Individuals vary in their reliance on science and on religion to make sense of the world. We aimed to determine if these two approaches to making meaning differentially associated with specific domains of adaptive behaviors and well-being, and the extent to which these associations would be moderated by their conjoint (interactive) effects. Participants were 301 US adults who completed online surveys. Bivariate associations largely supported hypotheses—religious and science worldviews related to different types of adaptive behavior and well-being. However, when conjoint effects were considered, both reliance on religion and on science related to multiple behaviors spanning emotional and logical behaviors and well-being. The few interaction effects noted suggested that very high levels of either worldview were maladaptive. Findings highlight the need to consider and assess both reliance on religion and reliance on science and consider their conjoint effects when studying their potential for leading to adaptive behaviors and well-being.
BaumeisterRFLandauMJ (2018) Finding the meaning of meaning: Emerging insights on four grand questions. Review of General Psychology22(1): 1–10.
2.
BaumsteigerRSiegelJT (2019) Measuring prosociality: The development of a prosocial behavioral intentions scale. Journal of Personality Assessment101(3): 305–314.
3.
BlasbergSARogersKHPaulhusDL (2014) The Bidimensional Impression Management Index (BIMI): Measuring agentic and communal forms of impression management. Journal of Personality Assessment96(5): 523–531.
4.
ChawłowskaEStaszewskiRJóźwiakPLipiakAZawiejskaA (2022) Development and validation of a health behaviour scale. Behavioral Sciences12(10): 3781–3713.
5.
CherryKMVander HoevenEPattersonTSLumleyMN (2021) Defining and measuring “psychological flexibility”: A narrative scoping review of diverse flexibility and rigidity constructs and perspectives. Clinical Psychology Review84: 101973.
6.
ChoiNGKimJ (2011) The effect of time volunteering and charitable donations in later life on psychological wellbeing. Ageing & Society31(4): 590–610.
7.
DavidABParkCLAwaoSVegaSZuckermanMSWhiteTF, et al. (2023) Religiousness in the first year of COVID-19: A systematic review of empirical research. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology4: 100075.
8.
DavisEBMoriartyGLMauchJC (2013) God images and god concepts: Definitions, development, and dynamics. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality5(1): 51.
9.
DavoodiTLombrozoT (2022) Explaining the existential: Scientific and religious explanations play different functional roles. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General151(5): 1199–1218.
10.
DawesGW (2012) Religion, Science, and Explanation, Ars Disputandi 12: 1, 19-34.
11.
De RidderJPeelsRVan WoudenbergR (eds) (2018) Scientism: Prospects and Problems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
DewJXiaoJJ (2011) The Financial Management Behavior Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning22(1): 19–35.
13.
DiehlTHuberBGildeZúñigaHLiuJ (2021) Social media and beliefs about climate change: A cross-national analysis of news use, political ideology, and trust in science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research33(2): 197–213.
14.
DolcosFHohlKHuYDolcosS (2021) Religiosity and resilience: Cognitive reappraisal and coping self-efficacy mediate the link between religious coping and well-being. Journal of Religion & Health60: 2892–2905.
15.
EcklundEH (2021) Science and religion in (global) public life: A sociological perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Religion89(2): 672–700.
16.
EcklundEHScheitleCPPeiferJBolgerD (2017) Examining links between religion, evolution views, and climate change skepticism. Environment and Behavior49(9): 985–1006.
17.
FariasMNewheiserA-K (2019) The effects of belief in God and science on acute stress. Psychology of Consciousness6(2): 214–223.
18.
GeorgeLSParkCL (2016) Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology20(3): 205-220.
19.
HoodRWJrHillPCSpilkaB (2018) The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, 5th edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
JohnsonKABaraldiANMoonJWOkunMACohenAB (2021) Faith and science mindsets as predictors of COVID-19 concern. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology96: 104186.
21.
JohnsonKAOkunMAMoonJW (2023) The interaction of faith and science mindsets predicts perceptions of the relationship between religion and science. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology4: 100113.
22.
KellyJMKramerSRShariffAF (2024) Religiosity predicts prosociality, especially when measured by self-report: A meta-analysis of almost 60 years of research. Psychological Bulletin150(3): 284–318.
23.
KitchensMBPhillipsREIII (2021) A curvilinear relationship between clear beliefs about God and self-concept clarity. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality13(1): 26–35.
24.
KoenigHGVanderWeeleTJPeteetJR (2023) Handbook of Religion and Health, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
LegareCHEvansEMRosengrenKSHarrisPL (2012) The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development. Child Development83(3): 779–793.
LovibondPFLovibondSH (1995) The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy33(3): 335–343.
28.
LyubomirskySLepperHS (1999) A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research46: 137–155.
29.
MarkleGL (2013) Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development and validation of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Human Ecology41: 905–914.
30.
MarlerWHargittaiE (2023) “Doesn’t seem like a place to interact, or interact well”: Motivations to discuss (and not) science and religion on social media. Socius9: 23780231231157685.
31.
MartensJPRutjensBT (2022) Spirituality and religiosity contribute to ongoing COVID-19 vaccination rates: Comparing 195 regions around the world. Vaccine: X12: 100241.
32.
MartinLRPetrieKJ (2017) Understanding the dimensions of anti-vaccination attitudes: The Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) Scale. Annals of Behavioral Medicine51(5): 652–660.
33.
McCauleyRN (2011) Why religion is natural and science is not. Oxford University Press.
34.
McGrathAE (2020) Science & Religion: A New Introduction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
35.
NorbuPJenaSK (2022) Beyond rationality: A comprehensive exploration of decision-making in economics and finance. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture32: 745–781.
36.
NoySO’BrienTL (2016) A nation divided: Science, religion, and public opinion in the United States. Socius2: 1–15.
37.
O’BrienTLNoyS (2015) Traditional, modern, and post-secular perspectives on science and religion in the United States. American Sociological Review80(1): 92–115.
38.
PargamentKI (1997) Psychology of Religion and Coping. Guilford.
39.
ParkCL (2010) Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin136(2): 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301
40.
ParkCL (2013) Religion and meaning. In: PaloutzianRFParkCL (eds) Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 357–379.
41.
ParkCL (2017) Distinctions to promote an integrated perspective on meaning: Global meaning and meaning-making processes. Journal of Constructivist Psychology30(1): 14-19.
42.
ParkCL (2020) Finally, some well-deserved attention to the long-neglected dimension of religious beliefs. Religion, Brain, and Behavior10: 191–197.
43.
ParkCLFolkmanS (1997) Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology1(2): 115-144.
44.
ParkCLBurkeJDDavidAB (2024) Unique contributions of religious and science beliefs on meaning systems in a nationally representative American sample. International Journal of Psychology59(2): 312–321.
45.
ParkCLKwanJGnallKE (2025) Associations of reliance on religion and on science to make sense of the world with health-related resources and behaviors. Psychology & Health40(3): 454–473.
46.
PayirADavoodiTSianakiMJHarrisPLCorriveauK (2018) Coexisting religious and scientific beliefs among Iranian parents. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology24(2): 240–244.
47.
PeregrinoJDLegareCH (2023) Satisfying epistemic and existential needs: Representational pluralism across scientific domains. In: BélangerMPotvinPHorstisS, et al. (eds) Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Representational Pluralism in Human Cognition. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 63–80.
Research Network on Successful Midlife Development (1999) Technical report on the methodology of the MIDUS Survey. Available at: http://midmac.med.harvard.edu./tech.html
RoddJM (2024) Moving experimental psychology online: How to obtain high quality data when we can’t see our participants. Journal of Memory and Language134: 104472.
55.
RosmarinDHChowdhuryAPizzagalliDASacchetMD (2023) In God we trust: Effects of spirituality and religion on economic decision making. Personality and Individual Differences214: 112350.
56.
RutjensBTPrestonJL (2020) Science and religion: A rocky relationship shaped by shared psychological functions. In: VailKEIIIRoutledgeC (eds) The Science of Religion, Spirituality, and Existentialism. London: Academic Press, pp. 373–385.
57.
RutjensBTSuttonRMVan der LeeR (2018) Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin44(3): 384–405.
58.
SailerMStadlerMBotesEFischerFGreiffS (2022) Science knowledge and trust in medicine affect individuals’ behavior in pandemic crises. European Journal of Psychology of Education37(1): 279–292.
59.
SchumannK (2020) A force for good: When and why religion predicts prosocial behavior. Journal of Moral Theology9(1): 34–50.
60.
SimpsonJABeckesL (2010) Evolutionary perspectives on prosocial behavior. In: MikulincerMShaverPR (eds) Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 35–53.
61.
SprengRNMcKinnonMCMarRALevineB (2009) The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment91(1): 62–71.
62.
SteigerJH (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin87(2): 245–251.
63.
TadmorCTTetlockPEPengK (2009) Acculturation strategies and integrative complexity: The cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology40(1): 105–139.
64.
TaniguchiH (2006) Men’s and women’s volunteering: Gender differences in the effects of employment and family characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly35(1): 83–101.
65.
Taragin-ZellerLBerenblumTBrasilERozenblumYBaram-TsabariA (2023) Religious diversity and public health: Lessons from COVID-19. PLoS ONE18(8): e0290107.
66.
ThompsonB (1995) Stepwise regression and stepwise discriminant analysis need not apply here: A guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement55(4): 525–534.
67.
TippinsEYsseldykRPeneycadCAnismanH (2023) Believing in science: Linking religious beliefs and identity with vaccination intentions and trust in science during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Understanding of Science32(8): 1003–1020.
68.
TsangJAAl-KireRLRatchfordJL (2021) Prosociality and religion. Current Opinion in Psychology40: 67–72.
69.
VosJ (2023) The meaning sextet: A systematic literature review and further validation of a universal typology of meaning in Life. Journal of Constructivist Psychology36(2): 204–231.
70.
WesterCTScheel-HinckeLLBovilTAndersen-RanbergKAhrenfeldtLJHvidtNC (2022) Prayer frequency and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among older adults in Europe. Vaccine40(44): 6383–6390.
71.
ZulkepeliLFauziMAMohd SukiNAhmadMHWiderWRahamaddullaSR (2024) Pro-environmental behavior and the theory of planned behavior: A state of the art science mapping. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal35(6): 1415–1433.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
