. L., & Chiles, J. H. (1983). Reasons
for staying alive when you are thinking of killing yourself: The reasons for
living inventory. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 51. 276-
286.
Martin, J. E., & Carlson, C. R. (1988). Spiritual dimensions o f health psychology.
In W. R. Miller & J. E. Martin (Eds.), Behavior Therapy and Religion (pp.
126-145). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self and society : From the standpoint of a social behavior-
ist. Chicago, IL: University o f Chicago Press.
Meier, L. (1981). Chronic pain, suffering, and spirituality: The relationship between
chronic pain, suffering, and different religious approaches. Dissertation,
University of Southern California. D. A. #AAG0535399.
McClure, R. F., & Loden, M. (1982). Religious activity, denomination membership
and life satisfaction. Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior.
19(1), 12-17.
McLatchie, L. R., & Draguns, J. G. (1984). Mental health concepts of evangelical
protestants. The Journal of Psychology. 118. 147-159.
Moberg, D. O. (1979). Spiritual well-being: Sociological perspectives.
Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Morgan, M. Y., & Scanzoni, J. (1987). Assessing variation in permanence/ prag
matism orientations: Implications for marital stability. Journal o f Divorce.
J U L 1-24.
Mu, P. F., Tomlinson, P. (1997). Parental experience and meaning construction
during a pediatric health crisis. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 19(5).
608-636
Neimeyer, G. J., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1994). Constructivist methods of marital and
family therapy: A practical precis. Journal of Mental Health Counseling. 16.
95-104.
Ness, R. C., & Wintrob, R. M. (1980). The emotional impact of fundamentalist re
ligious participation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 50(2). 202-215.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Newcomb, M. D., & Harlow, L. L. (1986). Life events and substance use among
adolescents: Moderating effects of powerlessness and meaninglessness in
life. Journal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology. 51. 54-577.
Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES HI.
Family Process. 25. 337-351.
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M.
(1983). Families: What makes them work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R Q. (1982). FACES II: Family adaptability and
cohesion evaluation scales. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University
of Minnesota,
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model o f mari
tal and family systems I: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family
types, and clinical applications. Family Process. 18. 3-28.
Olson, D. H., & Killorin, E. (1985). Chemically dependent families and the circum
plex model. Minneapolis: MN: University of Minnesota.
Olson, D. H., & Tiesal, J. (1991). FACES II: Linear scoring and interpretation.
Minneapolis, MN: University o f Minnesota.
Ortega, S. T., Whitt, H. P., William, J. A., Jr. (1988). Religious homogamy and
marital happiness. Journal o f Family Issues. 9(21.224-239.
Padelford, B. L. (1974). Relationship between drug involvement and purpose in
life. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 30. 303-305.
Paloutzian, R F. (1981). Purpose in Life and value changes following conversion.
Journal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology. 41. 1153-1160.
Paloutzian, R F., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1995). Introduction: The scope of religious
influences on personal and societal well-being. Journal of Social Issues.
51(2), I-Il.
Pargament. K. I.. & Brannick, M. T., Adamakos, H., Ensing, D. S.. Kelemen, MX.,
Warren, R K., Falgout, K., Cook, P., Myers. J. (1987). Indiscriminate pro-
religiousness: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal for the Scien
tific Study of Religion. 26. 182-200.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Pargament, K. L, & Park, C. L. (1995). Merely a defense? Challenging the psy
chologists’ stereotype of religion. Journal o f Social Issues. 51(21 13-32.
Payne, I. R., Bergin, A. E., Bielema, K. A., & Jenkins, P.H. (1991). Review of re
ligion and mental health: Prevention and the enhancement of psychosocial
functioning. Prevention in Human Services. 9C 2V 11-40.
Peterson, L. R., & Roy, A. (1985). Religiosity, anxiety, and meaning and purpose
Religion’s consequences for psychological well-being. Review of Religious
Research. 27. 49-62.
Poloma, M. M., & Pendleton, B. F. (1990). Religious domains and general well
being. Social Indicators Research. 22. 255-276.
Pratt, D. M. & Hansen, J. C. (1987). A test of the curvilinear hypothesis with
FACES U and HI. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 13. 387-392.
Quakenbos, S., Privette, G., & Klentz, B (1985). Psychotherapy: Sacred or secular?
Journal o f Counseling and Development. 63. 290-293.
Recker, G. T., Peacock, E. J., & Wong, T. P. (1987). Meaning and purpose in life
and well-being: a life-span perspective. Journal of Gerontology. 42. 44-49.
Reed, K. (1991). Strength o f religious affiliation and life satisfaction. Sociological
Analysis. 52(21. 205-210.
Reiss, I. (1971). The family system in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Reynolds, M. M. (1982). Religious institutions and the prevention of mental illness.
Journal o f Religion and Health. 21(31. 245-253.
Roberts, K. A. (1990). Religion in Sociological Perspective. Belmont. CA.
Wadsworth.
Rodick, A., Henggeler, S. W., & Hanson, W. (1986). An evaluation of family
adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales (FACES) and the circumplex
model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 14. 77-87.
Ross, C. E. (1990). Religion and Psychological Distress. Journal for the Scientific
Study o f Religion. 29. 236-245.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Roth, P. D. (1988). Spiritual well-being and marital adjustment Journal of Psy
chology and Theology. 16(2 \ 153-158.
Schrum, A. L., & Weibel-Orlando, J. (1986). The Indian Shaker church and alco
holics anonymous: Revitaiistic curing cults. Human Organization. 45. 310-
319.
Schumm, W. R., Bollman, S. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1982). The marital conventionali
zation argument: Implications for the study o f religiosity and marital satis
faction. Journal o f Psychology and Theology. 10. 236-241.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook or Qualitative Research
(pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schweiker, W. F. (1969). Religion as a superordinate meaning system and socio-
psychological integration. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 8.
300-307.
Sevensky, R. L. (1984). Religion, psychology and mental health. American Journal
of Psychotherapy. 28. 73-86.
Shean, G. D., & Fecktmann, F. (1971). Purpose in Life scores of student marijuana
users. Journal o f Clinical Psvcholoev. 27. 112-113.
Sigafoos, A., Reiss, D., Rich, J., & Douglas, E. (1985). Pragmatics in the measure
ment of family functioning: An interpretive framework for methodology.
Family Process. 24. 189-203.
Silverman, M. S., & Urbaniak, L. (1983). Marriage Encounter: Characteristics of
participants. Counseling and Values. 10. 42-51.
Spilka, B. (1986). Spiritual issues: Do they belong in psychological practice? Yes -
but! Psychotherapy in Private Practice. 4. 93-100.
Spilka, B., Hood, R.W., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1985). The Psychology of Religion: Am
Empirical Approach. Eglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stander, V., Piercy, F. P., & MacKinnon, D. (1994). Spirituality, religion, and fam
ily therapy: Competing or complementary worlds? American Journal of
Family Therapy. 22. 27-41.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Stark, R., & Glock, C. (1968). American pietv: The nature of religious commit
ment. Berkeley, C A: University of California Press.
Steingiass, P. (1978). The conceptualization o f marriage from a systems theory per
spective. In T. J. Paolino & B. S. McCrady (Eds.), Marriage and marital
therapy (pp. 197-219). New York: Brunner/Maze I.
Stevens, M. J., Pfbst, K. S., & Wessels, A. B. (1987). The relationship of purpose in
life to coping strategies and time since the death of a significant other. Jour
nal of Counseling and Development. 65. 424-426.
Stewart, S. P., & Gale, J. E. (1994). On hallowed ground: Marital therapy with
couples on religious right. Journal o f Systematic Therapies. 13. 16-25.
Tavris, C., & Sadd, S. (1977). The Redbook report on female sexuality. New York:
Delacorte Press.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory o f action identification.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vallacher, R. R., Weger, D. M., & Frederick, J. (1987). The presentation of self
through Action Identification. Social Cognition. 5(31. 301-322.
Vande Kemp, H. (1996). Historical Perspective: Religion and clinical psychology
in America. In E. Shafranske, (Ed.), Religion and the Clinical Practice o f
Psychology (pp. 71-112V Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Vega, W. A., Patterson, T., Sallis, J., Nader, P., Atkins, C., & Abramson, I. (1986).
Cohesion and adaptability in Mexican-American and Anglo families. Journal
of Marriage and the Family. 48. 857-867.
VonHugel, F. (1908). The mystical element of religion, as studied in Saint Cather
ine of Genor and her friends (1923). London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Watdfogel, S., & Wolpe, P. R. (1993). Using awareness o f religious factors to en
hance interventions in consultation-liaison psychiatry. Hospital and Commu
nity Psychiatry. 44. 473-477.
Wallace, A T. (1985). Ongoing marriage: Maintaining the awe. Studies in For
mative Spirituality. 6. 271-296.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Wegner, D. M., Vallacher, R. R., Macomber, G., Wood, R., & Arps, K. (1984). The
emergence o f action. Journal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology. 46. 269-
279.
Wegner, D. M., & Vallacher, R. R. (1986). Action identification. In R. M.
Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition:
Foundations o f Social Behavior (pp. 550-582). New York: Guilford Press.
Welch, K. W. (1981). An interpersonal influence model of traditional religious
commitment. The Sociological Quarterly. 22. 81-91.
Willits, F. K., & Crider, D. M. (1988). Religion and well-being: Men and women
in the middle years. Review of Religious Research. 29(31. 281-294.
Wilson, M. R., & Filsinger, E. E. (1986). Religiosity and marital adjustment: Mul
tidimensional interrelationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 48.
147-151.
Worthington, A. L. (1986). Religious counseling: A review o f published empirical
research. Journal o f Counseling and Development 64. 421-431.
Worthington, A. L. (1989). Religious faith across the life span: Implications for
counseling and research. The Counseling Psychology. 17. 555-612.
Wulff. D. M. (1991). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary views.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Yates, W. (1985). And the roots shall not be severed: Reflections on marriage and
spiritual formation. Studies in Formative Spirituality. 6. 283-296.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Appendices
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Appendix A
Cover Letter
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
U.S.C. Stationery
February 10, 1999
Hello, my name is Ramin Sadeghi, and I am a counseling psychology doctoral stu
dent at the University o f Southern California. Currently, I am in the process o f com
pleting my doctoral dissertation. With support from many o f the leaders in our
community, I am doing a research project on the Jewish community in Los Angeles.
The information you provide will be anonymous, and will greatly help not only our
community understand itself, but also help me complete the last step in finishing my
doctoral degree.
This packet includes questionnaires that we would like you to complete. One is a
demographics questionnaire, and others will gather information regarding your views
of the world and your family. Please fill them out in private, and do not discuss your
responses with others until after you have completed the questionnaires. They
should not take more than 15 minutes to complete.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Read all directions carefully.
2. Please fill out the entire questionnaire. You have the right to leave items
blank, although I certainly prefer that you answer every item.
3. Please answer each question to the best o f your ability.
4. If you change an answer, make sure your new choice is readable.
5. Remember that your answers are strictly confidential, and can not be traced
back to you.
6. If you would like a copy of the results o f this study, write your address, but
not your name, on the enclosed index card and return it with your packet.
7 If you would like to contact me for any reason, you may e-mail me at
sadeghi@scf.usc.edu. or call me at (310) 271-9999, Ext. 490.
8. Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed return envelope within 10
davs of receiving it.
Thank you for your participation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B
Questionnaire
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
I.
1. Your sex is (circle one number): I. Male 2. Female
2. Your current age: _______
3. Please circle the highest level of education you have completed.
I. High School 2. Bachelor’s Degree 3. Master’s Degree 4. Doctor’s Degree
4. About how much money (before taxes were deducted) did your current family make during
1998?
1. none
2. less thanS 10,000
3. between $10,001 and $22,500
4. between $22,501 and $36,000
5. between $36,000 and $50,000
6. between $50,001 and $80,000
7. more than $80,000
5. Your race is (circle one number): I. African American 4. Latino
2. Asian-Pacific 5. Native American
3. White 6. Other
n.
rongly Don’t Strongly
sagrce Know Agree
1. I am usually completely bored.
2. Life to me seems always exciting.
3. In my life. 1 have no goals or aims at all.
4. My personal existence is utterly meaningless and without purpose.
5. Every day is constantly new and different.
6. If I could choose. I would prefer never to have been bom.
7. After retiring, f would do some of the exciting things I have always
wanted to do.
S. In achieving life goals. I have made no progress whatsoever.
9. My life is empty, filled only with despair.
10. If I should die today. I would feel that my life has been very
worthwhile.
11. In thinking of my life. I often wonder why I exist.
12. As I view the world in relation to my life, the world completely
confuses me.
13. I am a very irresponsible person.
14. Concerning man's freedom to make his own decisions. I believ e
man is absolutely free to make all life choices.
2
2
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6 7
5 6 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Strongly Don’t Strongly
Disagree Know Agree
15. With regards to death, I am prepared and unafraid. 1 2 3 5 6 7
16. With regard to suicide, 1 have thought of it seriously as a way out. I 2 3 5 6 7
L7. I regard my ability to find a meaning, purpose, or mission in life
as very great
I 2 3 5 6 7
18. My life is in my hands, and I control it I 2 3 5 6 7
19. Facing my daily tasks is a source of pleasure and satisfaction. I
2
3 5 6 7
20. I have discovered no mission or purpose in life. I
2
3 5 6 7
III. Describe your family:
Almost Never Once in Awhile Sometimes
4
Frequently Almost Always
I. Family members are supportive of each oilier during difficult times. 2 3 4 5
2. In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion. 2 3 4 5
3. It is easier to discuss problems with people outside the family than
with other family members.
2 3 4 5
4. Each family member lias input regarding major family decisions. 2 3 4 5
5. Our family gathers together in the same room. 2 3 4 5
6. Children have a say in their discipline. 2 3 4 5
7. Our family does tilings together. 2 3 4 5
8. Family members discuss problems and feel good about the solutions. 2 3 4 5
9. In our family, everyone goes his/her own way. 2 3 4 5
10. We shift household responsibilities from person to person. 2 3 4 5
11. Family members know each other's close friends. 2 3 4 5
12. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family. 2 3 4 5
13. Family members consult other family members on personal decisions. 2 3 4 5
14. Family members say what they want 2 3 4 5
15. We have difficulty' thinking of things to do as a family. 2 3 4 5
16. In solving problems, the children's suggestions are followed. 2 3 4 5
17. Family members feel very close to each other. 2 3 4 5
18. Discipline is fair in our family.
2 3 4 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
1 2 3 4 5
Almost Never Once in Awhile Sometimes Frequently Almost Always
19. Family members feel closer to people outside the family than to
other family members.
1 2 3 4 5
20. Our family tries new ways o f dealing with problems. I 2 3 4 5
21. Family members go along with what the family decides to do. I 2 3 4 5
22. In our family, everyone shares responsibilities. I 2 3 4 5
23. Family members like to spend their time with each other. I 2 3 4 5
24. It is difficult to get a rule changed in our family. I 2 j 4 5
25. Family members avoid each other at home. I 2 3 4 5
26. When problems arise, we compromise. I 2 3 4 5
27. We approve of each other's friends. I 2 3 4 5
28. Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds. 1 2 3 4 5
29. Family members pair up rather than do tilings as a total family. t 2 3 4 5
30. Family members share interests and hobbies with each other. I 2 3 4 5
IV.
Yes No I. Were both you and your spouse bom and raised in the United States?
Yes No
2. Was at least one of your parents (for each spouse), bom and raised in the U.S.?
Yes No 3. Does any one in your family suffer from a serious physical and/or mental
Yes No 4.
illness (Le. schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder)?
Have either you or your spouse been previously married?
Yes No 5. For the most pan, die only religious services I attended are for the High
Yes No 6.
Holidays, or a bar/bat-mitzvah celebration.
My daily life (dietary laws, work ethics, blessings, marital relations) is
Yes No 7.
governed by the Jewish Law.
I study aspects of Judaism at least once a week.
Yes No 8. In case of conflict between my feelings and die Jewish Law. I follow die Law.
Yes No 9. If you were asked, could you recite the majority of the Ten Commandments.
Yes No 10. It doesn't matter whedier you attend services: die important thing is to believe.
Yes No II. Love thy neighbor as yourself is die primary mode of living a religious life.
Yes No 12. I feel closest to God when I pray.
Yes No 13. Do your religious beliefs help you in rimes of need?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Yes No 14. Do you engage in private prayer?
Yes No 15. My family life is an important aspect of my religious life.
Yes No 16. I primarily observe the Jewish religious Laws when it is also convenient
and popular to do so.
Yes No 17. My relationship with family and friends makes me feel religiously fulfilled and
content
All religions have within them elements of faith which are accepted in varying degrees by its
members. We would like to know what you believe. Please indicate your agreement or dis
agreement with die statements listed below by using die following number guide:
1— Strongly disagree
2— Moderately disagree
3— Moderately agree
4— Strongly agree
2. I believe in a God who is continually guiding the universe.
I 2 3 4 I.
I 2 3 4
2.
1 2 3 4 3.
1 2 3 4 4.
in Rabbinic Law (The Talmud).
V I. Listed below are a few ritual observances which are primarily observed in the home. By us
ing die following number codes, please tell us whether these observances are practiced in
your home at the present time.
1 — Usually practiced
2— Usually not practiced
1 2 1. Use of two sets of dishes for milk and meat products.
1 2 2. No bread eaten in home on Passover.
1 2 3. Fast on Yom Kippur.
1 2 4. Not driving on die Sabbath.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Gender differences in motivation for sexual intercourse: Implications for risky sexual behavior and substance use in a university and community sample

PDF

Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and the attitude functions they serve: Correlates, stability and gender differences

PDF

An evaluation of a brief HIV /AIDS prevention intervention using normative feedback to promote risk reduction among sexually active college students

PDF

Factors contributing to the academic achievements of Hispanic gifted children

PDF

Impact of language and culture on a neuropsychological screening battery for Hispanics

PDF

An investigation of the impact of selected prereading activities on student content learning through laboratory activities

PDF

Self-Concept In Adult Women: A Multidimensional Approach

PDF

Early career teachers' views of their elementary science teaching methods courses: The relationship between preservice preparation and the realities of the first years of teaching

PDF

Behavioral and demographic predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis

PDF

A Critical Analysis And Evaluation Of Evidence Regarding The Reliability And Validity Of Four Selected Measures Of Self-Concept

PDF

A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs

PDF

An analysis of program planning in schools with emerging excellence in science instructional design

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mediator between family-of-origin aggression and marital aggression

PDF

The Effects Of Selected Variables On The Transitioning Of Low-Achieving Special Education Adolescents From High School

PDF

Cognitive and non-cognitive factors as predictors of retention among academically at-risk college students: A structural equation modelling approach

PDF

Effects of parenting style and ethnic identity on European American and Asian Indian adolescents' academic competence and self esteem

PDF

An evaluation of the secondary biological science curriculum in Nigeria with reference to Imo State

PDF

Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college

PDF

The Functional Aspects Of Adlerian Constructs In Understanding And Assisting Disadvantaged Children

PDF

An evaluation of the use of microcomputer-based laboratory instruction on middle school students' concept attainment and attitudes towards computer -based instruction

Asset Metadata

Creator Sadeghi, Ramin Moshe (author)

Core Title Examining the differences in family functioning and meaning in life between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish families

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Counseling Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, social,religion, general

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Newcomb, Michael (committee chair), Lasswell, Thomas (committee member), McComas, William (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-185284

Unique identifier UC11339206

Identifier 3065748.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-185284 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3065748.pdf

Dmrecord 185284

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sadeghi, Ramin Moshe

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA