Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Social Trust, Religiosity, and Self-Rated Health in the Context of National Religious Pluralism

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Religion and Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trust and religiosity have been individually linked to better health outcomes, but little existing research examines how they may combine to shape health. Drawing on data from the 6th and most recent wave of the World Values Survey, we examine the relationship between particularized and generalized social trust, two dimensions of religiosity (religious attendance and one’s belief in the importance of God), and self-rated health across 27 countries. Findings from multilevel models suggest that trust tends to be higher in more religiously pluralistic national contexts, while religiosity in these contexts helps individuals maintain good health. In particular, a higher importance of God (but not religious attendance) can offset the negative health effects of holding low trust in strangers and non-family members (generalized trust), but only in highly pluralistic national contexts. We conclude by offering future research directives that may shed light on the cultural complexities of the various national contexts and their religious compositions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data from the 2021 Baylor Religion Survey (BRS) can provide some empirical insight into the validity of this assumption. In the 2021 (BRS), four items were available to gauge the attachment dimension of avoidance of God, based on prior work by Rowatt and Kirkpatrick (2002). Respondents were asked the extent to which they agree with the following statements: (1) “God knows when I need support,” (2) “I feel that God is personally responsive to me,” (3) “God seems impersonal to me (reverse-coded), and (4) “God seems to have little to no interest in my personal problems,” (reverse-coded). Responses are coded as (1) = “strongly disagree,” (2) = “disagree,” (3) = “agree,” and (4) = “strongly agree.” (α = .85), where higher scores equal stronger attachment to God. Another measure from the BRS asked respondents, “Based on your personal understanding of God, please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I care about a divine/transcendent perspective on my actions.” This was coded on the same scale as the attachment to God items. While this latter measure does not correspond perfectly to a more general measure of God importance, it is reasonable to propose that individuals who strongly care about God’s perspective on their actions place a high importance of God in their lives. Bivariate correlations (N = 911) support this assertion, as secure attachment to God was correlated with caring about a divine/transcendent perspective on actions at r = 0.71, representing a moderate to strong correlation. We acknowledge that the BRS data do not contain perfect measures of God importance. Nevertheless, these analyses do show that individuals who are more inclined to attribute positive qualities to God are more likely to care about a divine perspective on their life, which should serve as a reasonable proxy of God importance.

  2. Results using all available 60 countries from Wave 6 of the World Values Survey reveal a similar pattern of results as those reported in the main text.

  3. Factor analytic details for the measures of these four scales can be found in Glanville and Story (2018) and Glanville and Shi (2020).

  4. We examined the Human Development Index (HDI) (health, education, and standard of living) and degree of government regulation of religion using reports from the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA), with the 2008 report corresponding to Wave 6 of the World Values Survey (available at www.arda.com). Inclusion of these variables did not substantively change the results. HDI was highly correlated with GDP (r = 0.81) and most countries had a low level of regulation (1.12 at Wave 6), so we chose not to retain either variable in final analyses.

  5. Since there was always one indicator of individual religiosity with both measures of religious pluralism and national religiosity, we conducted sensitivity tests while applying a Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple testing, and the results remained substantively similar.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Upenieks.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was not required for this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Upenieks, L., Orfanidis, C. Social Trust, Religiosity, and Self-Rated Health in the Context of National Religious Pluralism. J Relig Health 61, 4535–4564 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01380-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01380-w

Keywords

Navigation