To make children happier, we may need to encourage them to develop a strong sense of 'personal worth', according to Dr. Mark Holder, Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, Visiting Assistant Professor Dr. Ben Coleman and graduate student Judi Wallace. Their research says that children who feel that their lives have meaning and value and who develop deep, quality relationships – what they term measures of spirituality – are happier.
But according to their paper in the Journal of Happiness Studies, actual religious practices have little effect on that happiness.
Both spirituality, what they call an inner belief system that a person relies on for strength and comfort, and religiousness, what they term institutional religious rituals, practices and beliefs, have been linked to increased happiness in adults and adolescents. Fewer studies have been done on younger children.
In an effort to identify strategies to increase children's happiness, Holder and colleagues set out to better understand the nature of the relationship between spirituality, religiousness and happiness in children aged 8 to 12 years. A total of 320 children, from four public schools and two faith-based schools, completed six different questionnaires to rate their happiness, their spirituality, their religiousness and their temperament. Parents were also asked to rate their child's happiness and temperament.
The authors found that those children who rated themselves according to their spiritual definition were happier. In particular, the personal (i.e. meaning and value in one's own life) and communal (i.e. quality and depth of inter-personal relationships) aspects were strong predictors of children's happiness. They determined that 'spirituality' explained up to 27 percent of the differences in happiness levels amongst children.
A child's temperament was also an important predictor of happiness. In particular, happier children were more sociable and less shy. The relationship between spirituality and happiness remained strong, even when the authors took temperament into account. However, religious practices – including attending church, praying and meditating – had little effect on a child's happiness.
According to the authors, "enhancing personal meaning may be a key factor in the relation between spirituality and happiness." They suggest that strategies aimed at increasing personal meaning in children - such as expressing kindness towards others and recording these acts of kindness, as well as acts of altruism and volunteering – may help to make children happier.
Article: Holder MD, Coleman B,&Wallace J (2008). Spirituality, religiousness, and happiness in children aged 8-12 years. Journal of Happiness Studies DOI 10.1007/s10902-008-9126-1
Comments
Paul Maurice Martin (not verified) | 01/10/09 | 18:19 PM
- Reply to This »
- Link
Hank Campbell | 01/10/09 | 19:45 PM
In this regard, "belief" doesn't need to be formalized as it is in religion, but rather it comes about as a personal interpretation of how we fit into the world and how we cope. Most beliefs wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, yet they are still important because they provide an emotional coping mechanism that "facts" and "logic" can't. The problem with a formalized belief system is precisely that it isn't personal.
In addition, a belief system provides us a behaviorial framework that we can use when there simply may not be enough time to assess data before action is required.
To me, this article was simply indicating that it was more important that people take ownership of their own personal beliefs, rather than relying on something that is externally provided. Anecdotally, that has been my experience, where people think that they can apply religion (like the ten commandments) as some sort of "rule book" where if one follows them then everything is going to work out. A well thought out personal belief system can help one cope when things don't work out.
Gerhard Adam | 01/11/09 | 15:09 PM
I do not see that any claims are being made at all with regard to good mental health in children; this study is about improving their happiness (which you may infer might contribute to good mental health, but that is not implicit here in the article).
Just Davy (not verified) | 01/11/09 | 11:29 AM
http://baseball91.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/things-that-move-us/
Mr. B (not verified) | 01/11/09 | 12:48 PM
PerryV (not verified) | 01/19/09 | 19:17 PM
Just Davy (not verified) | 01/24/09 | 12:05 PM
PerryV (not verified) | 01/24/09 | 19:30 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/30/09 | 01:01 AM
As for the idiot judge comment, the reason religious views are not to be pushed onto other people is because of this whole thing called freedom of choice. Just because you think there is a god and that your way is right does not mean the rest of the world has to feel that way... or even that you are actually right. Perhaps it is not that this study was a waste of money that really concerns you but that it does not support religious systems which offends you. If you do not agree with the research that is your opinion. But this study was well done and there is no denying the results.
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/30/09 | 00:52 AM
PerryV (not verified) | 01/31/09 | 18:38 PM
- Perhaps YOU should look at the results from this and previous studies before telling me I am wrong. In fact, if you DID look at the results or even read the article above you would notice that religion is NEGATIVELY correlated to happiness. Not to get this confused with spirituality which has been clearly shown to be a different construct.
You state this is the tolerance you expect from someone such as me? well this is exactly the uneducated opinion I would expect from someone like you. Someone who likes to take credible work and spew their bull about how it should be ignored. Also, the fact that you have to tell me I am a Christian Hater in order to have anything to argue back to me just proves how ignorant you really are. and I actually am not a Christian hater. Just because I recognize credible research and understand their results doesn't make me so either. In fact, it makes me well informed which is something I don't think you can say for yourself.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that you didn't mention all of the other things I commented on that were valid... such as the measures being used and the sample size. Its funny as well that someone who pretends to know as much as you makes such ridiculous statements about research that has been supported world wide. And I am not just talking about Canada where this study was done but other countries like India and the USA (to name a couple). In fact, this study alone has been viewed by MILLIONS of people and has had thousands of publications. As well, this is a PEER reviewed article. Since you obviously know NOTHING about academic research that means EXPERTS in this field of research as well as other fields from all over the world look at this article and agree the results are valid. This would include people who are in the field of religion (and just so you dont go on about how they are all religion haters, this includes people who do research supporting religion as well). I find it interesting that people who are well informed and considered experts in these fields dont agree with you that this research is not credible.
The fact that you obviously have some issue with how the political system works has NOTHING to do with this study what so ever. And again you draw attention to your ignorance with the "happiness list" since you obviously have NO CLUE what these researchers actually did in this paper. Maybe its lazy people like yourself that like to use empty arguments to support ignorant views that are the problem. I am pretty sure people who think Happiness research is
"so great" as you put it are people who understand that the measures used for happiness and the other factors in the research are again VALID and RELIABLE. Since you didn't seem to get it the first time I will tell you again. This means they have been tested and validated in numerous settings. They are credible tests.
Once again I think you need to educated yourself about this research before you decide to share your opinion. At this point you are only making your self look bad.
I sincerely hope your future responses are more informed and don't point to you being so ignorant. Using big words doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. You can fight me all you want but I can already tell (as well as everyone else reading this I am sure) that I know more about this study and the research behind it than you do. You can always point to the fact that you think I am a Christian hater because that works so well in your favor. I think it's a very strong argument..... or perhaps you could just admit you have no idea what you are talking about and stop putting down credible research.
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/02/09 | 00:44 AM
PerryV (not verified) | 02/03/09 | 19:38 PM
Also, you are misinformed on what peer reviewed is. The author doesn't take his or her work and send it to a group of people within their field. The article is sent to a third party who then sends it to other people in the fields that are relevant to the study. As I said before, this includes people who would question the results not just people who benefit from them. By doing this people who actually have an education and understand how credible research should be conducted can look at the methods and agree or disagree with them.
And if you have read four other studies which have all said pretty much the same thing wouldn't you start to think there is maybe some truth behind it? Or you do you still insist that this research is just merely christian bashing and not based on any credible premises? I believe your support for this view is that the methods are primitive. Again, if you were educated in the field of research or in research in general you would understand that these measures are not primitive but are well formed and valid and reliable. Part of the issue with the polls that you are talking about are that the questions are leading. This is one of the issues the leg work done prior to this study has dealt with. I will however agree that this sample is homogeneous and that there are issues because of this. I don't think this means the research doesn't have credibility. I do think this is something that needs to be addressed and has been. Not only it is mentioned as a limitation in the paper, but it is also being addressed currently in India. In fact this exact study is being conducted in India to see how results compare.
You say that my age and inexperience show by my comments but I really feel it is you that looks uninformed. I believe I have supported my views quite well with fact and not my personal beliefs. You are the one who has been complaining about this research's credibility based on empty arguments. I would say your ignorance is showing.
As for past posts, unless they were within this article I can guarantee it wasn't me since I have not responded to any other posts before this one. However, it would not surprise me that other people who find you as pretentious and ignorant as I do and feel compelled to tell you so. I also don't really care what you think about me, but it really irritates me when people discredit research when they are not justified in doing so.
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/04/09 | 03:46 AM
PerryV (not verified) | 02/04/09 | 08:59 AM
Oh and for the record, this was not done in a "rural" area in Canada. Again you need to look into the facts before you just make sweeping statements.
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/04/09 | 22:11 PM
PerryV (not verified) | 02/05/09 | 09:00 AM
I think you know that this doesn't have anything to do with "following the 10 commandments", but rather whether it is the place of government to advance any particular religion's beliefs.
In truth, some of the 10 commandments are intuitive (not killing, stealing, etc.), so it isn't exactly a major revelation when one considers the content. However, aside from the obvious one's about killing, stealing, and "bearing false witness" (i.e. perjury), why does everyone think that the rest of the commandments are other than religious guidelines? While some might be good advice, they're hardly helpful coming from the government (or most of the religious leaders for that matter).
The first three commandments relating to how God is to be treated, while the last two relate to attitudes towards your neighbor's property. That's half of them.
One relates to treating one's parents well, which leaves three that are well known crimes in our society and one moral commandment about committing adultery. So out of 10 commandments, we have four(4) that explicitly relate to social behavior.
So despite the claims that the problems in society are due to such legislative matters as denying the ten commandments, in truth they say little about our behavior that we don't all already know ad nauseum.
Gerhard Adam | 01/19/09 | 20:57 PM
PerryV (not verified) | 01/25/09 | 18:26 PM
Regarding my looking at the 10 commandments, you might be surprised at what I'm quite familiar with. In addition, the commandment against "killing" was always taught in that fashion, and it was only after the issue of translation surfaced that it became to be accepted to reference murder rather than killing in general (since that would be an absurd position). BTW, that's still what KJV Exodus 20:13 says, so I suppose we're acknowledging that the printed word is incorrect?
Gerhard Adam | 01/26/09 | 01:55 AM
Being "familiar" with the commandments doesn't mean much, I am familiar with any number of things but it doesn't mean that I can speak authoritatively about it. You can understand that for sure as we are both here in this forum... from the beginning the intent of the command has always noted not "to do murder" so while what you smugly see as an error would be a translation choice made in 1611 when the "Kings English" was a lot different than it is today. Can you not appreciate that the Bible has "evolved" over the years Gerhard??...surely you can ;-)
PerryV (not verified) | 01/31/09 | 18:15 PM
Freedom no matter which flavor of religion they had, and whether they had land or not, was the bedrock of the nation, not the religion itself. The constitution forbids a national,endorsed church, including Christianity, an unlikely move if it were the 'bedrock' of the country.
This notion of a common Christianity in America is in the last 50 years - ask your relatives what their parents would have thought if they were Lutheran and chose to marry a Presbyterian, much less a Catholic. That's why no national church could be allowed, or a national religion, including Christianity.
Imagine what people here would say if Bush got to approve the Bishop of Minnesota, like he would in places where there is a national church, i.e., England.
Hank Campbell | 01/31/09 | 18:42 PM
PerryV (not verified) | 01/31/09 | 19:14 PM
PerryV (not verified) | 02/04/09 | 09:01 AM
The problem is that the majority of people in this Country are
Christians but have the "least" say in how the Country is operated for
the good of the people...
I hate to break it to you, dude, but Christians hardly have the least say in how the country is run. The incoming Congress has 2 Muslims, 2 Buddhists, and 45 Jews, out of 534 total - the rest are Protestant or Catholic. In fact, Christians are overrepresented in Congress: 54.7% of Congress is Protestant, as opposed to 51.3% of America; 30.1% are Catholic as opposed to 23.9% of American citizens. Those in this country who actually have the least say are the unaffiliated citizens - the 16.1% of Americans unaffiliated with any church is represented by exactly zero members of Congress. So if you'd like to talk about a group of people who've been "lambasted/scorned/disregarded," why don't we talk about atheists?
If there's one thing Christians are not, it's underrepresented.
---
Congressional Religion Data by Pew
Chris Rollins | 02/02/09 | 03:15 AM
PerryV (not verified) | 02/03/09 | 20:22 PM
Interesting position to take. If the Bible is "evolving", then it is "changing". Therefore it is not the infallabile word of god since it can clearly adapt as circumtances change. So I take it that you are in complete agreement that people that take the Bible literally are viewing it incorrectly?
Gerhard Adam | 02/01/09 | 14:13 PM
Perry, you can't simply make things up as you go. The "King's English" never mistranslated killing for murdering. If you allow for changes in language usage, then you must also allow for the possibility that they simply got it wrong.
However, despite these "errors" nobody seems to feel compelled to correct these translational problems, so therefore they must be generally agreed upon. After all, we are no longer compelled to use the "King's English".
I also find it curious that you don't think familiarity with the commandments means much, since you earlier indicated that it was precisely such passing familiarity that would have such a profound effect on the behavior of individuals in a society. .... are you perhaps thinking that besides posting the 10 commandments, the government should also be responsible for "teaching" them?
You also neglected to address my point that the 10 commandments doesn't tell us anything except the obvious, so what deeper knowledge should I possess about them?
Gerhard Adam | 02/01/09 | 14:33 PM
In regard to "killing" versus "murder"
I'm with Perry V. on this one. I have an analytical concordance which relates "King James" English words to their Hebrew / Greek originals. It shows that the word in the commandment is a not-much-used Hebrew verb "ratsach", which mainly appears in the later commands about cities of refuge, to which the "manslayer" may flee.
Robert H Olley | 02/02/09 | 03:00 AM
I'm not rejecting the definition. My only point is that if the Bible is incorrect, then why does the modern KJV still use the word "kill"? Even a Wikipedia search of the 10 commandments, shows up "You shall not kill".
Given that so much of the religious element in these debates is based on the idea of taking the Bible literally, then it seems presumptious to have the bible say something (mistranslated or not) and then suddenly start back-pedaling when it is called into question.
The other question that remains is why it isn't corrected if it is an error
Gerhard Adam | 02/02/09 | 12:10 PM
PerryV (not verified) | 02/03/09 | 20:08 PM
Perry, I will concede that it isn't my intent to quibble over details, and that you are catching the brunt of this argument in lieu of those that demand "literal" interpretation of the bible.
As I've told you before, I don't have a problem with personal beliefs and I happen to think that they are critical for an individual's psychological well-being (regardless of where they originate from).
I'm also not saying that the 10 commandments are worthless, only that they are so fundamentally obvious that I seriously doubt that they would alter the flavor of society regardless of how many times and places they were displayed. That they aren't exactly revelatory was my point.
I think we can both agree that improvements in society are going to come from parents and other adults that take the time to teach and mentor, and not from some poster sized display of a set of "rules". My problem with the issue of the 10 commandments is that too many people view them as a sort of checklist where they can assess how "good" they are as people.
Even though your perspective can sometimes be infuriating, I don't have a quarrel with you Perry
Gerhard Adam | 02/03/09 | 20:20 PM
Macon (not verified) | 01/22/09 | 17:57 PM
