Abstract
There is growing evidence that a sense of meaning in life may emerge, in part, from the social relationships that people maintain. But it is not clear how the relationship between social ties and a sense of meaning might arise. The purpose of this study is to see if meaning in life is associated with three socially focused virtues: compassion, forgiveness of others, and providing social support to others. In the process, an effort is made to see if these social virtues arise from social relationships in religious institutions. Two main findings emerge from a recent nationwide survey. First, people who are more compassionate, more forgiving, and who help others more often have a stronger sense of meaning in life. Second, individuals who receive more spiritual support from fellow church members are more likely to adopt these social virtues. The theoretical basis of these relationships is discussed.
Introduction
For decades, researchers from a number of academic disciplines have argued that deriving a sense of meaning is one of the fundamental goals in life. For example, Victor Frankl (1946/1984), a widely cited psychiatrist, maintained that “Man’s search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life … ”(p. 121). Essentially, the same point is made by sociologist Peter Berger (1967), who argued that there is “ … a human craving for meaning that appears to have the force of instinct” (p. 22). And Abraham Maslow (1968), a past president of the American Psychological Association, captured the essence of this perspective when he observed that “The human needs a framework of values, a philosophy of life … in about the same sense that he needs sunlight, calcium, and love” (p. 206). Although researchers have yet to agree on how to define meaning in life, many rely on the definition that was developed by Reker (2000). He defines meaning as a sense of order, purpose, and the pursuit of worthwhile goals (Reker, 2000, p. 41).
As Baumeister (1991) observes, a sense of meaning in life can arise from a number of sources including work, hobbies, and family life. However, a number of investigators maintain that many people find a sense of meaning through involvement in religion (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; Park, 2007). Results from a number of empirical studies provide support for this view (e.g. Galek, Flannelly, Ellison, Silton, & Jankowsky, 2015; Krause, Hayward, Bruce, & Woolever, 2013; Steger & Frazier, 2005).
The purpose of the current study is to assess the relationship between religion and a sense of meaning in life. In the process, we aim to contribute to the literature in a potentially important way. Most researchers who study religion would agree that it is an important meaning-making system. However, there is less agreement on how religion performs this important function. The problem arises from the fact that religion is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon (Fetzer Institute and National Institute on Aging Working Group, 1999). Consequently, a number of different facets of religious life have been linked with meaning-making. For example, some investigators propose that a sense of meaning arises from participation in religious rituals (Schnell & Pali, 2013), including worship services (Stark & Finke, 2000). In contrast, other researchers maintain that meaning is found in the process of developing a deep sense of commitment to religion (Galek et al., 2015), while yet other scholars argue that meaning emerges by adopting security-focused religious beliefs (e.g. the belief that God watches over the faithful; see Van Tongeren, Davis, Hook, & Johnson, 2016). In addition to this research some investigators report that positive emotions are associated with a deeper sense of meaning in religious settings (Van Cappellen, 2017), while other researchers demonstrate that people who are more likely to take the perspective of others and simulate their thoughts, feelings and intentions (i.e. “mentalize”) are more likely to derive a greater sense of meaning in religious contexts (Routledge, Roylance, & Abeyta, 2017). In addition to these perspectives, other scholars maintain that religion affects a sense of meaning in life by shaping and promoting personal goals (Emmons, 2005).
We believe that carefully reflecting on the fundamental nature of religion provides a good point of departure for deriving greater insight into the relationship between religion and meaning in life. Then, once the basic nature of religion has been identified, researchers can ground the meaning-making function of religion in a more fully developed theoretical framework. This ambitious strategy is developed below in three sections. First, we begin with the central premise that at its base, religion is an inherently social phenomenon. Second, having identified the social foundation of religion, we trace the ways in which a sense of meaning can arise from the beliefs and behaviors that bolster the social life of religious institutions. Third, once the theoretical groundwork is in place, we reflect on how to best capture it empirically.
Illuminating the social foundation of religion
For well over 100 years, classic theorists in virtually every branch of the social and behavioral sciences have argued that the basis of religion may ultimately be found in the relationships that are maintained among the faithful. Evidence in support of this perspective may be found, for example, in the work of James Mark Baldwin, who was an early president of the American Psychological Association. Writing in Baldwin (1902) argued that “… the fact is constantly recognized that religion is a social phenomena. No man is religious by himself, nor does he choose his god, nor devise his offering, nor enjoy his blessings alone” (p. 325). Similar views are found in the classic work of sociologist Georg Simmel (1898/1997). He argued that “The faith that has come to be regarded as the essence and substance of religion is first of all a relationship between human beings … (Simmel, 1898/1997, p. 108, emphasis in the original). And the same premise appears in the work of Josiah Royce, who was a leading philosopher in his day. He went as far as to maintain that salvation itself arises from the relationships that are formed among like-minded religious others: “… our social experience is our primary source of religious insight. And the salvation that this insight brings to our knowledge is salvation through the fostering of human brotherhood. Such salvation accrues to the individual so far as he gives himself over to the service of man” (Royce, 1912/2001, p. 58).
A growing number of contemporary empirical studies provide support for the views of the early theorists. This work is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the research program of Krause and his colleagues. These investigators conducted a series of studies which show that social relationships in the church influence a broad spectrum of religious phenomenon including the ways in which people view God (i.e. God images; see Krause & Ironson, 2019), the religious coping responses they adopt (Krause, Ellison, Shaw, Marcum, & Boardman, 2001), the extent to which people believe that God helps them control their lives (Krause, 2007b), the extent to which they feel grateful to God (Krause & Ellison, 2009b), the extent to which people feel they have grown spiritually (Krause et al., 2013), the beliefs they hold about the way in which prayer operates (i.e. the belief that God knows that best way to answer a prayer and selects the best time to provide an answer; Krause & Hayward, 2013), and the extent to which people feel they belong in the place where they worship (Krause, 2016b). The work of these researchers also reveals that the social aspects of religious life may also influence the negative aspects of religious life, including religious doubt (Krause & Ellison, 2009a). This social constructionist orientation has its roots in the work of Peter Berger (1967), who maintain that all aspects of religious life are worked out jointly during the process of social interaction among like-minded religious others.
The theoretical rationale that has been developed up to this point is straightforward: if one of the primary functions of religion is to provide a sense of meaning in life and if religion is social at its base, then greater insight into the ways in which religion promotes a sense of meaning should be found in the social life of religious institutions. Although this rationale provides a useful point of departure, it still lacks precision. We need to more clearly specify how religion promotes the elements of social life that may ultimately be associated with a stronger sense of meaning. This issue is addressed in the next section.
The social foundation of religion and meaning in life
Although efforts to define religion are fraught with difficulty (see Zinnbauer et al., 1997), most researchers would agree that religion is, at least in part, a system of codified beliefs and behaviors. But more than this, as Harper (1904) maintained some time ago, these codified beliefs and behaviors, which he called virtues, are inherently social in nature. Harper was the first president of the University of Chicago. In 1904, he wrote a volume titled, Religion and the Higher Life: Talks to Students. In this book, he identified three primary outward expressions of a religious life. One was the conduct of ethics (i.e. virtues): “The external acts (of virtue)—that is, one’s conduct in relation to himself and his fellow men—constitute perhaps as clear an expression of personal religious life as can be found” (p. 145). So if a sense of meaning in life can be traced to the social aspects of religion and if the social aspects of religious life are based on certain codified beliefs and behaviors, then it follows that the more closely people adhere to these codified beliefs and behaviors the stronger their sense of meaning in life. To show why this may be so, it is important to identify the specific religious beliefs and behaviors that are in question and explain why they should be associated with a stronger sense of meaning in life.
In 2010, Lundberg wrote an important volume that identifies the beliefs that are shared by every major faith tradition in the world. Three virtues are especially important for the current study because they explicitly deal with how people should relate to each other. Returning to the rationale we provided earlier reveals why we focus specifically on social virtues. If religion is inherently social in nature, then it makes sense to examine virtues that are also social in nature because doing so gets closer to the heart of religion. The three social virtues we examine are feeling compassion for other people, forgiving other people for the transgressions they have committed, and providing support to others. Each of these virtues is discussed below.
Compassion
Sprecher and Fehr (2005) define compassion as: … an attitude toward close others or strangers or all of humanity; containing feelings, cognitions, and behaviors that are focused on caring, concern, tenderness, and an orientation toward supporting, helping, and understanding the other(s), particularly when the other(s) is (are) perceived to be suffering and in need. (p. 630)
A relatively small cluster of studies examine the relationship between compassion and meaning in life within the context of religion. For example, Currier and his colleagues (2018) report that faith workers in Columbia are likely to experience a greater sense of meaning in life if they are more compassionate. Other researchers report that a strong sense of sanctification (i.e. the tendency to imbue life with sacred characteristics) is associated with greater compassion, and more compassion is, in turn, related to a greater sense of meaning in life (Krause, Pargament, Hill, & Ironson, 2016).
Forgiveness of others
As Rye et al. (2000) report, every major faith tradition in the world extols the virtue of forgiving others for the transgressions they have committed. This is important because research reviewed by Karremans, Van Lange, and Holland (2005) indicates that forgiveness tends to promote prosocial cognition, feeling, and behavior toward transgressors. Moreover, in a series of experiments, these researchers go on to show that the prosocial benefits of forgiveness may spill over into relationships with other people other than the offender. So if religion encourages people to be forgiving, if forgiveness promotes closer relationships with others, and if closer social ties are associated with a stronger sense of meaning in life (see Krause, 2007a), then it follows that people who forgive others should be able to develop a stronger sense of meaning in life. Consistent with this line of reasoning, Van Tongeren, Green, Hook, Davis, and Ramos (2015) report that people who are more forgiving are able to recover a sense of meaning in life after they have encountered interpersonal offenses (see also Toussaint, Kalayjian, & Curtis, 2016).
Providing social support to others
Baumeister (1991) maintains that people find a sense of meaning when they feel that what they do is, “… right and good and justifiable” (p. 36). Religious precepts are specifically designed to identify thoughts and actions that are right, good, and justifiable. So if every major faith tradition extols the virtues of providing support to people who are in need (Lundberg, 2010), then successfully implementing core religious teachings about providing support to others should provide people with a sense of purpose and it should help them feel that what they are doing is worthwhile. To the extent that this is true, providing support to others should be associated with a stronger sense of meaning in life.
Nuland (2007) takes the essence of this perspective to a higher level when he argues that “To give sustenance to another is the highest gift, both to him or her and ourselves, than any of us can imagine” (p. 72). If Nuland (2007) is correct, and a support provider receives the highest gift that life can bestow, then it is not difficult to see why an effective support provider is likely to find a deep sense of meaning. Consistent with the insights that have been developed in this section, research reveals that people who help others more often tend to have a greater sense of meaning in life (Krause & Hayward, 2015).
Findings from a relatively small cluster of studies suggest that providing support to others is associated with a greater sense of meaning in life. For example, based on data from a nationwide survey as well as two experiments, Klein (2017) found that people who provide tangible social support to others (i.e. volunteering, spend money to help others) develop a deeper sense of meaning in life. However, this study was not done within the context of religion. Similarly, research by Van Tongeren et al. (2016) indicates that providing tangible support (i.e. volunteering and informally helping with household chores) to others is associated with a stronger sense of meaning in life. However, like Klein (2017), this study was not conducted explicitly within the context of religion. Moreover, the studies we review here focus on providing tangible support only. We expand the scope of this research below by assessing emotional support that is provided to others.
A common underlying rationale links each of the three social virtues that are discussed above with meaning in life. As we note above, each of the social virtues is endorsed by all the major faith traditions in the world. Social identity theory specifies that all groups have prototypes, which are clusters of behaviors and beliefs that the ideal group member should endorse and practice (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). If an individual adopts these beliefs and behaviors, he or she will be embraced and accepted by fellow group members. Being accepted by fellow group members is important because research reveals that the sense of belonging that group esteem affords is associated with a greater sense of meaning in life (Lambert et al., 2013).
Issues in assessing compassion, forgiveness, providing support, and meaning
Although a number of studies examine the relationship between virtues and meaning in life, this research is limited in three ways. First, some studies are based on data that have been provided by college students (e.g. Van Tongeren et al., 2016). Even though Van Tongeren et al. (2016) employ an experimental design, it is not possible to know if the findings can be generalized beyond the college campus. Second, other investigators have studied one virtue at a time. For example, Klein (2017) presented results from four studies. The first study examined the relationship between helping others and meaning in life. The three remaining studies were based on experimental designs, but the data for the latter three studies were, once again, provided by college students. Third, as we pointed out in the previous section, several studies examine the interface between virtues and meaning in life, but these studies were not conducted within the context of religion.
There are at least three ways in which research on virtues and meaning in life can be improved. First, researchers must use data from large nationally representative samples. Doing so will allow investigators to generalize their findings to a much wider population. Second, more studies should be conducted on the relationship between virtues and meaning within religious institutions. This focus is justified because, as we note above, religious institutions provide an important context for the transmission of social virtues. Third, we believe that the next generation of research on virtues should focus on how combinations of multiple virtues might influence meaning in life. The discussion that has been provided up to this point reveals that when they are examined separately, compassion, forgiveness, and providing support to others are associated with a deeper sense of meaning in life. However, research reveals that people who practice one virtue are more likely to practice other virtues, as well (see, for example, Krause & Hayward, 2015). So far, very few studies have examined the relationship between multiple virtues and meaning in life. We begin the analyses that follow by assessing whether each of these virtues are associated with meaning when they are evaluated separately.
But we also aim to take the analyses further by assessing the cumulative effects of these virtues. These cumulative effects may manifest in two ways. First, possessing more than one virtue at the same time may lead to a deeper sense of meaning in life than possessing only one virtue. This perspective reflects a simple additive view of virtues. It means, for example, that a person who is compassionate and forgiving may find a deeper sense of meaning in life than the individual who is compassionate, but not necessarily forgiving. And by extension, a person who is compassionate, and forgiving, and who helps others, may have the deepest sense of meaning among all study participants. It makes sense to view virtues in this manner because people are encouraged by their faith to adopt more than one virtue. Evidence that this may be so is found in a study by Krause and Hayward (2015), which shows that people who go to church more often and are more deeply committed to their faith, are likely to be more compassionate, and they are more likely to help people who are in need. However, we have not been able to find any studies that aim to assess the relationship between practicing multiple virtues and a sense of meaning in life.
The second perspective on assessing the cumulative effects of multiple virtues is more complex. According to this view, the relationship between a first virtue and meaning is greater when a second virtue is present. Moreover, the joint effect of these virtues is greater than the effect of either virtue when it is examined separately. This means, for example, that the relationship between forgiveness and meaning is greater among people who are more compassionate than among individuals who are less compassionate. Stated in substantive terms, compassion may enhance an individual’s ability to forgive, thereby helping them derive a deeper sense of meaning in life. Stated in technical terms, this specification calls for a statistical interaction effect between forgiveness and compassion on meaning. We are not aware of any studies in the literature that test for the statistical interactions between multiple virtues and a sense of meaning in life. This is why we test for all possible interactions among forgiveness, compassion, and providing support to others on meaning.
Supplementary analyses
The theoretical foundation of our study rests on the notion that religion is, to a large extent, a social phenomenon. In the discussion that has been provided so far, we propose to evaluate this issue by assessing whether the three inherently social virtues are associated with a sense of meaning in life. It is possible, however, to push the envelope further by seeing whether other social aspects of religion encourage people to adopt the three social virtues in the first place. To accomplish this goal, we turn to the notion of spiritual support. Krause (2008) defines spiritual support as informal assistance that is provided by fellow church members with the explicit purpose of increasing the religious belief and behaviors of the support recipient. The proposition we aim to evaluate specifies that religious teachings are transmitted in the church informally through interaction with fellow church members (i.e. through spiritual support).
Support for the notion that religious teachings are transmitted through spiritual support may be found in two sources. The first, which was discussed earlier, is Berger’s (1967) widely cited theory on religion. He maintains that religious world views are socially constructed and maintained by ongoing interaction among the faithful. The second source of justification for focusing on informal support in the church is found in the work of Stark and Finke (2000). These investigators propose that the individual’s confidence in religious principles is strengthened when religious others express their confidence in them.
Findings from several empirical studies tend to support the views of Berger (1967) as well as Stark and Finke (2000). For example, a study by Krause (2015) suggests that study participants who receive spiritual support more often tend to be more compassionate. Moreover, in a separate study, Krause (2016b) reports that people who receive more spiritual support tend to provide more emotional support to others. And yet another study by Krause (2016a) reveals that people who receive more spiritual support are more likely to forgive others. Although these studies are informative, they are based on data provided by middle-aged and older adults. As a result, more research on these relationships is needed with data from a nationally representative sample.
In the analyses that follow, we compare the influence of spiritual support on social virtues with the effect of church attendance on social virtues. Doing so makes it possible to determine whether a significant relationship between spiritual support and the social virtues is due to spiritual support per se and not some other aspect of religion that is associated with it (i.e. church attendance). This comparison serves a second goal, as well. Church attendance may be construed as a formal source of social influence, whereas spiritual support is viewed as an informal source of social influence. Comparing the effects of church attendance with spiritual support makes it possible to see if formal social influences exert a greater effect on social virtues than informal social forces within the church.
Methods
Sample
The data for this study come from the Landmark Spirituality and Health Survey (LSHS), a nationwide face-to-face survey of adults age 18 and older who reside in the coterminous United States (i.e. residents of Alaska and Hawaii were excluded). This survey, which was completed in 2014, was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in Chicago. This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review panel at NORC. The NORC 2010 National Sampling Frame served as the basis for the sampling procedures. This sampling frame is based on two sources. First, the bulk of this data base comes from postal address lists that are compiled by the United States Postal Service (USPS). Second, field employees were sent to enumerate all houses in areas where USPS address lists were unavailable. Sampling was done in three stages. First, National Frame Areas (NFAs) were constructed. In essence, NFAs are formed from pooling counties and metropolitan areas into blocks of designated sizes. A total of 44 NFAs were selected with probabilities proportional to size. Then, in the second stage, NFAs were partitioned into segments consisting of Census tracts and block groups. Segments were selected with probabilities proportional to size. In the third stage, housing units were sampled with equal probabilities of selection within each segment and the occupants of these dwellings were recruited for the interviews.
The response rate for the study was 50%. The total number of completed interviews was 3010. The sample was broken down into three age groups: 18–40 (n = 1000), 41–64 (n = 1002), and age 65 and older (n = 1008).
After using listwise deletion to deal with item non-response, the analyses provided below are based on 2741 cases (i.e. 8.9% of the cases contain item non-response). Preliminary analyses reveal that the average age of the study participants in this group is 51.2 years (standard deviation (SD) = 19.2 years), 42.9% were men, 47.5% were married at the time of the interview, and the average number of years of completed schooling was 13.5 (SD = 3.2).
Measures
Table 1 contains the measures of the core constructs that were analyzed in this study. The procedures that were used to score these indicators are provided in the footnotes of this table.
Core study measures.
These items are scored in the following manner (coding in parenthesis): strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), uncertain (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5).
This item is scored in the following manner: never (1), seldom (2), often (3), and always or almost always (4).
These items are scored in the following manner: never (1), once in a while (2), fairly often (3), and very often (4).
Meaning in life
Six items were taken from research by Krause (2004) to measure a sense of meaning in life. These indicators assess, for example, whether study participants have system of values that guide their lives and whether they have clear goals and aims in their lives. A high score represents a stronger sense of meaning in life (M = 24.4; SD = 3.7; range = 6–30). The reliability estimate for this scale is .838.
Compassion
Compassion was measured with four items that were devised by Sprecher and Fehr (2005). Their scale was modified in three ways. First, the number of indicators was reduced from 21 to 5. Second, one set of items in the original scale referred specifically to compassion for family and friends while a separate, but comparable, set of indicators was devised to assess compassion for strangers. References to these specific individuals were dropped and the items were rewritten to reflect compassion for all people taken together (see Table 1). Third, based findings from a series of qualitative studies, some of the items that were devised by Sprecher and Fehr (2005) were rephrased. A high score on the modified compassion items reflects greater compassion for others (M = 19.7; SD = 2.9; range = 7–25). 1 The reliability estimate for this composite is .746.
Forgiveness of others
A single indicator was taken from research by the Fetzer Institute and National Institute on Aging Working Group (1999) to measure how often study participants forgive other people. A high score stands for more forgiving people (M = 3.2; SD = .7; range = 1–4).
Emotional support provided to others
Three items that were devised by Krause (1999) were used to determine how often study participants provide emotional support to all of their social network members. A high score on the emotional support measure means that study participants give this kind of help to significant others more often (M = 9.9; SD = 2.0; range = 3–12) (see Note 1). The reliability estimate for the measure of providing support to others is .820.
Spiritual support
Spiritual support is measured with three indicators that were developed by Krause (2008). A high score on these indicators stands for study recipients who receive spiritual support more often (M = 7.8; SD = 2.4; range = 3–12; α = .823).
Religion control variables
To make sure the relationship between the virtues and meaning in life are estimated accurately, measures of three aspects of religion were included in the study models as control variables: the frequency of church attendance, the frequency of private prayer, and religious preference. A high score on the measure of church attendance denotes more frequent attendance at worship services (M = 4.8; SD = 2.8; range = 1–9) and a high score on the measure of prayer represents people who pray more frequently when they are alone (M = 6.0; SD = 2.4; range = 1–8). A measure of religious preference was created with a modified version of the scheme proposed by Steensland and his colleagues (2000). These researchers drew a distinction between Evangelical Protestants and Black Protestants on the grounds that even though these groups are doctrinally similar, their political views differ significantly. However, because we are not concerned with political views, Black Protestants and Evangelicals were combined in the analyses presented below. This resulted in a binary measure that contrasts Evangelicals (scored 1) with all others (scored 0). Approximately 42.8% of the study participants indicated they affiliate with an Evangelical denomination.
Demographic control variables
Measures of age, sex, education, and marital status were also included as control variables in our analyses. Age and education were scored continuously, while sex (1 = men; 0 = women) and marital status (1 = currently married; 0 = otherwise) were scored in a binary format.
Data analysis plan
The analyses in this study are conducted with four sets of ordinary least square multiple regression analyses. In the first set of analyses, the independent effects of forgiveness, compassion, and providing support to others on meaning is evaluated.
In the second set of analyses, we assess the additive effects of the three social virtues on meaning. This analysis is conducted by creating an overall composite that is formed by adding scores on the three virtues together. Meaning in life was then regressed on the composite. At first, it might appear that simply adding the scores on the three virtue measures would suffice. But a problem arises with this strategy because, as we discussed above, the three virtues are measured with different metrics, or what Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) call different measurement units. These varying metrics can affect the findings if the raw scores on the three virtues were merely summed. We overcome this problem in the analyses that follow by converting raw scores on the compassion, forgiveness, and providing support to others measures to z-scores.
The third set of analyses involves testing for statistical interaction effects among the three virtues. These analyses follow the recommendations made by Aiken and West (1991). Four multiplicative terms were created by multiplying the z-scores for the three virtues (i.e. forgiveness X compassion; forgiveness X providing support; compassion X providing support; and forgiveness X compassion X providing support). These analyses are then conducted in three steps. The first step consists of the analyses in which the separate effects of each virtue are estimated. This is, in effect, the first set of analyses that are described above. Second, the three lower-order multiplicative terms are entered into the model (i.e. forgiveness X compassion; forgiveness X providing support; compassion X providing support). Then in the third step, the higher-order term representing the interaction effects among all three virtues is added to the model (i.e. forgiveness X compassion X providing support). If any of these cross-product terms are statistically significant, then additional procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991) are implemented to assess the direction of the interaction effects.
Earlier, an emphasis was placed assessing the interface between social relationships and the adoption of virtues that involve forgiveness, compassion, and providing support to people who are in need. Consequently, the fourth set of regression analyses focus on assessing the relationship between social support in the church and the three types of virtuous behavior.
Results
The findings from this study are presented below in four sections. First, we report the results that were derived from estimating the relationship between meaning in life and the three virtues when these virtues were analyzed separately. Second, findings are presented that focus on the relationship between meaning and the virtues when the virtues are summed to form a single composite measure. Tests for statistical interaction effects among the three virtues are presented in the third section. Fourth, we provide the findings from the analyses that were designed to examine the relationship between spiritual support and the adoption of the three virtues.
Analyzing the virtues separately
The results that were derived from assessing the relationship between each virtue and meaning in life are provided in the first column of Table 2. These data reveal that people who are more compassionate (β = .190; p < .001), people who forgive others more often (β = .115; p < .001), and individuals who provide emotional support to significant others more frequently (β = .173; p < .001) tend to report that they have found a greater sense of meaning in life.
Assessing the relationships between meaning in life and social virtues (N = 2741).
Standardized regression coefficient.
Metric (unstandardized) regression coefficient.
p < .001.
Assessing a summed measure of the virtues
As discussed above, measures of the three virtues were converted to z-scores and summed. Meaning in life was then regressed on this composite virtue measure. The findings from this analysis are provided in the second column of Table 2. These findings indicate that people who adopt more virtues report they have a greater sense of meaning in life (β = .345; p < .001). 2
The size of the standardized estimate that is associated with the composite virtue measure is 81.5% larger than the standardized estimate when compassion is analyzed separately, (.345-.190)/.190=.815, it is 200% larger than the standardized estimate when forgiveness is analyzed separately, (.345-.115)/.115 = 2.000, and it is 99.4% larger when the measure of providing support to others is analyzed separately, (.345-.173)/.173 = .994. This suggests that although each virtue is associated with a greater sense of meaning in life when it is analyzed separately, knowing the extent to which a study participant endorses all multiple virtues provides greater insight into the relationship between the virtues and meaning in life.
Testing for statistical interaction effects among the virtues
The results of the tests for statistical interaction effects among the three social virtues are provided in the third column of Table 2. As discussed above, tests were conducted for both lower and higher-order interactions. However, a statistically significant three-way interaction among the virtues did not emerge from the data, and as a result, only the tests for the three lower-order interaction effects are shown in Table 2.
The data in column 3 suggest that only one of the three lower-order interaction terms is statistically significant. More specifically, the findings revel that the interaction between forgiveness and compassion is significant (b = .192; p < .001) but the interaction terms associated with forgiveness and providing support to others (b = -.030; ns.) as well as compassion and providing support (b = -.086; ns.) are not significant at the .05 level.
As we noted earlier, additional tests are required to determine the direction of the interaction between forgiveness and compassion on meaning in life. These additional tests (not shown in Table 2) involve estimating the relationship between forgiveness and meaning in life at select levels of compassion. Although any values of compassion could be used for this purpose, we follow the convention that was established by Aiken and West (1991) and estimate the relationship between forgiveness and meaning at −1 standard deviation below the mean compassion score, the mean compassion value, and +1 standard deviation above the mean compassion score. The additional calculations suggest that among study participants with relatively low levels of compassion, forgiveness is only weakly associated with meaning in life (b = .245; β = .066; p < .01). However, the relationship between forgiveness of others and meaning in life is stronger for study participants with mean compassion scores (b = .437; β = .118; p < .001). The relationship between forgiveness of others and meaning becomes even stronger for respondents with compassion scores that are one standard deviation above the mean (b = .629; β = .170; p < .001). Taken together, the three additional estimates suggest that people who forgive others are more likely to find a deeper sense of meaning in life as they become more compassionate.
Summary
The analyses provided above examine multiple virtues from three different perspectives. As we report above, the data suggest that, compared to the results that were observed when the virtues was assessed separately, the relationship between multiple virtues and meaning in life is stronger when the virtues are examined in composite form. The same appears to be true when the findings from the tests for statistical interactions among the three virtues are examined. Only one of the four interactions was statistically significant. Moreover, probing the nature of the significant interaction effect suggests that the magnitude of the relationships was not as strong as the relationship that emerged when the virtues were analyzed in composite form.
Spiritual support in the Church and virtues
The findings that have been provided up to this point suggest that the composite measure of social virtues is more strongly associated with meaning in life than the other ways of assessing social virtues. Consequently, the composite social virtue measures were used to evaluate the relationship between spiritual support and the social virtues. The findings from these analyses are provided in Table 3.
Regressing the social virtues composite measure on spiritual support and church attendance (n = 1667).
Standardized regression coefficient.
Metric (unstandardized) regression coefficient.
p < .001.
The data in Table 3 indicate that more frequent spiritual support is associated with a greater likelihood of adopting more of the virtues that are examined in this study (β = .347; p < .001). But, in contrast, a statistically significant relationship failed to emerge between the composite virtues measure and church attendance (β = .029; ns.).
Discussion
John Cottingham (2003) is a widely cited moral philosopher. He defines meaning in life largely in terms of the relationships that people form with others: “A meaningful life … involves cultivating the faculties that allow sympathetic emotional interaction and open rational dialogue with our fellow humans” (p. 64). The purpose of this study has been to empirically evaluate these insights by linking a sense of meaning in life with three social virtues (compassion, forgiveness, and providing support) that are associated with greater involvement in religion. Four main findings emerged from the analysis of the data from our recent nationwide survey. First, the results indicate that people who are more compassionate, more forgiving, and who provide support to others more often tend to have a deeper sense of meaning in life. Second, the relationship between the three social virtues and meaning was observed when the virtues were examined individually and when they were evaluated in a composite form. Assessing the virtues in composite form made it possible to see if people who adopt multiple virtues have a greater sense of meaning in life. Our data support this view. Third, we conducted a series of tests to see if the joint effects of the three social virtues are associated with a greater sense of meaning in life. This perspective was evaluated by testing for statistical interaction effects among the three social virtues. Only one interaction was significant. This interaction involved the relationships among forgiveness and compassion on meaning in life. Fourth, we found some evidence that the social virtues we examined arise, at least in part, from interaction with like-minded religious others. More specifically, our results indicate that people who receive more spiritual support from fellow church members are more likely to adopt multiple social virtues.
We were surprised to see that only one statistical interaction among the three virtues was present in the data (i.e. the interaction between forgiveness and compassion). This interaction effect makes sense from a conceptual point of view: forgiveness is more likely to be rewarding if it is provided by people who are more compassionate. However, it is not clear why the significant interaction effects that involve providing support did not emerge from the data. At least two potential explanations come to mind. First, we only examined one way in which study participants might help others (i.e. through the provision of emotional support). Perhaps significant findings might have emerged if measures of other types of social support had been available, such as providing tangible support to others. Second, our measure of providing support focused solely on providing emotional support to family members and friends. Perhaps statistically significant results would have emerged if measures of providing support outside one’s social network (i.e. strangers) were available. Providing support to others often arises out of a sense of duty or obligation. Maybe this sense of duty or obligation overrides any benefits that might arise when people are more compassionate.
There are four reasons why the findings from this study are noteworthy. First, our research contributes to the psychology of religion in a number of ways. For example, we show how one dimension of social support (i.e. spiritual support) gives rise to a second type of social support (i.e. providing emotional support to others), which in turn is associated with a component of religion that is of interest to many psychologists who study religion (i.e. meaning in life). Second, our work contributes to the wider literature on meaning in life by showing how a sense of meaning may be traced to the interplay between multiple aspects of the religious life, thereby more firmly grounding work on meaning in core psychology of meaning principles. Third, both of these achievements have been enhanced by working with data from a large nationwide survey of adults in the United States. Fourth, we examine the relationship between social virtues and meaning within a more well-developed theoretical perspective. More specifically, we explore multiple ways of conceptualizing social virtues (i.e. we examine them individually, cumulatively, and examine the interaction among them). To the best of our knowledge, this appears to be the first time multiple ways of conceptualizing the relationships among multiple social virtues have been examined in the literature.
Although this study may have contributed to the literature on religion and meaning in life, a considerable amount of research remains to be done. At least six areas are ripe for further study. First, research is needed to see if other social virtues, such as honesty and fairness, are also associated with a stronger sense of meaning in life. Second, it would be helpful to get a sense of the relative importance that social virtues may play in the meaning-making process. This could be accomplished by comparing the strength of the relationship between social virtues and meaning with the strength of the relationship between non-social virtues (e.g. self-control) and meaning. Third, greater insight into how a sense of meaning may arise may be found by evaluating domain-specific measures of meaning. So, for example, we may learn more if measures of meaning that arise specifically within one social context (e.g. the family) are compared with a measures of meaning that specifically arise from other life domains, such as work. Fourth, our study was conducted in the United States, which is primarily a Christian nation. This raises the possibility that the social aspects of religious life may be less pronounced among people who affiliate with other faith traditions, such as Buddhism. Fifth, as a number of researchers have observed, not all aspects of religious life are positive. This means, for example, that conflict may arise within congregations or people may encounter serious doubts about their faith (Ellison & Jinwoo, 2010). It is important to examine the relationship between the beneficial aspects of religion in conjunction with the ways in which religion may be detrimental to health and well-being. Sixth, as we discussed earlier, researchers have identified other psychological factors that may influence a sense of meaning in life, such as positive emotions (Van Cappellen, 2017). To more correctly specify the nature of the relationship between social aspects of religion and meaning in life, it is important to include more psychological factors in the analyses.
Breaking new ground in the study of meaning-making is important, but it should be done together with efforts to address the limitations in the work that has been done so far. One of the biggest limitations in the current study is that the analyses are based on cross-sectional data. As a result, it is not possible for us to determine whether social virtues affect meaning or whether people with a greater sense of meaning in life are more likely to adhere to social virtues. Clearly this assumption must be rigorously evaluated with data that have been gathered at more than one point in time. Another potential shortcoming arises from the fact that data on meaning and social virtues were obtained through self-report in our study. Researchers have been concerned for some time about the influence of social desirability response bias on self-reports of religiousness (Rowatt, Ottenbreit, Nesselroade, & Cunningham, 2002). Data were not available in our current study to assess the potential effect of social desirability on self-reports of spiritual struggles.
Some time ago, Berger and Pullberg (1965) convincingly argued that “ … the human enterprise of producing a world is not comprehensible as an individual project. Rather, it is a social process: men together engage in constructing a world, which then becomes their common dwelling. Indeed, since sociality is a necessary element in the human being, the process of world production is necessarily a social one” (p. 201, emphasis in the original).
We have made an effort to build upon these fundamental insights by exploring the social foundation of meaning-making in life. We hope the theoretical rationale we have developed and the empirical data we have presented encourage other researchers to join us in our efforts to illuminate these important sociological principles.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was support by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (40077).