What that "American Sociological Review" study really said about religion, happiness, and belonging

Perhaps you've read about this bit of news:

Religion makes you happy because of its social rather than spiritual aspects, scientists have revealed.

Being part of a church congregation surrounded by friends is more important to your happiness than prayer, the study concluded.

Forming friendships with like-minded people makes people more happier than the theology or spirituality of a choosen faith.

While past studies have revealed a positive connection between religiosity and life satisfaction, American researchers claim a sense of 'belonging' made people more 'extremely satisfied' with life's lot. 

The piece in The Daily Mail further reports:

The sociologist added: 'To me, the evidence substantiates that it is not really going to church and listening to sermons or praying that makes people happier, but making church-based friends and building intimate social networks there.

'One of the important functions of religion is to give people a sense of belonging to a moral community based on religious faith.

'This community, however, could be abstract and remote unless one has an intimate circle of friends who share a similar identity.  

My initial reaction to this story was to think, "Well, sure, duh. Religion in general does not happen in a vacuum, but is intimately caught up with man's communal, relational nature (in large part because religion has so much to do with one's relationship with what is other). Come to think of it, that applies to just about everything else as well: family life, education, arts, science, sports, work, drinking a triple-shot mocha while listening to 'The Best of Barry Manilow' and driving your Prius in downtown Drain, Oregon." But the way the story is being presented is that most people who practice some sort of religion—Christianity, apparently, based on the reference to "a church congregation"—do so mostly for friends and fellowship, not because of any strong theological beliefs or practices. But, based on just the newspaper story, a number of questions arise: How does the study define  happiness? And how, exactly, does the study distinguish between a sense of social belonging and theological belief when, for many or most Christians, it is theological belief that often brings one into a certain community/social group (or, conversely, one attaches oneself to a certain church/community upon learning and accepting in some way the beliefs therein)?

Fortunately, the actual study, "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction", by Chaeyoon Lima and Robert D. Putnamb, which was published in the December 2010 issue of American Sociological Review, is available as a PDF downlad from the journal's site. And a quick reading indicates that the neat and tidy summaries found in newspaper articles don't capture all of the many qualifiers, nuances, and careful formulations of the researchers (far be it for me to speak well of sociologists, but I do try, on occasion, to be fair and balanced, unlike many journalists.) Here, for example, are several interesting quotes from the study:

• "Our findings suggest that religious people are more satisfied with their lives because they regularly attend religious services and build social networks in their congregations. The effect of within-congregation friendship is contingent, however, on the presence of a strong religious identity. We find little evidence that other private or subjective aspects of religiosity affect life satisfaction independent of attendance and congregational friendship."

• "As religiosity— at least some aspects of it—is the result of individual choice, it is likely that people who are religious differ from those who are not in respect to various factors that could be related to life satisfaction. It is just as plausible that life satisfaction influences religious choice. These possibilities must be taken seriously, not only to establish the effect of religion on life satisfaction, but also to understand more broadly the mechanisms of religion’s effect."

• "Most of these studies, however, focus on general social networks and modes of support without making a distinction between religious and secular social resources. This assumes that social resources found in religious organizations are no different from those found in secular communities. However, if social resources offered by religious organizations possess qualities that secular social networks do not provide, measures of general social resources employed by these studies would not demonstrate religious social networks’ influence. In fact, some studies do suggest that religious social resources have distinctive qualities."

• "Subjective well-being, the key outcome variable of this study, refers to ‘‘global feelings of well-being about life’’ as perceived by individuals themselves (Campbell et al. 1976).5 This is usually measured with selfrating questions on life satisfaction and happiness. In general, ‘‘happiness’’ tends to tap a short-term, transient assessment of mood, whereas ‘‘life satisfaction’’ reflects more stable evaluations of personal well-being. While it is important to recognize the multidimensional nature of subjective well-being, some studies find that the two measures yield broadly consistent results in multivariate analysis (e.g., Helliwell and Putnam 2004). In this study, we focus on life satisfaction, which is measured as a single self-rating question."

• "Consistent with earlier studies’ findings, religious service attendance is positively related to life satisfaction. More important, once attendance is taken into account, the difference between those with and without religious affiliation is statistically insignificant for all religious traditions. Frequency of religious service attendance appears to account for most of the differences in life satisfaction between those with and without religious affiliations.13 For life satisfaction, what matters is how involved one is with a religious community, not whether that community is Baptist, Catholic, or Mormon."

• "People who frequently attend religious services are more satisfied with their lives not because they have more friends overall (when compared with individuals who do not attend services), but because they have more friends in their congregations. Our analysis also suggests that people who belong to a congregation but have no friends there are even less satisfied than individuals who do not attend religious services or who have no congregation.15 In short, ‘‘sitting alone in the pew’’ does not enhance one’s life satisfaction. Only when one forms social networks in a congregation does religious service attendance lead to a higher level of life satisfaction."

• "We measure religious identity as a dichotomy: whether or not religion is ‘‘very important’’ to a person’s sense of self.16 Model 6 shows that people with a strong religious identity tend to have a higher level of life satisfaction even when attendance and congregational friendship are controlled. Model 7 adds an interaction term to examine whether the effect of congregational friendship on life satisfaction varies according to the strength of religious identity. As expected, the interaction term is positive and statistically significant, indicating that religious friendship has a larger effect among individuals who consider religion very important to their sense of self."

• "The figure suggests that congregational friendships have little effect on individuals who do not consider religion very important to their sense of self. By contrast, among individuals with strong religious identities, friendships in a congregation have a dramatic effect on life satisfaction. The figure also shows that strong religious identity makes little difference on life satisfaction unless it is supported by a group of close friends in one’s congregation. ... In short, only when people have both a strong sense of religious identity and within-congregation networks does religion lead to greater life satisfaction."

• "The propositions examined here—social identity and religious homogeneity of social networks—are only two of many possible explanations for the findings on congregational social networks. Nevertheless, they shed some light on the relationship between social networks and life satisfaction. In particular, our findings suggest that a strong sense of religious identity may be the key factor setting congregational friendship apart from other social networks. The findings also suggest that effects of a strong religious identity on life satisfaction are reinforced by a closeknit friendship network in a congregation."

• "Table 3 offers weak and inconsistent evidence that any of the private or subjective aspects of religion have a significant effect on life satisfaction independent of congregational friendship and religious identity."

There is much more (and the study, while filled with academic/professional jargon, is worth reading), but I only want to comment briefly on this paragraph:

Another interesting finding is that private religious practices, such as prayer and holding religious services at home, are not significantly related to life satisfaction. It is revealing that the collective experience of religion in a congregation is more closely linked to life satisfaction than are private practices and individual experiences of religion. Equally interesting is that among several variables that assess the salience of religion in a respondent’s life, the variable concerning importance to self-identity has a significant effect on life satisfaction and interacts with congregational friendship. Combined with the findings on congregational friendship and private religious practices, this suggests that religious belonging, rather than religious meaning, is central to the religion–life satisfaction nexus.

This, to me, sounds like one of those "either/or" propositions that intends to clarify but quite likely obscures more than it sheds light. I understand the desire on the part of the researchers to make distinctions (and I'm hardly a distinctionphobe), but in the real life of a real Catholic, for example, "religious belonging" and "religious meaning" aren't so easily distinguished. You might as well try to distinguish between, say, "marital belonging" and "marital meaning".

Put in theological terms, it goes something like this: we are made for communion with God, but we are brought into communion with God through his household, the Church, which is the Body of Christ. We find meaning, then, in finding where we belong; or, put another way, when we know where we belong (in communion with the Church, and thus with other members of the body of Christ), we also know—however intuitively, intellectually, experiencially, or consciously—that we have found, touched, and experienced meaning, which comes from Christ and is gifted to us through his Mystical Body, most especially in liturgy and the sacraments. This is, I suggest, why those Christians who practice their faith privately (reading the Bible and praying at home, etc.) while shunning public worship do not exhibit the same level of "religion-life satisfication nexus".

We are meant for belonging because we were created by, for, and with meaning. In the end, this is very much a matter of ecclesiology. It is hardly coincidence that the birth of the Church came when the first Christians were together praying and worshipping: "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place" (Acts 2:1). Paul told the Christians at Corinth, "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together" (1 Cor. 12:26). The intimate relationship between belonging and meaning is captured very well in the opening paragraph of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life. (CCC, par. 1; see this post for my line by line reflection on this paragraph)

The desire to belong is God-given; it reflects the famous cry of Augustine in his Confessions: "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you." The meaning comes from God's creative gift ("You have made us..."); the belonging comes from our desire to commune with our Creator ("...our heart is restless..."). This hardly means that most or many people have a grasp on the theology. Far from it. There is, we know, plenty of work to be done when it comes to catechizing and teaching. But it's not as though a sense of belonging is a bad thing; far from it. We should have a sense of belonging when we are at Mass. Yet there is always a need to balance experience with fact; or, better, to let doctrine, devotion, and practice guide us when it comes to a better knowledge and understanding of what it means to "belong".

Comments

[Dan]

The reported results of the study do not correspond to my personal experience. I reverted to the Church some years ago but my friends are, in the main, not Catholic. Yet I have found much joy in the Catholic faith.

[Fernando Umberto Garcia de Nicaragua, Prefectus Minimus: The Jacksonian Institute]

The "study" is straight from hell.

[Ismael]

This study makes sense, but does not really support atheism as the 'Brights' (=new atheists) think it does.

Sure people go to church and the find a sense of belonging there. Sure they hang with their church buddies and have fun... but people who go to church often have other groups they belong to: work, sport organization (eg soccer team, the gym), buddies with who they go out on saturday nights to get a drink.

After all I now almost nobody who hangs out only with church-buddies, nor that they need to go to church to feel a sense of beloging to a particular group.

My point is: what the article says is true, but being religious is far more than 'going to church'.

Also I go to church mainly for the Eucharist, not the chit-chat after the service...

Religion includes social behaviour... but focuses on communion with God.

[Brad]

This is nothing but another lame demonic trick, publicized by his minions throughout the new world order globe.

"Hey fool...I mean man...I so loathe the Trinity and especially the dread Lion of Judah that I will convince you that He's not here in the church and that you, fool, are here for no reason other than to feel comfy and social among your fellow worms. Don't look up! You might see your Savior there and ponder Him. Keep looking around you, horizontally, at your fellow worms. Talk about yourselves. Stay caught up in yourselves...even here, before that altar thing. It's actually not an altar, though. It's just a table. Your imaginations! Wow, you sound so superstitious, geez! Don't embarrass yourselves like you are cavemen or something throwing rocks at the moon. You're humanists now, doncha know?!"

[Howard]

No kidding. Religion does not make people wealthy or healthy, either. If you want to have fun on a Sunday, go to a ball game, not to Mass. BUT, if you want to have real joy that does not depart even when you're sick and broke and your heart is broken, even when all the superficial friends you thought you had have abandoned you -- if you want to have the joy that Job had even on the dunghill -- there's only one place to get that.