“Four Gods” in Maximum Security Prison: Images of God, Religiousness, and Worldviews Among Inmates

Abstract

This paper extends research on images of God, which prior researchers based mostly on national survey data, to a study of offenders in prison. We first explore whether the distribution of Froese and Bader’s (America’s four gods: What we say about god–& what that says about us, Oxford University Press, New York 2010) four images of God among prison inmates is similar to that in the general population. We then examine whether an inmate’s image of God is associated with the inmate’s worldviews: beliefs and attitudes toward the law, other inmates, moral responsibility, and ultimate meaning and purpose in life. Finally, we test whether an inmate’s belief in a forgiving God and religiousness explain the association. We analyzed data from a survey of 2249 inmates at America’s largest maximum-security prison, the Louisiana State Penitentiary. We found the distribution of God-images among inmates was the same as that in national samples in terms of rank order. As hypothesized, we also found inmates with an image of an engaged God tended to report lower levels of legal cynicism and sense of illegitimacy of punishment and higher levels of collective efficacy, existential belief, and moral responsibility than those with images of a disengaged God or no God. Finally, we found an inmate’s belief in a forgiving God and religiousness to mediate partly relationships between images of God and the inmate’s worldviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Their measure of loving God tapped the character of “forgiving,” “friendly,” and “kind” as well as “loving.”

  2. 2.

    Mencken et al. (2009) and Hinze et al. (2011) labeled Froese and Bader’s (2010) judgmental God as “angry God.”

  3. 3.

    Bader et al. (2010) constructed two variables using Froese and Bader’s (2010) six items of God’s judgment: “God’s anger” (2 items of God being “angered by human sins” and “angered by my sins”) and “God’s judgment” (4 items of whether adjectives “critical,” “punishing,” “severe,” and “wrathful” apply to God).

  4. 4.

    While based on non-survey data, two other studies are worth mentioning. First, Johnson et al. (2015) developed scales measuring personal representations of God as Authoritarian, Benevolent, Controlling, and Loving, and found Authoritarian God was related positively to an individual’s priority value of power and security, while Benevolent and Loving God related positively to conformity, tradition, and benevolence, which were all inversely related to Controlling God. Second, studying the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis on their image of God, Schreiber and Edward (2015) found that those who believed in highly engaged God showed altruistic behaviors such as transformational life changes in self and others, whereas those believers in less engaged God showed egocentric behaviors like attitudinal changes only in self.

  5. 5.

    They believe in objective moral truths based primarily on ethical naturalism (which posits that ethical propositions can be derived from science) or non-theistic non-naturalism (which holds that ethical truths are just brute facts, not reducible to any natural facts).

  6. 6.

    According to the theory, an act is objectively morally wrong if and only if the act would be disapproved of by an ideal observer, were there such observer under ideal conditions. This theory, however, raises operating questions, like how this ideal observer would know what the correct course of action is.

  7. 7.

    Both Angola’s congregations and its seminary flourished under longtime warden Burl Cain, although the congregations long preceded Cain’s two-decade tenure. Cain introduced seminary instruction into the prison only after Congressional revocation of Pell Grant eligibility for convicted felons negatively affected Angola.

  8. 8.

    The alpha of our God’s engagement scale (α = .852) was comparable to that of Froese and Bader’s (α = .85) despite using only half of their eight items, whereas that of our God’s judgement scale (α = .765) was not as high as Froese and Bader’s (α = .91), while we used the same as their six items, though it still had good internal reliability.

  9. 9.

    The former’s “high” group consisted of inmates who strongly agreed (= 4) on God’s engagement, whereas the latter’s “high” included those who either agreed (= 3) or strongly agreed (= 4) on God’s judgment.

  10. 10.

    The category of other religion included Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and “other religion.”

  11. 11.

    While 12.4% of inmates said that they had no religion, the “No God” category had a smaller percentage (7%). If asked, some of the inmates might have identified themselves as “spiritual but not religious” (Jang and Franzen 2013), who had “personal beliefs about God” but disassociated themselves from organized religion.

  12. 12.

    Significant residual correlations among the endogenous variables were in the expected direction (see “Appendix B”), which indicated construct validity of the latent variables.

  13. 13.

    Only parameter estimates (b) are presented (i.e., without their standard error) due to space constraints. We specified relationships among the mediators as their residual correlations like those among the variables of worldview to avoid model misspecification given that their structural relationships were not of our interest.

  14. 14.

    Two coefficients that became significant, both related to legal cynicism, implied suppressor effect of religiousness, specifically, congregational participation, religiosity, and negative religious coping. That is, the variables of religiousness had suppressed differences between inmates with a disengaged (Critical and Distant) God and their atheist counterparts, in which the latter tended show lower levels of legal cynicism than the former, until controlling for variables of religiousness.

  15. 15.

    As a supplemental analysis, we estimated our models, replacing the image-of-God dummy variables with the scales of God’s engagement and judgment. We found God’s engagement was related inversely to legal cynicism and illegitimacy of punishment and positively to collective efficacy, existential belief, and moral responsibility, while God’s judgment was related positively only to legal cynicism and moral responsibility. God’s engagement was also related to all five mediators, inversely to negative religious coping and positively to the others as anticipated, whereas God’s judgment was associated with all but one (positive religious coping) mediators, being associated positively with a forgiving God and negative religious coping and inversely with congregational participation and religiosity. Our test of mediation revealed that 28% (14) of 50 (2 images of God × 5 mediators × 5 ultimate endogenous variables) indirect effects via the variables of religiousness (12 of 14) and the image of a forgiving God (2 of 14) were significant. Five (35.7%) of the 14 were the effects of God’s judgment mediated, whereas nine (64.3%) were those of God’s engagement. Complete results are available upon request.

  16. 16.

    Our interviews with inmates suggested a potential explanation for the limited association. One interviewee, for example, attributed some inmates’ congregational participation to their desire for material benefits, like food or clothing, offered to congregations by outside religious volunteers. Mixed, extrinsic (i.e., using religion for safety, material comfort, access to outsiders, and inmate relations) as well as intrinsic (i.e., living religion) motivations for religious involvement among prison inmates have been recognized (Clear et al. 2000).

References

  1. Applegate, Brandon K., Francis T. Cullen, Bonnie S. Fisher, and Thomas Vander Ven. 2000. Forgiveness and fundamentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology 38 (3): 719–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bader, Christopher D., and Paul Froese. 2005. Images of God: The effect of personal theologies on moral attitudes, political affiliation, and religious behavior. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1 (11): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bader, Christopher D., Scott A. Desmond, F. Carson Mencken, and Byron R. Johnson. 2010. Divine justice: The relationship between images of god and attitudes toward criminal punishment. Criminal Justice Review 35 (1): 90–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baraldi, Amanda N., and Craig K. Enders. 2010. An introduction to modern missing data analyses. Journal of School Psychology 48 (1): 5–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Clear, Todd R., Patricia L. Hardyman, Bruce Stout, Karol Lucken, and Harry R. Dammer. 2000. The value of religion in prison an inmate perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 16 (1): 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Evans, C. Stephen. 2013. God and moral obligation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Fields, Richard R.W. 2005. Perks for prisoners who pray: Using the coercion test to decide establishment clause challenges to faith-based prison units. University of Chicago Legal Forum 2005 (1): 541–567.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Froese, Paul, and Christopher Bader. 2008. Unraveling religious worldviews: The relationship between images of god and political ideology in a cross-cultural analysis. The Sociological Quarterly 49 (4): 689–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Froese, Paul, Christopher Bader, and Buster Smith. 2008. Political tolerance and god’s wrath in the United States. Sociology of Religion 69 (1): 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Froese, Paul, and Christopher Bader. 2010. America’s four gods: What we say about god–& what that says about us. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Graham, John W. 2009. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 549–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grissom, Brandi. 2011. Prison Chaplains pray, plead for funds. Texas Tribune, February 17. https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/17/texas-prison-chaplains-pray-plead-for-funds. Accessed 9 Dec 2017.

  14. Hallett, Michael, Byron R. Johnson, W. Joshua Hays, Sung Joon Jang, and Grant Duwe. in press. U.S. prison seminaries: Structural charity, religious establishment, and neoliberal corrections. The Prison Journal.

  15. Hinze, Wesley M., F. Carson Mencken, and Charles M. Tolbert. 2011. From Obama to Osama: Image of god and trust in Muslims among the highly religious in the United States. Sociological Focus 44 (1): 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1): 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jang, Sung Joon. 2016. Existential spirituality, religiosity, and symptoms of anxiety-related disorders: A study of belief in ultimate truth and meaning in life. Journal of Psychology and Theology 44 (3): 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jang, Sung Joon, and Aaron B. Franzen. 2013. Is being “spiritual” enough without being religious? A study of violent and property crimes among emerging adults. Criminology 51 (3): 595–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson, Byron R. 2011. More god, less crime: Why faith matters and how it could matter more. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson, Kathryn A., Morris A. Okun, and Adam B. Cohen. 2015. The mind of the lord: Measuring authoritarian and benevolent god representations. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 7 (3): 227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kever, Jeannie. 2011. Effort to eliminate prison chaplains met with criticism. Houston Chronicle, March 4. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Effort-to-eliminate-prison-chaplains-met-with-1690930.php. Accessed 9 December 2017.

  22. Martin, Michael. 2002. Atheism, morality, and meaning. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Maruna, Shadd. 2001. Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Megill, Jason, and Daniel Linford. 2016. God, the meaning of life, and a new argument for atheism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 79 (1): 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mencken, F. Carson, Christopher Bader, and Elizabeth Embry. 2009. In god we trust: Images of god and trust in the United States among the highly religious. Sociological Perspectives 52 (1): 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mencken, F. Carson, and Brittany Fitz. 2013. Image of god and community volunteering among religious adherents in the United States. Review of Religious Research 55 (3): 491–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Muthén, Bengt O. 1983. Latent variable structural equation modeling with categorical data. Journal of Econometrics 22 (1–2): 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Muthén, Linda K., and Bengt O. Muthén. 1998–2012. Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  30. Pargament, Kenneth, Margaret Feuille, and Donna Burdzy. 2011. The brief RCOPE: Current psychometric status of a short measure of religious coping. Religions 2 (1): 51–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sampson, Robert J., and Dawn J. Bartusch. 1998. Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society Review 32 (4): 777–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277 (5328): 918–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schreiber, Judith A., and Jean Edward. 2015. Image of god, religion, spirituality, and life changes in breast cancer survivors: A qualitative approach. Journal of Religion and Health 54 (2): 612–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stroope, Samuel, Scott Draper, and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2013. Images of a loving god and sense of meaning in life. Social Indicators Research 111 (1): 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers. 2009. Prison religion: Faith-based reform and the constitution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Tyler, Tom R. 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice 30: 283–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and John P. Bartkowski. 2006. Images of god and public support for capital punishment: Does a close relationship with a loving god matter? Criminology 44 (4): 835–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and Brandon K. Applegate. 2005. Turning the other cheek: Reassessing the impact of religion on punitive ideology. Justice Quarterly 22 (3): 304–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Whitehead, Andrew L. 2012. Gender ideology and religion: Does a masculine image of god matter? Review of Religious Research 54 (2): 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Whitehead, Andrew L. 2014. Male and female he created them: Gender traditionalism, masculine images of god, and attitudes toward same-sex unions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 53 (3): 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sung Joon Jang.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Electronic supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table 5.

Table 5 Items used in analysis

Appendix B

See Table 6.

Table 6 Estimated measurement models of latent variables (top panel) and correlations among endogenous variables (bottom two panel)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jang, S.J., Hays, J., Johnson, B.R. et al. “Four Gods” in Maximum Security Prison: Images of God, Religiousness, and Worldviews Among Inmates. Rev Relig Res 60, 331–365 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-018-0329-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Maximum Security Prison
  • Legal Cynicism
  • Existential Beliefs
  • Louisiana State Penitentiary
  • Moral Responsibility