See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232940540

Investigating the impact of religiosity on emotional and behavioral coping in

prison

Article  in  Journal of Crime and Justice · January 2006

DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2006.9721649

CITATIONS READS
20 528

3 authors, including:

Kent R. Kerley
University of Texas at Arlington
43 PUBLICATIONS   958 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue on Religion and Crime View project

Prison Research in Mississippi View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kent R. Kerley on 29 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Crime and Justice Volume 29 Number 2 71

INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF

RELIGIOSITY ON EMOTIONAL AND
BEHAVIORAL COPING IN PRISON *

Kent R. Kerley
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Marisa C. Allison
Mississippi State University

Rachelle D. Graham
Mississippi State University

ABSTRACT

Given the significant rise in incarceration rates over the past thirty years
and the uniquely stressful context of prison life, many investigators have
explored the degree to which individuals are able to cope with
incarceration. One factor that has not been explored fully for its potential
impact on inmate coping is religion. Using data from a representative

*
Grant support for this study was provided by the Louisville Institute,
Mississippi State University’s James W. Criss Fund, and the Stuart Irby Jr.
Foundation. The authors thank the editor, three anonymous reviewers, Troy
Blanchard, Todd Matthews, and Heith Copes for comments on a previous
version of the manuscript. Please direct correspondence to: Kent R. Kerley,
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Justice Sciences,
1201 University Blvd., Suite 210, Birmingham, AL 35294-4562,
krkerley@uab.edu.
72 Journal of Crime & Justice

survey of inmates at a large prison facility in the Southeastern region of the

United States (N=386), we explore the degree to which religiosity impacts
both emotional and behavioral forms of prison coping. We find that
religiosity does not appear to help inmates cope with a range of negative
emotions, but does directly reduce the frequency of arguments with other
inmates. We conclude with implications of the study and suggestions for
future research.

INTRODUCTION

The criminal justice system in the United States has experienced

unprecedented growth over the past three decades. At the end of 2003,
there were 2,212,475 individuals under some form of correctional
supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). The incarceration rate is
now 482 per 100,000 U.S. residents. The criminal justice system is the
fastest-growing area of spending in almost every state, as it rivals and, in
some cases, exceeds spending for education and health care (Austin and
Irwin, 2001). Despite the vast investment of resources devoted to crime
control, the “payoff” has been quite modest. From a strictly utilitarian
viewpoint, the extensive use of imprisonment has produced only minor
impacts on the goals of dramatically reducing crime, victimization, and
recidivism rates. According to a recent report by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (2002), nearly 68 percent of inmates in the United States who
were released in 1994 were rearrested within three years.
There is widespread consensus among academic researchers and
former inmates that prisons are bleak and dehumanizing places. Many
investigators have gone to great lengths to describe the isolation,
deprivation, inconsistent rules and regulations, and conflicts that are central
to prison life (Hassine, 1999; Irwin, 1970; Johnson and Toch, 1982; Sykes,
1958). According to Clear, Hardyman, Stout, Lucken, and Dammer (2000),
the most painful feature of prison life is the loss of individual freedom.
They contend that “whatever else the prison does, it makes the inmate stay
in a place he would not choose” (Clear et al., 2000, p. 62).
Given the significant rise in incarceration rates over the past thirty
years and the dehumanizing context of prison life, it follows that many
investigators have explored the degree to which individuals are able to cope
with the stressful life event of being incarcerated. One factor that has not
been explored fully for its potential impact on inmate coping is religion.
Using data from a representative survey of inmates at a large prison facility
in the Southeastern region of the United States (N=386), we explore the
 Journal of Crime & Justice 73

degree to which religiosity impacts both emotional and behavioral forms of

prison coping.

PRISON COPING
Research on prison coping can be grouped into three categories.
First, early research on prison coping focused on identifying the specific
stressors that inmates encounter (Johnson and Toch, 1982; Sykes, 1958).
Second, others studied prison coping as it relates to inmate classification
and the creation of successful treatment programs (Wooldredge, 1999;
Wright, 1993). Third, and germane to the present study, researchers have
sought to elucidate variations in coping ability and to understand the
resources that inmates use to cope with confinement.
The research indicates that a combination of individual and
institutional factors impact the ability of inmates to cope with incarceration.
At the individual level, age, educational attainment, criminal history,
sentence length, and psychopathology are all strong predictors of prison
adjustment and coping (Gendreau, Goggin, and Law, 1997; Islam-Zwart
and Vik, 2004; MacKenzie, 1987; MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985;
Sappington, 1996; Warren, Hurt, Loper, and Chauhan, 2004). Institutional
variables linked to prison coping include inmate control of the prison
environment, time served, crowding, and limited resources (Gendreau et al.,
1997; MacKenzie, Goodstein, and Blouin, 1987; MacKenzie, Robinson, and
Campbell, 1989; Sappington, 1996).
In terms of outcome measures, researchers who study prison
coping typically use both emotional and behavioral measures of coping.
The frequency of experiencing negative affective states such as depression
and anxiety are commonly used to measure emotional coping (Fogel, 1993;
MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985; MacKenzie et al., 1987; Porporino and
Zamble, 1984; Warren et al., 2004; Wooldredge, 1999). Self-reported and
institutional records of inmate conflicts are commonly used to measure
behavioral forms of prison coping (Clear et al., 1992; MacKenzie, 1987;
MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985; Porporino and Zamble, 1984; Warren et
al., 2004).

RELIGION AND PRISON COPING

One factor seldom explored for its potential to impact inmate
coping is religion. The use of religious faith as a tool for inmate adjustment
and treatment is certainly not a new phenomenon. Federal and state prisons
have employed chaplains since the inception of the prison system (Sundt,
74 Journal of Crime & Justice

Dammer, and Cullen, 2002), and national prison ministry organizations

such as Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries and Bill Glass’
Champions for Life have held evangelical events in U.S. prisons since the
1970s. In the current socio-cultural and political context, however, there
appears to be renewed interest in the potential for faith-based programs to
address a range of social problems for both incarcerated and free individuals
(Clear et al., 2000). The InnerChange Freedom Initiative, a faith-based pre-
release program launched by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(Johnson 2003), as well as the opening of the Lawtey Correctional
Institution in Florida, which is the nation’s first “faith-based prison”
(Farrington 2003), are but two examples.
Academic research on religiosity, faith-based prison programs, and
prison coping is still in its infancy, with only a handful of studies conducted
(Clear and Sumter, 2002; Clear, Stout, Dammer, Kelly, Hardyman, and
Shapiro, 1992; Johnson, 1987, 2004; Johnson, Larson, and Pitts, 1997). In
most cases, the focus of these studies is the relationship between religiosity
and recidivism (Johnson, 2004). Johnson (1987) found that inmate
religiosity, chaplains’ assessment of inmate religiosity, and inmate religious
service attendance did not affect the number of prison infractions
committed or the amount of time spent in disciplinary confinement among a
group of inmates released from a Florida prison between 1978 and 1982.
Clear et al. (1992) investigated whether inmate religiosity affected prison
adjustment and prison infractions. Using a non-random sample of inmates
in twenty different facilities, Clear et al. (1992) and Clear and Sumter
(2002) found that inmate religiosity significantly increased inmates’ ability
to cope with incarceration and significantly decreased their incidence of
prison infractions.
Using data from a non-random sample of 201 inmates involved in
a variety of Prison Fellowship (PF) programs in one of four male prisons in
New York, Johnson, Larson, and Pitts (1997) and Johnson (2004) found no
overall difference between participants and non-participants for measures of
institutional adjustment and recidivism after release. However, they found
that the inmates most actively involved in PF Bible studies had fewer
adjustment problems and a decreased risk of post-release arrest compared to
the control group and compared to inmates who were only moderately
involved in PF Bible studies. Based on in-depth interviews with female
inmates, Severance (2004) found that some female inmates report using
faith as means for coping with the loss of family contact and preparation for
release. Overall, this small body of research has shown inconsistent effects
of religiosity and faith-based prison programs on inmate adjustment and
coping.
 Journal of Crime & Justice 75

RELIGION AND COPING WITH STRESSFUL LIFE

EVENTS
Despite the lack of research focusing on religion and prison
coping, there is an impressive body of literature suggesting that religion is
beneficial for individuals in the “free world” as they cope with a variety of
stressful life events. In his book, The Psychology of Religion and Coping,
Pargament (1997) finds that religion can serve as a positive coping
mechanism for individuals dealing with a range of adverse situations such
as: divorce, unemployment, depression, illness, loss of loved ones, and war
service.
Investigators have found that religiosity and religious participation
are significantly related to: 1) greater problem-solving and stress
management skills (Ellison et al., 2001; Pargament, Kennell, Hathaway,
Grevengoed, Newman, and Jones, 1988; Phillips, Pargament, Lynn, and
Crossley, 2004; Schnittker, 2001), 2) enhanced psychological and physical
well-being (Ellison, 1991; Ellison, Boardman, Williams, and Jackson, 2001;
Harrison, Keonig, Hays, Eme-Akwari, and Pargament, 2001; Krause and
Ellison, 2003; Nooney and Woodrum, 2002; Pargament, 2002), 3) greater
reliance on religion as a coping method (Krause, Ellison, Shaw, Marcum,
and Boardman, 2001; Pargament, 2002), 4) comfort for difficult life
situations such as serious medical illnesses or death (Ellison, 1991; Ellison
and Levin, 1998; Pargament, 2002; Pargament, Smith, Keonig, and Perez,
1998), 5) coping with national tragedies and military service (Pargament,
1997; Pargament et al., 1998), and 6) coping with divorce or romantic
breakups (Ellison et al., 2001; Pargament et al., 1998).
The important empirical question addressed in the present study is
whether religiosity and religious participation can help individuals cope
with the uniquely stressful life event of being incarcerated. To that end, our
study has four unique attributes. First, it expands the study of prison coping
to investigate faith as a potential coping mechanism. Second, it shifts the
study of religiosity and faith-based prison programs away from recidivism
and toward a better understanding of how faith may impact prison coping
and adjustment. Third, it includes both emotional and behavioral measures
of prison coping. Fourth, it uses a representative dataset drawn from a
sample of inmates at a large, Southeastern prison facility.

DATA AND METHODS

Data for this study are derived from a survey of inmates at a large
state-level penitentiary in the Southeastern region of the United States. This
76 Journal of Crime & Justice

all-male facility is the largest of its state’s three state-managed prisons and
is one of the largest prisons in the nation both in terms of acreage and
inmate population. The sample was drawn in June of 2002 following
receipt of a current inmate list from the state department of corrections. At
the time the sample was drawn, there were approximately 5,100 inmates at
the facility. Inmates who were in “lockdown,” under age 18, or in the
facility’s hospital were eliminated from the sampling frame. This left an
inmate population of 4,313 from which the sample was drawn. To achieve
a sampling error of no greater than 5 percent, 875 inmates were randomly
selected to receive the survey questionnaire.
Survey packets were delivered to all randomly selected study
participants on the same date in June of 2002. The inmates received the
survey packet addressed specifically to them during their regular mail
pickup times. Each packet contained a cover letter, informed consent form,
survey questionnaire, and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope. A
total of 386 valid questionnaires were returned to the principal investigator,
which constituted an overall response rate of 45 percent. This response rate
is within the range of acceptability for a survey of a high-risk or “captive”
population (Babbie, 2007). Moreover, to our knowledge, this is the first
study of religiosity and faith-based prison programs utilizing a random
sample survey of inmates at a large prison facility. Previous studies of
religiosity and faith-based prison programs employed convenience samples
(see for example Clear et al., 1992; Johnson, 2004).
We note that the original sample frame, which was provided by the
institution, included basic demographic and criminal history information
about each inmate. The study facility houses a disproportionately high
percentage of serious offenders compared to other facilities, and thus
offenders in the sample are more likely to have committed serious offenses
than a sample of inmates from other “average” facilities. With this issue in
mind, after survey administration was completed, we tested for statistical
differences between respondents and non-respondents in terms of
demographic characteristics, type of crime, and sentence length, and found
no significant differences between the two groups. Additionally, the
demographics of the sample are consistent with the demographics of the
institution. This provides additional evidence that the sample was
representative, and as Babbie (2007, p. 261) notes, “a demonstrated lack of
response bias is far more important than a high response rate.”
The survey questionnaire contained a broad range of items
pertaining to inmates’ family and religious background, criminal history,
experience of negative emotions, use of coping mechanisms, involvement in
faith-based prison programs, and negative interactions with other inmates.
 Journal of Crime & Justice 77

Dependent Variables
We utilize two dependent variables to measure inmate coping. The
first dependent variable is inmates’ experience of negative emotions.
Negative emotions or affective states are commonly used measures for
assessing the degree to which inmates are able to cope emotionally with
incarceration (Fogel, 1993; MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985; MacKenzie et
al., 1987; Porporino and Zamble, 1984; Warren et al., 2004; Wooldredge,
1999). Consistent with the religious coping scale (RCOPE) developed by
Pargament, Koenig, and Perez (2000), we asked inmates to report how
often, on average, they experienced six different negative emotions. This
allows us to capture both the range of different emotions experienced, as
well as how often they were experienced (see also Pargament, 1997).
The emotions included in the survey were: sadness, worry, anger,
stress, depression, and bitterness. These six measures can be classified as
“trait-based” emotions, rather than as “situational-based” emotions
(Mazerolle, Piquero, and Capowich, 2003). The original response
categories were: never or almost never, 3-4 times per year, once per month,
once per week, 3-4 times per week, and daily. We converted each category
to the number of days per year that the emotion was experienced, centering
to the category midpoint when necessary. This practice simply makes the
measure a better approximation of a numeric variable and makes it more
appropriate for OLS regression (see for example Kerley, Benson, Lee, and
Cullen, 2004). For example, if an inmate responded that he experienced
sadness 3-4 times per week, the value would be 182 days per year. We then
conducted factor analysis to determine whether a common factor emerged
among the six measures. We used a principal components solution with
varimax rotation and list-wise deletion for missing values. Means and
factor loadings for each emotion are presented in Table 1. As seen in this
table, all six variables strongly loaded on one factor (p < .01, Alpha = .85).
We then used the SPSS procedure to save the values of the common factor
as a new variable to be used in our ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression
models presented in Table 3.1
78 Journal of Crime & Justice

Table 1.
Factor Analysis for Experience of Negative Emotions among Inmates
Mean Factor Loading

Sadness 181.74 .695

Worry 203.19 .731
Anger 135.66 .737
Stress 202.47 .786
Depression 143.13 .829
Bitterness 115.32 .730

% variance explained 56.66

Eigenvalue 3.40
Chronbach’s Alpha .85

The second dependent variable is arguing with other inmates.

Conflicts with other inmates are commonly used measures of prison coping
(Clear et al., 1992; MacKenzie, 1987; MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985;
Porporino and Zamble, 1984; Warren et al., 2004). Our questionnaire asked
inmates to report how often, on average, they engaged in “arguments with
other inmates that involved yelling and screaming.” The response
categories were never or almost never, about 3-4 times per year, about once
per month, about once per week, about 3-4 times per week, and daily. This
ordinal-level measure was transformed into a dichotomous measure to allow
for the use of logistic regression. The distribution suggested that we code
arguing as one or more times per month = 1 and less than once per month =
0. This binary indicator of arguing is used as the dependent variable in the
analysis presented in Table 4. This measure reflects the frequency of minor
to moderate incivilities in the prison context. Arguing is also an important
measure of adjustment because, not surprisingly, it typically is a robust
predictor of fighting in prison (see Hochstetler, Murphy, and Simons, 2004;
Kimmett, O’Donnell, and Martin, 2003).

Independent Variables
The independent variables for this study are grouped into three
categories: religiosity, criminal history, and demographic control variables.2
First, there are five measures designed to tap both the cognitive and
behavioral dimensions of religiosity. Investigators have argued routinely
 Journal of Crime & Justice 79

that multiple indicators capturing a range of cognitive and behavioral

elements of religiosity should be included in all studies (Johnson et al.,
2001; Pargament et al., 1997). The first three measures are designed to
capture the cognitive dimension. The first measure asked inmates whether
they had ever undergone a conversion or “born again” experience (1=Yes,
0=No). A conversion experience or other religious epiphany is a standard
measure used in studies of religiosity (see for example Pargament, 1997;
Zinnbauer and Pargament, 1998), and is an item in the General Social
Survey (GSS). The purpose of the measure is to assess whether a time of
religious epiphany has occurred during the person’s lifetime.
The second measure asked inmates whether they “believe in the
existence of a higher power or spirit such as God or Allah” (1=Yes, 0=No).
This measure is designed to tap whether inmates believe in a supernatural
spirit and indicates some degree of religious intensity. It should be noted
that the term “God” used in this question refers to the Jehovah of Christian
religions, the Allah of Islam, as well as to the deities of other major world
religions. This measure is used in the GSS and by several researchers to
assess a basic level of religious belief (see for example Murray, Malcarne,
and Goggin, 2003). It is similar to the measure of belief in “eternal life”
used by other investigators (Ellison et al., 2001).
The third measure asked for inmates’ level of agreement with this
statement: “Right and wrong should be based on God’s laws.” The original
response categories were Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. We collapsed the first two and
latter three categories to create a dichotomous measure (Strongly agree or
agree=1, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree=0).
This measure reflect an even greater level of religious intensity compared to
the previous measure of belief in a higher power. While belief in a higher
power taps a basic level of religious belief, this measure reflects a greater
intensity. Beyond simply believing in the existence of a higher power such
as God or Allah, this measure asked respondents whether they think that
religion should structure societal norms.
The final two measures of religiosity are designed to capture its
behavioral dimension. The fourth measure asked inmates to report how
often, on average, they attend religious services in prison (Once per week or
more=1, Less than once per week =0). Religious services could include
formal meetings and scripture studies in the prison chapel or individual
units, as well as informal scripture studies and prayer groups in the
individual units. This measure is a standard one used by the majority of
scholars who study religious attendance (see for example Barkan and
Greenwood, 2003; Ellison, 1991; Ellison et al., 2001; Johnson et al., 2000,
2001; Levin and Chatters, 1998; Ploch and Hastings, 1995) and is also
80 Journal of Crime & Justice

included in the GSS. Although it is possible that some individuals may

attend services out of ritual (as with attendance at any event), the point of
the measure is to tap demonstrative religious activity.
The final measure was attendance at a national prison ministry
event called Operation Starting Line (1=Yes, 0=No). Operation Starting
Line is a faith-based prison program developed by Prison Fellowship
Ministries. The program, which included Christian musicians, comedians,
professional athletes, and other speakers, came to the study facility
approximately six months before the survey was distributed. Although not
as strong an indicator of religious intensity as the previous one, this measure
does reflect inmates’ desire to attend faith-based events.
Second, four measures of criminal history are included. Based on
previous research findings, it is important that we include measures of
respondents’ history of contact with the criminal justice system to predict
prison coping (Gendreau et al., 1997; Islam-Zwart and Vik, 2004;
MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985; Warren et al., 2004; Wooldredge, 1999).
The first two measures asked inmates how many times they had been
arrested and how many times they had been in prison. These measures
originally had five response categories but were transformed into
dichotomous variables because of their distributions and for purposes of the
logistic regression models. Number of arrests was coded as 3 or more
arrests = 1 and less than 3 arrests = 0. Number of times in prison was coded
as 2 or more prison stints = 1 and less than 2 prison stints = 0. The third
measure of criminal history was the numeric length of respondents’ current
prison sentence. Fourth, we included respondents’ current prison security
classification. The categories were maximum security, medium security,
and minimum security. We combined the first two categories to create a
dichotomous measure (Maximum or medium=1, minimum=0).
Third, we include three important demographic measures that
serve also as control variables. The first measure is respondents’ age at the
time of the survey. As noted above, age is typically a significant predictor
of prison coping. The second measure is respondents’ race. This measure
originally had six different categories. However, given the extremely small
number of individuals who did not identify themselves as Black or White,
we created a simple binary indicator of race (Black=1, White=0). The bulk
of recent research on race and prison coping has not found a significant
relationship. Third, we include a measure of respondents’ educational
attainment. This measure originally contained six categories, but was
transformed into a dichotomous measure based on its skewed distribution.
We coded educational attainment as high school/GED or higher = 1 and less
than high school = 0. Recent research does indicate a significant
relationship between education attainment and prison coping.
 Journal of Crime & Justice 81

Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics for Variables in Multivariate Models
Dependent Variables Percent or Mean
Experience of Negative Emotions (in days per year)
Sadness 181.74
Worry 203.19
Anger 135.66
Stress 202.47
Depression 143.13
Bitterness 115.32
Arguing with Other Inmates
1 or more times per month 54.70
Less than once per month 45.30
Independent Variables
Religious conversion
Yes 31.5
No 68.5
Belief in a higher power
Yes 93.7
No 6.3
Right and wrong should be based on God’s laws
Strongly agree or agree 77.0
Neither, disagree, or strongly disagree 23.0
Attendance at religious services
Once per week or more 38.5
Less than once per week 61.5
Attendance at Operation Starting Line
Yes 69.4
No 30.6
Number of arrests
3 or more arrests 66.9
Less than 3 arrests 33.1
Number of times in prison
2 or more times 37.9
1 time 62.1
Length of sentence (in years) 27.7
Security classification
Medium or maximum 57.6
Minimum 42.4
Age (in years) 36.16
Race
Black 66.9
White 33.1
Education
High school or better 58.4
Less than high school 41.6
82 Journal of Crime & Justice

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table

2. Concerning our two dependent variables, we observe first that inmates
experience the six negative emotions quite frequently, with inmates
experiencing each for at least one-third of a calendar year. Worry and stress
are the emotions experienced most often, in this case about 203 days per
year. For the measure of arguing, nearly 55 percent of inmates in our
sample report getting into arguments with fellow inmates one or more times
per month.
For the measures of religiosity, we find that about one-third of
inmates report a conversion experience during their lives, approximately 94
percent believe in a higher power, and 77 percent believe that right and
wrong should be based on God’s laws. Nearly 39 percent of inmates attend
prison religious services once per week or more, and 69.4 percent attended
the Operation Starting Line event.
Next we observe that inmates at the study facility had a significant
record of contact with the criminal justice system. Most started their
criminal careers early in life and had extensive arrest histories.
Approximately two-thirds of the inmates had been arrested three or more
times, and about 38 percent had been in prison two or more times. The
average length of the current sentence for respondents is nearly 28 years.
About 58 percent were classified as either medium or maximum security
risks. These criminal history figures are higher than average for state
facilities but are the norm for the facility used in this study (see Footnote 1).
In terms of demographic characteristics, respondents have an
average age of just over 36, about two-thirds are Black, and only about 58
percent have a high school degree or more.
In Table 3, we present results from our OLS regression models on
the experience of negative emotions. Recall that the dependent variable in
this analysis is a factor that incorporates six different negative emotions that
inmates may experience as they cope with incarceration. We find that the
five measures of religiosity do not significantly reduce the experience of
negative emotions. All signs are in the predicted direction, but no
significant relationships are observed. For the measures of criminal history,
the only significant variable is current security classification. Specifically,
we find that inmates housed in medium or maximum security units
experience negative emotions at significantly higher levels than inmates in
minimum security units. In terms of demographic factors, we find that age
and race are both strong predictors of experiencing negative emotions.
Older inmates and Black inmates appear to experience negative emotions
 Journal of Crime & Justice 83

significantly less often than younger and White inmates. Thus, when we
measure prison coping in terms of the experience of negative emotions, we
find that religion and religious participation do not appear to have inhibiting
effects.
In Table 4, we present a multivariate logistic regression model for
the likelihood of inmate arguing. We report the findings from this analysis
as odds ratios of engaging in arguments one or more times per month.3 For
the five measures of religiosity, we find that four of them significantly
reduce the odds of frequent arguments. Concerning the cognitive
dimension of religiosity, inmates believing in a higher power are 73 percent
less likely to engage in one or more arguments per month than inmates not
believing in a higher power. Those strongly agreeing or agreeing with the
statement that “right and wrong should be based on God’s laws” are 47.3
percent less likely to argue once or more per month than those in the
reference category. Our odds ratios for the behavioral dimension of
religiosity yield similar results. Inmates attending multiple religious
services per week and the Operation Starting Line event are only about half
as likely to engage in one or more arguments per month than those in the
reference categories. Religious conversion is the only measure of
religiosity that does not significantly decrease the frequency of inmate
arguments.4
For the measures of criminal history, we find that inmates who
have served two or more terms in prison are nearly three times as likely to
engage in arguments than those with fewer times incarcerated.
Additionally, inmates classified as medium or maximum security prisoners
are twice as likely to be involved in one or more arguments per month than
those in minimum security. These findings indicate that higher security
inmates with two or more prison stints are at the greatest risk for verbal
conflicts.
For the demographic factors, we note that older inmates are
significantly less likely than younger inmates to participate in frequent
arguments. Our findings indicate that a one-year increase in age is
associated with a 5.8 percent decrease in the odds of arguing. This finding
may suggest that older inmates are either more respected in the prison
community or better equipped to negotiate the difficulties of prison life
(MacKenzie, 1987; Porporino and Zamble, 1984). We find no significant
race or education differences in the odds of regular arguing.
84 Journal of Crime & Justice

Table 3.
OLS Regression Analysis for Experience of Negative Emotions
B SE

Religiosity
Religious conversion (1=Yes, 0=No) -.070 .136
Belief in a higher power
(1=Yes, 0=No) -.015 .242
Right and wrong should be based on
God’s laws
Strongly agree or agree -.105 .149
Neither, disagree, or strongly disagree ref ref
Attendance at religious services
More than once per week -.041 .131
Once per week or less ref ref
Attendance at Operation Starting Line
(1=Yes, 0=No) -.028 .129
Criminal History
Number of arrests
3 or more arrests .054 .138
Less than 3 arrests ref ref
Number of times in prison
2 or more times .058 .136
1 time ref ref
Length of sentence (in years) .001 .002
Security classification
Medium or maximum .376*** .126
Minimum ref ref
Demographics
Age (in years) -.016** .006
Race
Black -.289** .130
White ref ref
Education
High school or better -.018 .126
Less than high school ref ref

R square .091
F= 2.07, Model sig. at p < .05
*sig. at p < .10, ** sig. at p < .05, *** sig. at p < .01
 Journal of Crime & Justice 85

Table 4.
Logistic Regression Analysis for Arguing One or More Times Per
Month with Other Inmates
Odds
B Ratio
Religiosity
Religious conversion (1=Yes, 0=No) -.413 .662
Belief in a higher power
(1=Yes, 0=No) -1.309 .270**
Right and wrong should be based on
God’s laws
Strongly agree or agree -.641 .527*
Neither, disagree, or strongly disagree ref ref
Attendance at religious services
More than once per week -.602 .548**
Once per week or less ref ref
Attendance at Operation Starting Line
(1=Yes, 0=No) -.780 .459***
Criminal History
Number of arrests
3 or more arrests .481 1.618
Less than 3 arrests ref ref
Number of times in prison
2 or more times 1.011 2.748***
1 time ref ref
Length of sentence (in years) .002 1.002
Security classification
Medium or maximum .688 1.990**
Minimum ref ref
Demographics
Age (in years) -.060 .942***
Race
Black -.040 .961
White ref ref
Education
High school or better -.012 .988
Less than high school ref ref
-2 log likelihood 329.108
Nagelkerke R-square .229
*sig. at p < .10, ** sig. at p < .05, *** sig. at p < .01
86 Journal of Crime & Justice

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our study highlights an interesting, albeit nuanced,
relationship between religion and prison coping. Three issues deserve
further discussion. First, for first-time offenders, as well as for most
chronic offenders, the prison context forces inmates to deal with a range of
negative emotions. Many inmates will develop methods for negotiating the
rules and regulations of the facility and will find ways to deal with the
isolation, loneliness, and powerlessness of the situation. However, when
inmates are not able to cope adaptively with incarceration, there exists the
possibility of interpersonal aggression ranging from arguments to the use of
lethal violence (Clear and Sumter, 2002). Maladaptive coping this could
have a range of negative repercussions for the safety of inmates and
correctional staff.
Consistent with a number of previous studies (Gendreau et al.,
1997; MacKenzie, 1987; MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985), we found that
current security classification, age, and race are the three strongest
predictors of the frequency of experiencing negative emotions. Contrary to
a large number of general public studies, we did not find religiosity to be a
coping mechanism against the experience of negative emotions for
incarcerated individuals. The salutary effects of religion on coping with
stressful life events in the “free world” did not appear to translate to coping
with the stressful life event of being “behind the walls.”
Second, the frequency of arguments that involve yelling or
screaming is an indicator of the degree to which inmates are able to cope
with incarceration. Given the linkages between arguing and fighting,
arguing is an important measure of behavioral coping that has implications
for the social control of inmate populations, as well as for the safety of
inmates and correctional personnel (Clear and Sumter, 2002; Hochstetler,
Murphy, and Simons, 2004; Kimmett, O’Donnell, and Martin, 2003).
We found strong evidence suggesting a suppressing effect of
religion on negative interpersonal relations. Four of the five measures of
religiosity directly reduced the odds that inmates would get into arguments
once or more per month. Specifically, inmates who believed in a higher
power, regularly attended religious services, and attended the Operation
Starting Line event were at least half as likely to get into arguments with
other inmates than those in the reference groups. Belief in a higher power
reduced the likelihood of inmates getting into frequent arguments by over
70 percent. Thus, even with controls for demographic factors and criminal
history, we find that religiosity, in both its cognitive and behavioral
dimensions, appears to serve as a positive coping mechanism for inmates by
directly reducing the likelihood of frequent inmate arguments.
 Journal of Crime & Justice 87

Our findings our consistent with a large body of research

suggesting that religion may reduce anti-social behaviors and promote
prosocial behaviors. Ellison (1992) finds that religiosity may be linked with
prosocial outcomes for two principal reasons. First, individuals with higher
levels of religious commitment are more likely to engage in religious role
taking such that they interact with others according to their perceptions of
what a “divine other” would expect. Religious individuals may view life
from “the vantage point of the ‘God-role,’ by attempting to understand how
a divine other would expect them to behave toward their fellows” (Ellison
1992:413). Second, religious individuals may internalize religious norms
concerning kindness, empathy, and civility. Scriptural stories such as the
Good Samaritan and scriptural precepts such as the Golden Rule provide
structure and a model for relationships with other. Our findings are
consistent also with Cullen and Sundt’s (2003) recent review essay in which
they argue that “religious values provide a foundation for making choices.”
Third, further discussion is warranted in regards to our seemingly
paradoxical finding that religion has a significant direct effect on behavioral
forms of prison coping (arguments with other inmates), but has no
significant impact on emotional forms of prison coping (experience of
negative emotions). Investigators who study religion have long observed a
disconnect between religious beliefs and religious practice. For example,
there is a disjuncture between belief in a higher power and regular
attendance at religious services (Bartkowski and Matthews, 2005;
Hadaway, Marler, and Chaves, 1993; Sherkat and Ellison, 1999). The gap
between belief and practice is evident in our study as 94 percent of
respondents reported a belief in a higher power, yet only about 39 percent
attended weekly religious services. Interestingly, our findings regarding
religion and prison coping suggest a disjuncture in the other direction such
that religion does not serve as a buffer against negative emotions, but does
lead to reductions in interpersonal conflict.
We offer three explanations for this observed finding. First, the
nature of the prison context may be a root cause for the differential effects
of religiosity on prison coping. As noted previously, prisons are
dehumanizing places that strip individuals of freedom, dignity, and identity.
We contend that prison life is emotionally debilitating to the point that
religion does not seem to significantly reduce the experience of negative
emotions. Yet religion does appear to structure interpersonal relationships
in prison positively by reducing negative interactions that could escalate to
more serious interpersonal conflict. Thus, even though religion may not be
able to significantly reduce the inward feeling of negative emotions, it does
appear to impact the quality of interpersonal relationships. If we consider
our findings from the perspective of prison administrators, it is likely that
88 Journal of Crime & Justice

they would prefer a suppressing effect on behavior and not on emotions

rather than the reverse.
Second, our findings may be related also to Agnew’s (1992)
General Strain Theory (GST). Agnew (1992) argues that crime and
deviance are the results of a linear process whereby negative relationships
create negative affect (e.g., strain, anger, depression, anxiety), which then
leads to crime if individuals are not able to use adaptive coping mechanisms
to deal with the negative affect. Recent tests of GST have shown that
several conditioning factors such as social control, social support, and
religion may be effective in reducing the impact of strain and thus reducing
the likelihood of criminal or deviant activity (see for example Piquero and
Sealock, 2000, 2004). If we apply this theory to our findings, we would
conclude that the negative context of prison and the negative relationships
found within explain the high degree of negative emotions felt by inmates.
Despite the experience of those negative emotions on a regular basis,
inmates with the highest levels of religiosity are able to use religion as a
coping mechanism and thus are less likely to engage in negative behaviors
than their less-religious counterparts.
Third, our findings may be related to the differential styles of
religious coping and problem-solving identified by Pargament and
associates (1988, 1998). Our findings are consistent with a “self-directing”
religious coping strategy in which individuals focus less on emotional
aspects of religion and more on behavioral aspects. As one subject
interviewed by Pargament et al. (1998, p. 91) explains: “God put me here
on this earth and gave me the skills and strengths to solve my own
problems.” Thus, religion may be perceived more as a tool for solving
external problems, such as learning how to interact with fellow inmates,
than for solving emotional problems related to incarceration.
Before concluding, we note three potential limitations of our
dataset and study. First, recall that our measure of inmate arguing is
derived from self-reports. Our original intent was to supplement these self-
report measures of arguing with institutional reports of inmate infractions.
However, these data were only available in aggregate form and thus could
not be matched with sample respondents. In the case of a variable such as
prison arguing, we find no empirical evidence suggesting that self-report
measures are any less reliable than institutional records. Future studies
might be conducted at correctional facilities where self-report measures of
conflict can be linked to administrative data on prison infractions.
Second, given that our sample was derived from an all-male
prison, it would seem important to conduct similar studies examining the
relationship between religiosity and coping behaviors for female inmates.
Other investigators have recently focused on this specific issue (Islam-
 Journal of Crime & Justice 89

Zwart and Vik, 2004; Severance, 2004; Warren et al., 2004) and, ideally,
future studies would be conducted in prison facilities that house both males
and females so that the relationship between religiosity and prison coping
could be assessed simultaneously by gender.
Third, the question of temporal order in the relationship between
religiosity and negative emotions could be raised. In other words, is it
possible that inmates who had the fewest emotional problems were the ones
most likely to be committed to a religious faith and to attend religious
services? Although multivariate models assume some degree of causal
ordering, we do not rule out the possibility that there may be reciprocal or
interactive effects. Scholars in the sociology of religion have acknowledged
that religiosity may have both direct and indirect effects, and that the
relationship between religiosity and outcomes such as crime, mental health,
and physical health could be recursive (Ellison and Levin, 1998; Ellison et
al. 2001). In addition, given that we are using cross-sectional data and not
testing a specific theory, our models are perhaps more relational or
associational than causal. The clear need in future studies is longitudinal
data that could allow for a determination of the causal ordering between
religiosity and negative emotions over time.
Overall, our study shows mixed results in regards to religion as a
coping mechanism for the uniquely stressful experience of incarceration. In
terms of the frequency with which inmates experience negative emotions,
we find little positive impact of religiosity and religious participation.
However, when we measure coping in terms of negative interpersonal
relationships, we find that religiosity has a strong direct effect on the
frequency of arguments. Additional research is needed to explore further
this relationship between religion and prison coping. Moreover, given the
significant relationship between religion and coping for members of the
general public, it is important for additional research to be conducted that
assesses the potential value of religion as a coping mechanism for
correctional populations.

NOTES
1
The issue could be raised that the exact length of time that inmates had
been incarcerated at the time of the survey could potentially impact their
experience of negative emotions. Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to
construct a measure of the point in their sentences that inmates had reached
at the time of survey administration. We do, however, have accurate
measures of age, length of current sentence, number of arrests, and number
90 Journal of Crime & Justice

of times in prison, and these would appear adequate for capturing any time
dimensions for the negative emotions.
2
All independent variables transformed into binary indicators because of
skewness or for use in logistic regression models were also treated as binary
for the OLS models. We also ran the OLS models presented in Table 3
with the original coding schemes for the independent variables and the
results were virtually identical. Thus, in an effort to maximize consistency
and clarity of interpretation, we used the same coding schemes for all of our
models presented in Tables 3 and 4.
3
We also ran the arguing model displayed in Table 4 with the cut point
changed to “once per week or more” and the results were virtually identical.
4
For the measure of religious attendance, we ran the models in Tables 3 and
4 with the comparison of inmates attending services “more than once per
week or more” versus all others. The results were virtually identical to
those using the standard weekly attendance measure of “once per week or
more.”
 Journal of Crime & Justice 91

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1992). “Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and

Delinquency.” Criminology 30:47-87.

Austin, J. and J. Irwin (2001). It’s About Time: America’s Imprisonment Binge. 2nd
ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Babbie, Earl. (2007). The Practice of Social Research. 11th ed. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Barkan, S. E. and S. F. Greenwood (2003). “Religious Attendance and Subjective

Well-Being Among Older Americans: Evidence from the General Social Survey.”
Review of Religious Research 45:116-129.

Bartkowski, J. P. and T. L. Matthews (2005). “Religion and Race in America.” In

Handbook on Religion and Social Institutions., H. R. Ebaugh (ed.). New York:
Plenum Press.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994.

Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Prisoners in 2003. Technical Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Clear, T.R., P.L. Hardyman, B.D. Stout, K. Lucken, and H.R. Dammer (2000). “The
Value of Religion in Prison.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 16:53-
74.

Clear, T.R., B.D. Stout, H.R. Dammer, L. Kelly, P.L. Hardyman, and C. Shapiro
(1992). “Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners Adjust to Prison?” National
Council on Crime and Delinquency Focus November:1-7.

Clear, T.R. and M.T. Sumter (2002). “Prisoners, Prison, and Religion: Religion and
Adjustment to Prison.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 35:127-159.

Cullen, F. T. and J. L. Sundt. (2003). “Reaffirming evidence-based corrections.”

Criminology and Public Policy 2:353-358.

Ellison, C.G. (1991). “Religious Involvement and Subjective Well-Being.” Journal

of Health and Social Behavior 32:80-99.
92 Journal of Crime & Justice

Ellison, C. G. (1992). “Are Religious People Nice People? Evidence from the
National Survey of Black Americans.” Social Forces 71:411-430.

Ellison, C.G. and J.S. Levin (1998). “The Religion-Health Connection: Evidence,
Theory, and Future Directions.” Health Education and Behavior 25: 700-720.

Ellison, C.G., J.D. Boardman, D.R. Williams, and J.S. Jackson (2001). “Religious
Involvement, Stress, and Mental Health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Study.”
Social Forces 80:215-249.

Farrington, B. (2003). “Florida Gets Nation’s First Faith-Based Prison.” Associated

Press December 25, 2003.

Fogel, C.I. (1993). “Hard Time: The Stressful Nature of Incarceration for Women.”
Issues in Mental Health Nursing 14:367-377.

Gendreau, P., C. Goggin, and M. Law (1997). “Predicting Prison Misconducts.”

Criminal Justice and Behavior 24:414-431.

Greeley, A. M. (1993). “Religion and Attitudes Toward the Environment.” Journal

for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:19-28.

Hadaway, C. K., P.L. Marler, and M. Chaves (1993). “What the Polls Don’t Show:
A Closer Look at U.S. Church Attendance.” American Sociological Review 58:741-
752.

Harrison, M.O., H.G. Koenig, J.C. Hays, A.G. Eme-Akwari, and K. I. Pargament
(2001). “The Epidemiology of Religious Coping: A Review of Recent Literature.”
International Review of Psychiatry 13:86-93.

Hassine, V. (1999). Life Without Parole. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Hochstetler, A., D. S. Murphy, and R. L. Simons. 2004. “Damaged Goods:

Exploring Predictors of Distress in Prison Inmates.” Crime and Delinquency 50:436-
457.

Irwin, J. (1970). The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Islam-Zwart, K.A. and P.W. Vik (2004). “Female Adjustment to Incarceration

Influenced by Sexual Assault History.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 31:521-541.

Johnson, B.R. (1987). “Religiosity and Institutional Deviance: The Impact of

Religious Variables upon Inmate Adjustment.” Criminal Justice Review 12:21-30.
 Journal of Crime & Justice 93

Johnson, B.R. (2003). “The InnerChange Freedom Initiative: A Preliminary

Evaluation of a Faith-Based Prison Program.” Technical Report. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil
Society.

Johnson, B.R. (2004). “Religious Programs and Recidivism among Former Inmates
in Prison Fellowship Programs: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study.” Justice Quarterly
21:329-354.

Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, David B. & De Li, S. (2001). Does adolescent
religious commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on
delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:22-43.

Johnson, B. R., Larson, D. B., De Li, S. & Jang, S. J. (2000). “Escaping from the
crime of inner cities: Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged
youth.” Justice Quarterly 17:377-391.

Johnson, B.R., D.B. Larson, and T.C. Pitts (1997). “Religious Programs,
Institutional Adjustment, and Recidivism among Former Inmates in Prison
Fellowship Programs.” Justice Quarterly 14:145-165.

Johnson, R. and H. Toch. (1982). The Pains of Imprisonment. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.

Kerley, K. R., M. L. Benson, M. R. Lee, & F. T. Cullen. (2004). “Race, criminal

justice contact, and adult position in the social stratification system.” Social
Problems 51:549-568.

Kimmett, E., I. O’Donnell, and C. Martin (2003). Prison Violence: The Dynamics of
Conflict, Fear and Power. Devon, UK: Millan Publishing.

Krause, N. and C.G. Ellison. (2003). “Forgiveness by God, Forgiveness of Others,

and Psychological Well-Being in Late Life.” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 42:77-93.

Krause, N., C.G. Ellison, B.A. Shaw, J.P. Marcum, and J.D. Boardman (2001).
“Church-Based Social Support and Religious Coping.” Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 40:637-656.

Levin, J. S. and L. M. Chatters. (1998). “Research on Religion and Mental Health:

A Review of Empirical Findings and Theoretical Issues.” Pp. 33-50 in Handbook of
Religion and Mental Health, edited by Harold G. Koenig. New York: Academic
Press.
94 Journal of Crime & Justice

MacKenzie, D.L. (1987). “Age and Adjustment to Prison: Interactions with

Attitudes and Anxiety.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 14:427-447.

MacKenzie, D.L. and L.I. Goodstein (1985). “Long-Term Incarceration Impacts and
Characteristics of Long-Term Offenders.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 12:395-
414.

MacKenzie, D. L., L.I. Goodstein, and D.C. Blouin (1987). “Personal Control and
Prisoner Adjustment: An Empirical Test of a Proposed Model.” Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 24:49-69.

MacKenzie, D.L., J. Robinson, and C. Campbell (1989). “Long-Term Incarceration

of Female Offenders: Prison Adjustment and Coping.” Criminal Justice and
Behavior 16:223-238.

Mazerolle, P., A. R. Piquero, and G. E. Capowich. (2003). “Examining the Links

Between Strain, Situational and Dispositional Anger, and Crime.” Youth and Society
35:131-157.

Murray, T. S., V. L. Malcarne, and K. Goggin. 2003. “Alcohol-Related God/Higher

Power Control Beliefs, Locus of Control, and Recovery Within the Alcoholics
Anonymous Paradigm.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 21:23-39.

Nooney, J. and E. Woodrum (2002). “Religious Coping and Church-Based Social

Support as Predictors of Mental Health Outcomes: Testing a Conceptual Model.”
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:359-368.

Pargament, K.I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research,
Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

Pargament, K.I. (2002). “The Bitter and the Sweet: An Evaluation of the Costs and
Benefits of Religiousness.” Psychological Inquiry 13:168-181.

Pargament, K.I., J. Kennell, W. Hathaway, N. Grevengoed, J. Newman, and W.

Jones (1988). “Religion and the Problem-Solving Process: Three Styles of Coping.”
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 27:90-104.

Pargament, K.I., H.G. Koenig, and L. Perez (2000). “The Many Methods of
Religious Coping: Initial Development and Validation of the RCOPE.” Journal of
Clinical Psychology 56:519-543.

Pargament, K.I., B.W. Smith, H.G. Koenig, and L. Perez (1998). “Patterns of
Positive and Negative Religious Coping with Major Life Stressors.” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 37:710-724.
 Journal of Crime & Justice 95

Phillips, R.E., K.I. Pargament, Q.K. Lynn, and C.D. Crossley (2004). “Self-
Directing Religious Coping: A Deistic God, Abandoning God, or no God at All?”
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43:409-418.

Piquero, N. and M. Sealock. (2000). “Generalizing General Strain Theory: An

Examination of an Offending Population.” Justice Quarterly 17:449-484.

Piquero, N. and M. Sealock. (2004). “Gender and General Strain Theory: A

Preliminary Test of Broidy and Agnew’s Gender/GST Hypotheses.” Justice
Quarterly 21:125-158.

Ploch, D. R. and C. Hastings (1995). “Some Church, Some Don’t.” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 34:507-515.

Porporino, F.J. and E. Zamble (1984). “Coping with Imprisonment.” Canadian

Journal of Criminology 26:403-422.

Sappington, A.A. (1996). “Relationships Among Prison Adjustment, Beliefs, and

Cognitive Coping Style.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology 40:54-62.

Schnittker, J. (2001). “When is Faith Enough? The Effects of Religious Involvement

on Depression.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:393-411.

Severance, T.A. (2004). “Concerns and Coping Strategies of Women Inmates

Concerning Release: ‘It’s Going to Take Somebody in My Corner.’” Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation 38:73-97.

Sherkat, D. E. and C.G. Ellison (1999). “Recent Developments and Current

Controversies in the Sociology of Religion.” Annual Review of Sociology 25:363-
394.

Sundt, J.L., H.R. Dammer, and F.T. Cullen (2002). “The Role of the Prison
Chaplain in Rehabilitation.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 35:59-86.

Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Warren, J. I., S. Hurt, A.B. Loper, and P. Chauhan (2004). “Exploring Prison
Adjustment among Female Inmates: Issues of Measurement and Prediction.”
Criminal Justice and Behavior 31:624-645.
 96 Journal of Crime & Justice

Wooldredge, J.D. (1999). “Inmate Experiences and Psychological Well-Being.”

Criminal Justice and Behavior 26:235-250.

Wright, K. (1993). “Prison environment and behavioral outcomes.” Journal of

Offender Rehabilitation 20:93-113.

Zinnbauer, B. J. and K. I. Pargament (1998). “Spiritual Conversion: A study of

Religious Change Among College Students.” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 37:161-180.

View publication stats