Editorial: Mental health and religion

"G-d is dead...and we have killed him" (Nietzsche, 1911).

Is G-d really dead? Do we live, as sociologists of religion have argued, in a secular age? Recent statistics (Social attitudes survey, 1991) suggest that few people claim to be atheists or agnostics; 72% claimed to believe in some sort of supernatural power, though weekly church attendance was only 14%. Recent work by Hay (1979, 1982) suggests that religious experience is common. Sociologists (Bruce, 1995) argue that the form of religion has changed in the UK. There has been a shift from church, to denomination, to cult. Religion now is the prerogative of the individual. Heelas (1985) argues there has been a shift to a celebration of the self as exemplified by new age "religions" such as the human potential movement. 

Religion has for long time been the staple diet of sociologists, anthropologists and philosophers. Following the legacy of Freud (1927), psychologists and psychiatrists have largely neglected this important area of human experience. Several reasons can be postulated for this fact: the non-empirical nature of religion, and its tendency to induce negative psychological states such as guilt, rate highly as explanations. The past few years however have witnessed an outpouring of articles in the psychological and psychiatric literature relating to religion and mental health: see for example figure 1.

Figure 1

The study of the relation between religion and mental health has a long history. As far back as the second century AD, Cicero discussed whether in fact the gods existed, and if they did, the effects of religious belief and practice on mankind. The views in this area have been very divergent. For instance, Jung (1933, 1958) argued that religious growth and healthy psychological development are synonymous. By contrast, Ellis (1975) argues that those who are religious are necessarily mentally unhealthy.

A major problem in this area is how religion can be operationalised. What in fact do we mean by religion, and how is it to be measured? Glock & Stark (1965) have argued for a multi-dimensional view of religion involving intellectual, ritual, experiential, belief and the use of religion in everyday life.  Recent authors (Speck **) have argued that we need to distinguish between spirituality and religiosity. The former refers to an experience of contact with a higher power, whereas the latter also includes the outward framework for religious experience. The two are not synonymous.

Empirical work by psychologists and others has been dominated by two major themes. The first was initiated by Gordon Allport who made a bold thrust at the paradox that "religion makes and unmakes prejudice" by proposing two orientations to religion, intrinsic and extrinsic (Allport, 1966; Allport & Ross, 1967). Intrinsic religiosity implies taking the teachings of religion seriously, while extrinsic religiosity involves a "selfish and instrumental" use of religion (Hunt & King, 1971). A large body of research systematically reviewed by Batson, Schoenrade & Ventis (1993) suggested a positive relationship between intrinsic religiosity and a number of measures of mental health, while extrinsic religiosity related to poor mental health. This research tradition suffers from problems of methodology and interpretation (Batson, 1976), but continues to generate promising ideas. For instance Talbo & Shepperd's (1986) suggested that self-righteousness went along with lower intrinsic and higher extrinsic religiosity, hinting at how psychodynamic and social-psychological processes are implicated. 

The second major theme has been the stress-buffering role of religion in coping with stress. A huge literature has indicated that generally, measures of religious activity go along with measures of positive mental health (Bergin, 1983; Loewenthal, 1995; Dein, 1996; Worthington, Kurusu, McCullough & Sandage, 1996) Several studies have suggested that religion buffers the effects of stress, leading to lowered distress compared with those low on religious resources (McIntosh, Silver & Wortman, 1993). Likely religious resources include social support (Shams & Jackson, 1993), and various cognitions which can be used to combat the distressing ruminations fuelled by stress (Loewenthal & MacLeod, under review). Pargament (Pargament, Kennell, Hathaway et al, 1988) has distinguished different styles of religious coping and investigated their varying efficacy.

A major critique of most of the religion and mental health research is that it has been carried out in predominantly Judaeo-Christian (Western) settings. There has been little work done looking at Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam and their relation to mental health, although there are a number of useful reviews, largely speculative and non-empirical, dealing with the prescriptive teachings of these traditions in relation to mental health (Bhugra, 1996).

The original title conceived for this journal was Mental Health and Religion. We later came to the view that the title Mental Health, Religion and Culture is more appropriate for the concerns to be addressed - many academics and professionals will see culture and religion as so intertwined that it is impossible to consider one without the other. We appreciate that views on the relations between religion and culture will vary: religions are culturally-carried, but religion involves special, sacred activities and beliefs, felt to be capable of resonating to and with the most profound emotions. This point is forcefully illuminated at the time of writing, by the massive British and international response to the death and funeral of Princess Diana.

One area which unifies anthropologists, sociologists, psychiatrists and psychologists is the study of new religious movements and their psychological sequelae. As we approach the impending millennium we see a flourishing of new religious/apocalyptic movements. What are the mental health consequences for those involved? Although the findings are controversial, several studies suggest that  cult conversions may be followed by improvement in employment status, drop in measures of distress and reported measures of drug-taking (Richardson, 1985). It appears that the process of disengagement may have more profound psychological consequences than the process of joining a cult (Lewis & Bromley, 1987). Another area which has been under-researched is the psychological impact of failed prophecy (Dein, 1997).

What are our guesses about areas of future development for work in mental health and religion?

In spite of major interest in the "fact" that religion tends to go along with better mental health, we lack anything but very slight descriptive material on how aspects of religion affect mental health. There is a need for detailed interpretive studies looking at the psychological effects of being religious, and its meanings for individuals. How are forms of social support organised in religious groups? How can social support affect mental health? What forms of religious therapy and coping are available, and how do their different components affect mental health? What, for instance, is religious faith? Does it improve mental health? If so, how? How do different religious groups construct their notions of normal and abnormal religiosity? Where is the dividing line between the saint and the lunatic - is it only in the eye of the beholder? When does the wayward, neurotic princess become canonised? We see enormous scope for good observational and descriptive work, as well as for major developments in measurement, quantification and theory.

Much scientific work on religion has been confused by the personal views and feelings of investigators. Conclusions may have been drawn on the basis of inadequate information and observation, and without apparent awareness of these inadequacies. One area which has been badly affected is the study of "socialisation": means used by group members to instil in members' awareness of group structure, beliefs and norms. We know little about this area in different religious groups (Capps, 1992) particularly with regard to child care and upbringing. There is major contemporary interest in child abuse, and a massive prescriptive literature on child rearing, forming two important sources of resources for approaching the study of child rearing and adult socialisation in religious groups. As with the study of religious coping and therapy, we see great scope for qualitative, quantitative and theoretical work. 

Data for this figure were extracted from the BIDS (Bath Information Data Services) Social Sciences Database, 1997. The following search terms were used:

Group 1: Religio* (religion, religions, religious, religiosity)

Group 2: Mental health, or mental ill*, or depress*, or anxi*, or schiz*.