Social ¦ Emotion Lab
Lebanon Valley College
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN RELIGIOUS STRAIN AND SOCIAL REJECTION
INFLUENCE THE PREFERENCE FOR RELIGIOUS-AFFIRMING INFORMATION
Mariela A. Horna, MaryKatherine E. Mitchell, Ashley E. Collins, Tanisha M. Rine,
Anh N. Tran, Ian I. Miller, Mary A. Kent, & Michael B. Kitchens
Recent research1 found that participants who recalled an incident when they were socially rejected reported
being more committed to their religious practices than those who recalled an incident when they were socially
accepted. Reminders of death have a similar effect. They also cause people to increase their commitment to
religious beliefs2. Social rejection may have a similar outcome because it acts as a metaphor for death, and
thus, is an existential threat3.
This typical outcome, in which people shift towards religion in the face of existential threats, may depend on
individual differences associated with religious beliefs. That is, in the face of existential threats, some people
may follow the typical pattern of investing in religion (e.g., by seeking information that supports religious
beliefs), but others may shift away from religion when facing an existential crisis (e.g., by seeking information
that challenges religion). These different reactions may depend on the comfort people find in religion (e.g.,
whether they feel loved and forgiven by God) or the strain they find in religion (e.g., whether they have
difficulty trusting God and fear His punishment). To be sure, previous research4 showed that terminally ill
patients’ experience of religious comfort was negatively related to concerns about death; whereas, terminally
ill patients’ experience of religious strain was positively related to concerns about death. Thus, we speculated
that the degree to which one prefers to affirm their religious beliefs in response to an existential threat may
depend on these individual differences associated with religious experience.
To examine this, participants (N = 31) completed individual difference measures of religious comfort and
religious strain5. Then, participants were randomly assigned to either an ostracism or control condition.
Specifically, participants worked with two experimental confederates in a tower-building task. Confederates
engaged in small-talk and worked with participants on the tower in the control condition, but they ignored and
inhibited participants from contributing to the tower-building in the ostracism condition. Following the
manipulation, participants completed self-esteem and mood measures, as well as manipulation check
questions. Finally, participants were presented with two fake scientific-looking abstracts. Participants rated
each of these abstracts on several dimensions (e.g., how interested they were in the article and how much
1
Ayden, N., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Turning to God in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on
religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 742-753.
2
Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1997). Subliminal exposure to death-related stimuli increases
defense of the cultural worldview. Psychological Science, 8, 379-385.
3
Case, T. I., & Williams, K. D. (2004). Ostracism: A metaphor for death. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.),
Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 336-351). New York: Guilford Press.
4
Edmondson, D., Park, C. L., Chaudoir, S. R., & Wortmann, J. H. (2008). Death without God: Religious struggle, death
concerns, and depression in the terminally ill. Psychological Science, 19, 754-758.
5
Exline, J. J., Yali, A. M., & Sanderson, W. C. (2000). Guilt, discord, and alienation: The role of religious strain in depression
and suicidality. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 1481-1496.
Social ¦ Emotion Lab
Lebanon Valley College
they wanted to read the article). Participants were led to believe they were to read the full article of their
choosing in the final experimental task. One abstract indicated that religious beliefs caused happiness,
meaning, and prosperity (religion-supporting); whereas, the other abstract indicated that religious beliefs
cause prejudice (religion-threatening).
To see if the ostracism manipulation worked, participants indicated how cooperative they perceived the
confederates were in the tower-building task. Ostracized participants perceived the confederates as
significantly less cooperative during the tower-building task than in the control condition, t(29) = 10.65, p <
.001 (see Table 1).
To further examine the effect of the ostracism manipulation, participants completed self-esteem and mood
measures. Participants who were ostracized reported lower levels of self-esteem than control participants,
t(29) = 2.15, p = .04, and ostracized participants were in a more negative mood than control participants, ts =
2.64-3.65, ps < .01 (see Table 1). Participants also reported their perceived levels of meaning and purpose, but
there was no significant difference in perceptions of meaning and purpose between the participants in the
ostracism and control conditions, ts < 1, ns (see Table 1).
___________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Manipulation Checks
Ostracism
Manipulation Check
Cooperative
M
SD
M
SD
1.87
1.60
6.56
0.73
b
6.21
2.02
7.74
1.95
Happy
3.73
1.58
5.56
1.46
Positive
3.27
1.34
5.31
1.74
Pleasant
3.73
1.53
5.31
1.78
a
High Self-Esteem
Mood
Control
c
“I believe my life is meaningful”
d
6.53
1.06
6.31
0.87
“I feel that my life has purpose”
d
6.53
0.83
6.38
0.89
_____________
a
Rated on a scale from 1 (Very Little Cooperation) to 7 (Very Cooperative).
Rated on a scale from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
c
Each rated on three separate scales from 1 (Unhappy/Negative/Unpleasant) to 7 (Happy/Positive/Pleasant).
d
Measured using a list of positive traits (e.g., “Proud,” “Competent,” and “Confidient”) that participants rated the extent
to which they felt this way right now on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 11 (Extremely).
b
To examine the primary purpose of this study, a preference for religion-supporting information index was
computed by subtracting the religion-threatening abstract ratings from the religion-supporting abstract
Social ¦ Emotion Lab
Lebanon Valley College
ratings, such that greater numbers indicated a greater preference for the religion-supporting abstract.
Separate 2 Belongingness (control vs. ostracism) × 2 Religious Experience (high vs. low religious comfort and
religious strain) ANOVAs were conducted on the preference for religion-supporting index.
The analysis with religious comfort revealed no main effect of Belongingness, F(1, 27) = 1.88, p = .182, but a
main effect of Religious Comfort, F(1, 27) = 7.15, p = .013, showing that participants high in religious comfort
(M = 1.27, SD = 2.46) showed a greater preference for religious-affirming information over the religiousthreatening information than participants low in religious comfort (M = -0.73, SD = 2.20). There was no
interaction, F < 1, ns.
The analysis with religious strain revealed no main effect of Belongingness or Religious Strain, Fs < 1, ns.
However, there was a significant interaction, F(1, 27) = 5.85, p = .023 (see Figure 1). Participants high in
religious strain showed a lower preference for religious-supporting information when they were ostracized
than in the control group, but participants low in religious strain showed a greater preference for religioussupporting information when they were ostracized than in the control group.
Figure 1. The mean preference for religious affirming information over religious threatening information as a
function of Belongingness (control vs. ostracized) and Religious Strain
Bias for Positive-Christian Abstract
2
High Rel. Strain
Low Rel. Strain
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
Control
-1.5
Ostracized
Condition
In short, people comforted by religion showed a preference for religion-supporting information, regardless of
whether they were ostracized or not. However, high and low religious strain participants’ preference for
religion-supporting information depended on whether they were socially accepted or rejected. Participants
high in religious strain shifted away from religion-supporting information when faced with an existential
threat, but people low in religious strain shift towards religion-supporting information when faced with the
same existential threat.
Social ¦ Emotion Lab
Lebanon Valley College
This work adds to previous work on self-reported shifts towards religion in response to memories of social
rejection. In this study, a laboratory manipulation of ostracism had no overall effect on a preference for
religion-supporting information. Instead, these data show that low religious strain people respond to threats
by seeking religion, but high religious strain people respond to threat by moving away from religion. Thus,
when people seek religion depends on both person and situation variables. In short, this work suggests
possible mechanisms that explain different religious-related responses to existential threats.
Correspondence concerning this work should be addressed to Michael Kitchens, Ph.D. at [email protected] or
717-867-6197. ● Copies of this poster and handout can be found at http://personal-pages.lvc.edu/kitchens/
on the “scholarship” page.