Are Happiness and Life Satisfaction Different Across Religious Groups? Exploring Determinants of Happiness and Life Satisfaction

Abstract

Introduction

Maximizing citizens’ happiness and life satisfaction (i.e. subjective well-being) has been the preferred indicator of social progress (Greve 2010; Stiglitz et al. 2009; Veenhoven 2008), and researchers have suggested many factors that influence subjective well-being (SWB) including religion (Inglehart et al. 2008; Tovar-Murray 2011; Fleche et al. 2011). However, to date, the association between religion and SWB has appeared in a fragmented literature beset with methodological and conceptual difficulties. For example, most studies are limited to just looking at this issue in relation to Christianity and/or only look at one country. The aim of this study is to explore whether different religions experience different levels of happiness and life satisfaction and whether this is affected by country-specific/contextual factors such as cultural and economic environment. This study looks at a large number of different religious groups and across a vast range of countries using data from the World Value Survey. In this study, SWB is presented as a function of happiness and life satisfaction (Diener and Chan 2011; Kahneman and Deaton 2010). Happiness is most closely associated with emotions, feelings or moods (Gustafsson et al. 2009), and life satisfaction is concerned with people’s cognitive evaluations and judgements about their life, which might include evaluations of their work and/or personal relationships (Brickman and Campbell 1971; Coburn 2004; Diener et al. 1999).

A positive association between religion/spirituality and people’s SWB has been reported in empirical research. Most findings would tend to suggest that a religion/spirituality is of some benefit in terms of people’s sense of personal well-being and particularly so in areas such as: expressing emotions (Kim-Prieto and Diener 2009), encouraging good virtues (gratitude, caring and charitable actions) (McCullough et al. 2002), coping with adversity (Fischer et al. 2010), and social connections (Jung 2014) (see Table 1).

Despite a large number of studies reporting a positive association between religion and SWB (see Table 1), questions have been raised about the representativeness of these findings because previous studies have been restricted to few religious groups and within-country analyses disregarding relevant contextual influences (Eichhorn 2013; Linley et al. 2009; Lobao and Hooks 2003; Lun and Bond 2013). Thus, several authors have called for: (1) a cross-national study of the link between religion and SWB and (2) inclusion into the analyses of national and social contexts (Lun and Bond 2013; Masud and Haron 2008).

Using a large number of different religious groups and across a large range of countries, this study explores whether different religions experience different levels of happiness and life satisfaction and whether this is affected by country-specific/contextual factors such as cultural and economic development. This study replicates the findings across countries using participants from a broad range of religious groups such as Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Other religious and Nonreligious groups. Moreover, this study investigates the role of variation within some religious groups such as Christian Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox because these subgroups have different traditions and may have different intensity of emotions (Kim-Prieto and Diener 2009; McCullough et al. 2002). On top of affective components (i.e. happiness), this study investigates also the cognitive component (i.e. life satisfaction) in order to get a big and better picture of SWB across religions (Boldt 2006; Brockmann et al. 2009).

The list of major religions selected in this study was drawn from Pew Forum on Religion and comprised: Christians (31.4% of the world population), Muslims (23.2%), Hindus (15.0%), Buddhists (7.1%), Jews (0.2%), Other religious groups (0.8%, e.g. ancestral worshipping) and Nonreligious (16.4%, e.g. atheist, agnostic, people answering “none” or unaffiliated) (Pew_Research_Center 2015).

It is not easy to define each religious affiliation group, and this study does not intend to do so. Nevertheless, a Christian would be described as someone who believes in the person and ministry of Jesus Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination. Amongst Christians, three big established groups were investigated: Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants. Roman Catholic members recognize the Pope in the Vatican as the leader of the church and differentiate themselves from Orthodox and Protestants. The Orthodox, also known as Eastern Orthodoxy, identifies its roots in the early Church in Christian Era, and most adherents live in Russia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The Protestants are Christians who attempt to reform the Catholic Church in the early sixteenth century. Protestants included people who described themselves as Christian Protestants, Anglicans, Evangelical, Pentecostal, and so on. Muslims are those who believe in the teachings of Mohammad as a messenger of Allah; this group includes Shia and Sunni. A Buddhist supports the subscription to the Middle Way in accordance with what is outlined by Buddha in order to eventually achieve Enlightenment or Buddhahood as the goal. For the Hindu, however, adherence to the concepts of Hinduism, for example, is required in order for the devotee to achieve the all important Moksha and release from the Samsara cycle. Jews may describe themselves as people who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel and being part of a cultural community in which Judaism is the religion. While Hindus acknowledge multiple gods, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are in someway monotheistic religions (Pew_Research_Center 2015).

Method

Analysis

Using Stata 13.1 software (Stata 2013), this study explores the variability in happiness and life satisfaction across religious groups and whether the variability is affected by country-specific/contextual factors such as cultural and economic development. Nine religious groups were investigated: Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other religions and Nonreligious. Before to run the multilevel mixed-effects regression analysis, the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there are any significant differences between the means of these religious groups.

A multilevel mixed-effects regression analysis (xtmixed Stata’s command) was used because WVS executed six different surveys from 1981 to 2014 (Snijders and Bosker 2012; Torres-Reyna 2014). The multilevel analysis methodology allows studying effects that vary by entity and estimates group level averages. This is important because the regular regression ignores the average variation between entities (Snijders and Bosker 2012). The mixed-effects analysis allows a wide variety of correlation patterns to be explicitly modelled. In this study, individuals who were affiliated to religious groups were nested by country (see Fig. 1) (Snijders and Bosker 2012).

Open in a separate window

Fig. 1

Visual representation of theoretical multilevel structure investigating the variability in happiness and life satisfaction across religions

The Models 1 and 2 were constructed for each dependent variable (i.e. happiness and life satisfaction). Correlations amongst variables were tested prior to analysis because highly correlated predictors might lead to multicollinearity and the last model of multivariate might be subject to suppressor effects or other statistical artefacts (Miller and Chapman 2001; Smith et al. 1992). There was no evidence of multicollinearity amongst the measured variables. Model 1 was the starting point where all religious groups were included without controlling for any independent variables. At this stage, the interaction between religion and geographical regions was tested. Model 2 extends Model 1 by controlling for covariates.

Variables used in this study were measured at different scales; thus, standardization procedures were applied to know which of the explanatory variables have a greater effect on happiness and life satisfaction. The thumb’s effect sizes (Cohen 1992) r ≤ .10 was used as a “small” effect size, r > .10 and ≤ .30 as a “medium” effect size, and r > .30 as a “large” effect size. The level of significance was: p < .001; p < .01; p < .05, and non-significant otherwise.

Results

This study explored the variability in happiness and life satisfaction across main religious groups: Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other religions and Nonreligious. The average happiness (on a scale of 1 to 4) was slightly higher amongst Protestants (M = 3.21, SD = 0.72), followed by Buddhist (M = 3.17, SD = 0.63), Other religions (M = 3.17, SD = 0.72), Roman Catholic (M = 3.13, SD = 0.72), Jew (M = 3.06, SD = 0.73), Hindu (M = 3.05, SD = 0.78), Muslim (M = 3.03, SD = 0.76), Nonreligious (M = 3.02, SD = 0.71) and finally, Orthodox (M = 2.72, SD = 0.76) with the lowest happiness. There was a significant effect of religion on happiness at the p < .05 level for the different religious groups [F (8, 316630) = 1299.72, p = 0.001].

A similar pattern was seen for life satisfaction. The average life satisfaction (on a scale of 1 to 10) was slightly higher amongst Roman Catholics (M = 7.12, SD = 2.31), followed by Protestant (M = 7.07, SD = 2.33), Other religions (M = 6.97, SD = 2.26), Buddhist (M = 6.88, SD = 2.00), Jew (M = 6.85, SD = 2.23), Nonreligious (M = 6.62, SD = 2.30), Hindu (M = 6.23, SD = 2.50), Muslim (M = 6.16, SD = 2.55) and finally, Orthodox (M = 5.43, SD = 2.49) with the lowest life satisfaction. There was a significant effect of religion on life satisfaction at the p < .05 level for the different religious groups [F (8, 319261) = 2059.44, p = 0.001]. Amongst all religious groups, Orthodox had the lowest SWB. The correlations, tested prior to analysis, suggest a negative association between Orthodox and both happiness and life satisfaction (r = −0.144, r = −0.155, p < 0.01, respectively) (See “Appendix 1” for correlation between happiness, life satisfaction and other variables).

Table 2 presents the results of the multilevel mixed-effects regression analysis of happiness and life satisfaction. The results related to happiness are presented on the left, and those related to life satisfaction are presented on the right of Table 2.

In terms of happiness, the multilevel analysis showed a positive association with being protestant, female, married, younger (16 to 24 years old), household’s financial satisfaction, state of health, freedom of choice, national pride, trust, importance of friends, family and leisure, weekly religious attendance and importance of God. On the other hand, being unemployed and in low-income scale groups were negatively associated with happiness.

With regard to life satisfaction, a similar trend has been observed. The multilevel analysis showed a positive association with being female, household’s financial satisfaction, state of health, freedom of choice, national pride, trust, importance of friends, family and leisure, weekly religious attendance and importance of God. On the other hand, being unemployed, in low-income scale groups and meaning of life were negatively associated with life satisfaction.

Nevertheless, according to Cohen’s rules of thumb (Cohen 1992) only three factors were above the “small” effect size (> 0.10). State of health, household’s financial satisfaction and freedom of choice showed “medium” effect sizes and were positively associated with happiness and life satisfaction.

Discussion

This study explores whether different religions experience different levels of happiness and life satisfaction and in case this is affected by country-specific/contextual factors such as economic and cultural environment.

In terms of happiness, individuals who described themselves as Protestants and Buddhists were characterized by high experiences of happiness compared to any other groups. With regard to life satisfaction, Roman Catholics, Protestants and Buddhists were more satisfied with their lives than any other groups. On the other hand, those who described themselves as Orthodox were less happy and less satisfied with their lives compared to any other group. Variability in happiness and life satisfaction across religious groups has been supported empirically, despite the fact that some religious groups have never been investigated across countries. For example, our results reported higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction amongst Protestants compared to other religious groups, as some cross-national studies have stated (Ferriss 2002; Rozer and Kraaykamp 2013). This study found differences in happiness between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Emotional well-being seems to be more prominent amongst Protestants rather than Roman Catholics. In line with previous studies, Christian Protestants seek to experience positive emotions at a high intensity compared to Christian Catholics (Ferriss 2002; Metzl 2009). Nevertheless, with regard to life satisfaction, both Protestants and Roman Catholics were equally satisfied with their lives. Our results found that Protestants were not the only people to be characterized by higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction, but these levels could be found in women, who have higher religious attendances amongst Protestants. These findings may explain why a positive association between attendance to religious services and happiness has been found in women and Protestants in South Korea but not amongst Buddhists, Catholics and other religious groups (Jung 2014).

Our results demonstrated that within the Christian faith, people who described themselves as Orthodox were characterized by lower levels of happiness and life satisfaction compared to Nonreligious and any other religious groups. An important question has been asked in the literature, can people’s religiosity make them really happier or are they happier because they belong to a happy nation or their happiness through religiosity can mainly be derived through conforming to the standard in their country (Eichhorn 2013; Linley et al. 2009; Lobao and Hooks 2003; Lun and Bond 2013)? Our results provide empirical support suggesting that religiosity and country level of development both play an important role in shaping people’s happiness and life satisfaction. For example, religious members living in developed regions such as Western Europe, North America and Australia were happier and more satisfied with their lives than those living in less developed regions such as Eastern Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Interestingly, people who describe themselves as Orthodox were less happy and less satisfied with their lives and were mainly located in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union. Nevertheless, with the same GDP per capita, people living in Latin America are happier and more satisfied with their lives than people living in Eastern Europe. Living in Latin America, a region traditionally Roman Catholic and Protestant might explain the high levels of happiness and life satisfaction compared to Eastern Europe where the collapse of communism has left a spiritual vacuum (Inglehart et al. 2008). Without a doubt, this argument is challenged with surveys of China and Vietnam, suggesting that despite the remaining presence of communist parties, those countries enjoy high economic growth and might show, in the long run, an increase in SWB than Eastern Europe (Knight and Gunatilaka 2010). While further research needs to investigate the underlying cause of low levels of happiness and life satisfaction amongst Orthodox, our study found that Orthodox living in Eastern Europe self-reported lower levels of happiness and life satisfaction compared to Orthodox living in Latin America. In line with previous studies, this may suggest that there are differences in the experience of happiness and life satisfaction across different religious groups (Kim-Prieto and Diener 2009). On the other hand, country level of development plays an important role in shaping people’s SWB (Howell and Howell 2008).

The most significant factors driving happiness and life satisfaction include state of health, household’s financial satisfaction, income ranking position, unemployment, freedom of choice, national pride, trust, importance of friends, family, leisure, being a female and weekly religious attendance (see Table 2). Nevertheless, when the Cohen’s rules of thumb (Cohen 1992; Wright 1992) was applied, most factors seem to have “small” effect size (r ≤ 0.10). Thus, the most significant factors driving happiness and life satisfaction were state of health, household’s financial satisfaction and freedom of choice.

Health status is positively associated with higher happiness and life satisfaction. In line with previous studies, good health is associated with greater well-being, while setbacks in health have negative effects on happiness and life satisfaction. For example, people who have painful chronic conditions and those who become seriously disabled have permanently lower levels of SWB compared to their counterparts who are not disabled (Headey 2010). Our multilevel analysis showed a positive association between health status and both happiness and life satisfaction even after controlling for several factors including GDP per capita, relative income, psychological factors, socio-economic and demographic factors (Miret et al. 2014; Fleche et al. 2011). Thus, improving people’s health status is one means by which governments across the globe can improve the subjective well-being (SWB) of their citizens.

This study found that the magnitude of the association between household’s financial satisfaction and SWB was medium, positive and significantly stronger amongst different religious groups. The results on household’s financial satisfaction support the “need theory” as a universal approach across religions and suggest that income not only allows individuals to purchase goods and services (Howell and Howell 2008), but it also goes hand in hand with happiness and life satisfaction (Ng and Diener 2014). Absolute and mostly relative income plays an important role in influencing happiness and life satisfaction (Boyce et al. 2010; Easterlin 1974, 2005). If GDP per capita can no longer be used as the best indicator of people’s living standard (Stiglitz et al. 2009), being in a country where basic needs (e.g. health, education and income indispensable for a decent standard of living) are provided plays an important role in shaping people’s SWB (Inglehart et al. 2008).

Emancipative values such as freedom of choice, gender equality and tolerance have been associated with life satisfaction (Inglehart et al. 2008). Everybody shall have the right to freedom of choice including freedom to have, to adopt a religion or to express feelings and emotions. Religious groups that promote good values such as freedom of choice, freedom of emotions, gratitude, and social connections may improve the SWB of their members (Fischer et al. 2010; Jung 2014; Kim-Prieto and Diener 2009).

It is important to recognize four limitations of this research. First, all variables used in this study were measured by single items. Although researchers have used the same single-item happiness (Inglehart et al. 2008; Lun and Bond 2013), it is important to replicate the current findings with better-validated multi-item scales (Fisher et al. 2016). Second, this study examined as much as possible explanatory variables including socio-cultural and demographic factors, but there might be other important factors that were not measured in this study. Third, this research reported that people from some religious groups, such as Orthodox, were less happy and less satisfied with their lives, further studies are encouraged to investigate the underlining causes. Also, further work must be done to expand the research of subgroups of certain of these religious groups such as: Sunnis and Shia Muslims, Messianic Jews.

In conclusion, by investigating the variability in happiness and life satisfaction across a large number of religious groups, this study has provided empirical support suggesting that religiosity and country level of development both play a significant role in shaping the SWB of people. Religious groups that promote good values such as freedom of choice, freedom of emotions, gratitude and social connections may improve the SWB of their members. Health status, household’s financial satisfaction and freedom of choice are means by which governments across the globe can improve the subjective well-being of their citizens.

Acknowledgements

Compliance with Ethical Standards

References