The Role of Religion in the Mental Health of Single Adults: A Mixed-Method Investigation

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample characteristics of the total sample at Time 1 and Time 2 and as a function of attrition rate between time 1 and time 2.

		W1-W2 Attrition Comparisons
Variable	Total sample at T1 (N = 661)	Participants who were at T1 and T2 (n = 319)	Participants who were at T1 and dropped at T2 (n = 342)	Difference
Demographic variables
Age, years				p = .307
Range	18–56	18–56	19–51
M (SD)	32.69 (6.90)	32.95 (7.06)	32.40 (6.73)
Gender, n (%)				p = .095
Female	370 (56.00%)	192 (60.20%)	160 (46.80%)
Male	285 (43.10%)	125 (39.20%)	178 (52.00%)
Other	6 (0.90%)	2 (0.60%)	4 (1.20%)
Place of residence, n (%)				p = .024
Village	66 (10.00%)	27 (8.50%)	39 (11.40%)
City <10, 000	23 (3.50%)	7 (2.20%)	16 (4.70%)
City 11,000–50,000	75 (11.30%)	28 (8.80%)	47 (13.70%)
City 51,000–100,000	48 (7.30%)	21 (6.60%)	27 (7.90%)
City 101,000–499,000	134 (20.30%)	65 (20.40%)	69 (20.20%)
City >500,000	315 (47.70%)	171 (53.60%)	144 (42.10%)
Highest education, n (%)				p = .714
Primary education	5 (0.80%)	3 (0.90%)	2 (0.60%)
Lower secondary education	1 (0.20%)	-	1 (0.30%)
Vocational education	5 (0.80%)	2 (0.60%)	3 (0.90%)
High school	128 (19.40%)	56 (17.60%)	72 (21.10%)
B.A. degree	115 (17.40%)	52 (16.30%)	63 (18.40%)
M.A. degree	370 (56.00%)	187 (58.60%)	183 (53.50%)
Ph.D. and higher	37 (5.60%)	19 (6.00%)	18 (5.30%)
Relationship status, n (%)				p = .429
Never-married	592 (89.60%)	289 (90.60%)	303 (88.60%)
Divorced	65 (9.80%)	28 (8.80%)	37 (10.80%)
Separated	2 (0.30%)	2 (0.60%)	-
Widowed	2 (0.30%)	-	2 (0.60%)
Length of singlehood (in years), M (SD)	10.15 (11.91)	10.70 (11.40)	9.63 (12.36)	p = .247
Having children, n (%)				p = .260
Yes	56 (8.50%)	23 (7.20%)	33 (9.60%)
No	605 (91.50%)	296 (92.80%)	309 (90.40%)
Religion follower, n (%)				p = .470
Yes	324 (49.00%)	161 (50.50%)	163 (47.70%)
No	337 (51.00%)	158 (49.50%)	179 (52.30%)
Religion, n (%)				p = .364
Roman Catholic	275 (41.60%)	139 (43.60%)	136 (39.80%)
Protestant	10 (1.50%)	4 (1.30%)	6 (1.80%)
Baptist	2 (0.30%)	2 (0.60%)	-
Lutheran	6 (0.90%)	2 (0.60%)	4 (1.20%)
Other	2 (0.30%)	1 (0.30%)	1 (0.30%)
Conservative Judaism	1 (0.20%)	1 (0.30%)	-
Buddhism	10 (1.50%)	3 (0.90%)	7 (2.00%)
Islam	1 (0.20%)	1 (0.30%)	-
New Age	3 (0.50%)	1 (0.30%)	2 (0.60)%
Atheism	185 (28.00%)	90 (28.20%)	95 (27.80%)
Agnosticism	146 (22.10%)	65 (20.40%)	81 (23.70%)
Other	20 (3.00%)	10 (3.10%)	10 (2.90%)
Psychological variables
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Singlehood boundary ambiguity	3.01 (1.05)	2.99 (1.05)	3.03 (1.05)	p = .582
Religious positive coping	0.65 (0.76)	0.66 (0.75)	0.64 (0.77)	p =.828
Religious negative coping	0.43 (0.52)	0.47 (0.54)	0.39 (0.49)	p = .061
Religious participation	0.70 (1.13)	0.71 (1.14)	0.68 (1.12)	p = .680
Anxiety	1.35 (1.01)	1.38 (1.00)	1.31 (1.02)	p = .348
Depression	1.34 (0.10)	1.34 (0.95)	1.34 (1.04)	p = .932
Emotional well-being	2.28 (1.29)	2.38 (1.26)	2.19 (1.31)	p = .058
Psychological well-being	2.51 (1.31)	2.53 (1.29)	2.51 (1.33)	p = .796

Figure 1. Model 1 including positive and negative religious coping at Time 1 as mediators in the links between singlehood boundary ambiguity and anxiety, depression, emotional and psychological well-being at Time 1.

Note. Only significant effects are shown in the figure.

Table 2. Fit indices for models including four latent variables in study 2.

Fit indices	Model 1	Model 2
χ2(df)	2396.37***	1206.84***
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI)	.976	.971
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)	.974	.968
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)	.045	.036
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)	.051	.055

Note. Robust values are reported.

***p < .001.

Figure 2. Model 2 with positive and negative religious coping at T1 as mediators in the link between singlehood boundary ambiguity at T1 and changes in anxiety, depression, emotional and Psychological Well-being between Time 1 and Time 2.

Note. Only significant effects are shown in the figure.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of Study 1 are not publicly available to honor the participants’ individual privacy but are partially available from the corresponding author, KA, on reasonable request.

The data that support the findings of Study 2 are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/vb6kz/?view_only=2c96e532f6ef48ff95b0872c5184814a