1 of 25
A Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis investigating the association
between Religion, Mindfulness and Personality on Stress and Anxiety.
Delia Khaffaf
Supervised by: Hazel McMurtrie April 2017
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Religiosity, Mindfulness, and Personality in Stress & Anxiety: A Review, Study notes of Religion
An in-depth analysis of various studies investigating the relationship between religiosity, mindfulness, personality traits, and stress and anxiety. the findings of several research studies, including Pearson correlation coefficients, electroencephalographic neural activity, and meta-analyses. It also highlights the importance of both biological and environmental factors in the development of stress and anxiety. The document concludes by emphasizing the need for further research in this area to improve understanding of these complex phenomena.
What you will learn
- How does mindfulness influence stress and anxiety?
- What is the role of biological vulnerability in the development of stress and anxiety?
- What are the implications of these findings for stress research and mental health treatment?
- How does neuroticism influence stress and anxiety?
Typology: Study notes
2021/2022
1 / 25
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download Religiosity, Mindfulness, and Personality in Stress & Anxiety: A Review and more Study notes Religion in PDF only on Docsity!
A Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis investigating the association between Religion, Mindfulness and Personality on Stress and Anxiety. Delia Khaffaf Supervised by: Hazel McMurtrie April 2017
A Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis investigating the association between Religion, Mindfulness and Personality on Stress and Anxiety. ABSTRACT The psychological field of stress and anxiety has been extensively explored; nonetheless it is argued that in order to fully understand a construct, individual differences that introduce variance to the stress and health domain must be examined. Literature has investigated confounding variables and the likes of religiosity, mindfulness and personality traits have indicated associations with stress and anxiety. Consequently, using a correlational survey design, the current study investigated relationships between the predictor variables; religiosity, mindfulness and the big five personality traits on the criterion variable; stress and anxiety, using a student volunteer sample (N = 114) (Female = 78, male = 36) with an age range of 19 - 24. An 85 - item questionnaire was posted online and participants were recruited through an online participation pool and a private group on social media. Pearsons correlation coefficients indicated negative correlations between the variables of religiosity, mindfulness, agreeableness, extraversion, contentiousness and openness on the criterion variable, a positive correlation was observed for neuroticism on stress and anxiety. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that, within religion and mindfulness, only mindfulness was a strong predictor of stress and anxiety. When the big personality traits were added to the model, mindfulness became non-significant and the only strong predictor of stress and anxiety was neuroticism, suggesting an indirect relationship between mindfulness, neuroticism, stress and anxiety. These findings confirm the importance of these variables in reducing stress and anxiety and some findings were consistent was previous literature. The limitations, further implications and directions for future research are discussed. KEY WORDS: RELIGIOSITY^ MINDFULNESS^ PERSONALITY^ STRESS^ ANXIETY
potential to further the effectiveness of interventions, this study can be criticised for a severe lack of psychometrically sound measures. The use of the Batson Inventory of Religiosity, an unpublished scale with no documented psychometric properties, limits this studies comparability to other research findings (Shreve-Neiger and Edelstein, 2004). Hence results can only be established tentatively and illustrates the importance of using measures with well-reported validity and reliability estimates. Conversely, a small body of research proposes an opposing assertion that religion exacerbates rather than alleviates the detrimental effects of stress (Watters, 1992). According to this line of argument, individuals who view God as a punitive being yield more negative effects of mental health (Exline et al., 2001). Thompson and Vardman (1997) investigated six types of religious coping strategies among 150 family members of homicide victims. Interviews indicated that high religious coping activities were related to significantly more psychological distress in participants. This claim conflicts with more recent research by Inzlicht et al., (2009) who conducted an experiment which involved observing electroencephalographic neural activity in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC), which is a cortical system involved in the experience of anxiety, while 28 participants from diverse religious backgrounds completed a Stroop task. Results revealed that stronger religious beliefs were related to reduced ACC activity; hence religiosity acts as a buffer against anxiety. Investigations into religiosity and its’ influence on psychological well-being has yielded great dispute (Ano and Vasconcelles, 2005), although within recent years a more favourable conclusion has been met. However, despite advances in this psychological field, researchers are yet to fully determine which mental health outcomes are associated with religious factors (Ellison et al., 2001) as the association between religion and the debilitating construct of anxiety has received much less attention (Shreve-Neiger and Edelstein, 2004), hence stress research would benefit from further investigations into this relationship. Mindfulness Another concept which has been argued to have the potential to aid psychological well-being and stress is mindfulness (Williams, 2010; Farb et al., 2010). In the last two decades, mindfulness has received a surge of attention (Černetič, 2016; Gallego et al., 2014), it is defined as; a self-regulation of attention and a focus concerning the present characterized by acceptance (Creswell and Lindsay, 2014; Bishop et al., 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 1990). It has been conceptualized as a state experienced in mindfulness yoga and meditation (Lau et al., 2006) and as a trait, in terms of one’s predisposition to be mindful in daily life (Baer et al., 2006). Without intervention, trait mindfulness seems to be constant over time. However, research such as Vesa et al., (2016) which investigated the effects of a web-based mindfulness programme on 70 participants, illustrated that mindfulness-based interventions are advantageous in adopting changes in trait mindfulness, and are associated with low stress and anxiety levels (Britton et al., 2011; Shapiro, 2008). This conclusion has been observed in a range of literature, which has employed the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) (Brown and Ryan, 2003) and
Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction programmes (MBSR) (Vøllestad et al., 2011). Hence, this demonstrates the strength of the association displayed across a range of methods and provides further support for the claim that that mindfulness is related to improved psychological functions (Shapiro, 2008; Shahar et al 2011). Consequently, mindfulness-based interventions have become a popular method of psychotherapy (Černetič, 2016; Gallego et al., 2014) however; little is known of its efficacy (Hoffman et al., 2010). A meta-analysis by Khoury et al., (2013) attempted to address this issue by systematically reviewing a total of 209 studies utilizing 12, participants. Results revealed that mindfulness-based methods were effective in pre- post comparisons at decreasing anxiety, as effect sizes were strong and sustained throughout follow-up. Thus, there is a clear agreement from a range of laboratory- based and correlational studies, all of which imply that mindfulness is associated with improved psychological health (Keng et al., 2011). The premise behind mindfulness is that emphasizing the present can alleviate the effects of stressors, as an excessive focus concerning the past or future can be linked to anxiety (Kabat-Zinn, 2003 ). Additionally, individuals often react automatically, by avoiding or repressing unwanted experiences when faced with highly stressful situations (Keng et al., 2011), mindful individuals respond to stress more reflectively, which can prevent these avoidance strategies (Hayes et al., 2006). This allows for distancing from adverse cognitions, emotions, or negative physical sensations, favouring greater psychological flexibility (Langer et al., 2010). Farb et al., (2010) conducted fMRI scans on 36 participants enrolled in MBSR programs to demonstrate this framework, mindfulness interventions revealed marked changes in neuronal responses influencing cognitive-affective processes (Goldin and Gross, 2010), as the emotion regulation ability seemed to be enhanced (Williams, 2010). Thus enabling individuals to better manage adverse feelings associated with stressful situations. However, this study could be criticised due to its lack of comparisons against control groups, as this would have eliminated the effects of confounding variables such as group support which is unrelated to mindfulness training (Farb et al., 2010) allowing for more valid results. Nevertheless, this study highlighted underlying mechanisms to mindfulness training and contributed to the mounting evidence of support for this concept (Kang et al., 2009). However, mindfulness research is still in its infancy (Giluk, 2009), hence further research is examining mindfulness in conjunction with other novel variables is essential to fully comprehend the validity of this theoretical construct (Cronbach and Meehl, 1995). The Big Five Personality Traits Particularly within the last decade, it is believed that vulnerability to stress and the strength of the stress response is highly dependent on personality (Lecic-Tosevski et al., 2012; Ferguson, 2001). The Big Five by Costa and McCrae 1992 is currently the most established model for describing personality; it delivers a comprehensive framework for the taxonomy of personality (Vollrath, 2001; Feizi et al., 2015). It is composed of five factors: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Leandro and Castillo, 2010). Studies (Hayes and Joseph, 2003; Malkoç, 2011) have elicited that these personality traits
Methodology Design This quantitative online questionnaire-based study employed a correlational design. The seven predictor variables were: ‘Religion’, ‘Mindfulness’ and the Big Five Personality traits; ‘Agreeableness’, ‘Contentiousness’, ‘Extraversion’, ‘Neuroticism’ and ‘Openness’ (Costa and McCrae, 1992). The criterion variable was ‘Stress and Anxiety’. Participants The volunteer sample was composed of students, by reason of accessibility, whom were recruited via an online Participation Pool and a private social media group (Appendix 2). Individuals with diagnosed stress or anxiety disorders were excluded from this study to avoid negative emotions. The research supervisor granted this study ethical approval (See Appendix 1 for full ethics form). Given the increased amount of concern in relation to the statistical power of studies (wood and Percy, 2009), it was determined that Green’s (1991) formula; N > 50 + 8m (where m is the number of independent variables) would be used to identify the number of participants required for this study. This formula suggested a sample of 106 participants was the lowest possible number of participants required to detect a statistically significant outcome (Austin and Steyerberg, 2015). The final sample employed for this study was 114 students (Female = 78, Male = 36 ) aged 19 - 24. Measures Eight formerly published scales in the public domain were obtained via the ‘International Personality Item Pool’ (IPIP) and ‘American Mindfulness Research Association’ (AMRA), all of which were scored from 1 to 5 on a Likert scale from ‘Strongly agree – Strongly disagree’. The scales were compiled to form an eighty- five-item questionnaire, (See Appendix 4 ). The criterion: Stress and Anxiety The Costa and McRae (1992), revised NEO-Personality-Inventory (Neo-PI-R) was selected as this measure. It is a revised version of Costa and McCrae’s (1978) NEO Personality Inventory. High internal consistency levels were reported; the Cronbachs Alpha score for this scale was .83. The item numbers for this sub-scale is items 1-10. An example of the items stated in this section is; “I get stressed out easily.” Items 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were reversely scored. Low scores demonstrated higher levels of Stress and Anxiety. Predictor Variable 1: Religion The Peterson and Seligman (2004) Values in Action (VIA) inventory assessed ‘Religiosity’. This scale illustrated a high internal consistency level; the Cronbachs Alpha score for this scale was .91. The item numbers for this sub-scale is items 11-
- An example of the items stated in this section is; “I believe in a universal power or God.” Items 18, 19 and 20 were reversely scored. Low scores demonstrated higher levels of Religiosity. Predictor Variable 2: Mindfulness The scale chosen for the final variable ‘Mindfulness’ was the Trait Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) by Brown and Ryan (2003). Internal consistency levels are generally high with Cronbachs alpha scores ranging from .80-.90. The item numbers for this sub-scale is items 21-35. An example of the items stated in this section is; “I find myself preoccupied with the future or past.” All items were reversely scored, with low scores indicating high levels of Mindfulness. Predictor Variable 3: Agreeableness The predictor variable ‘Agreeableness’ was assessed in terms of the Costa and McRae (1992) NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). This is a shortened version of the (Neo-PI-R) scale. High internal consistency levels were demonstrated; the Cronbachs Alpha scores for this scale was .77. The item numbers for ‘Agreeableness’ in this sub-scale is items 36-45. An example of the items stated in this section is; “I accept people as they are .” Items 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 were reversely scored. Low scores demonstrated higher levels of Agreeableness. Predictor Variable 4: Contentiousness The predictor variable ‘Contentiousness’ was assessed in terms of the Costa and McRae (1992) NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). This is a shortened version of the (Neo-PI-R) scale. High internal consistency levels were demonstrated; the Cronbachs Alpha scores for this scale was .81. The item numbers for ‘Conscientiousness’ in this sub-scale is items 46-55. An example of the items stated in this section is; “I am always prepared .” Items 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 were reversely scored. Low scores indicated high levels of Contentiousness. Predictor Variable 5: Extraversion The predictor variable ‘Extraversion’ was assessed in terms of the Costa and McRae (1992) NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). This is a shortened version of the (Neo-PI-R) scale. High internal consistency levels were demonstrated; the Cronbachs Alpha scores for this scale was .86. The item numbers for ‘Extraversion’ in this sub-scale is items 56-65. An example of the items stated in this section is; “I feel comfortable around people .” Items 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 were reversely scored. Low scores indicated high levels of Extraversion. Predictor Variable 6: Neuroticism The predictor variable ‘Neuroticism’ was assessed in terms of the Costa and McRae (1992) NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). This is a shortened version of the (Neo-PI-R) scale. High internal consistency levels were demonstrated; the Cronbachs Alpha scores for this scale was .86. The item numbers for ‘Neuroticism’ in
1.57 Std. Residual Max = 2.58), and scatter plots demonstrated the assumptions of linearity and homogeneity was all satisfied (Hair et al., 2014). As all the assumptions were met the hierarchical multiple regression analysis ( R²) commenced, through a fixed order of entry the extent to which the predictor variables predicted the criterion was determined, this can be viewed at Table 2. Ethical considerations This study was conducted in accordance to the BPS ethical guidelines and received ethical approval from the research supervisor. Participants were made aware of their confidentiality, anonymity and of their right to withdraw their data from the study (Appendix 6). Participants were fully informed of the aims and purpose of the research and were not deceived during this study (Appendix 5). All participant information was stored on a password-protected laptop at the access of only the researcher, and will be deleted after the submission of this report to ensure participant safety. Upon the use of previously published scales during the construction of the questionnaire, the creators of these scales were informed of their use and were given the opportunity to receive the findings of the study (Appendix 1). Meanwhile the risk of potential harm was low, it was ensured that the questions used in these scales were kept broad and sensitive to personal issues, such as avoiding information regarding any diagnosed anxiety disorders, this may be considered a personal matter, which they may not wish to disclose. However, additional support services were still provided as in the debrief form (Appendix 7 ) as a precaution.
Results Descriptive Statistics Table 1 A Correlation Matrix between religiosity, mindfulness, the big five personality traits and Stress and Anxiety. Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Pearsons correlations were computed for each variable. Table 1 demonstrates the correlation matrix. A strong positive correlation between neuroticism and stress and anxiety, r (114) = .62, p < .001 was observed. Additionally, there was also a strong negative correlation between mindfulness and stress and anxiety, r (114) = - .46, p < .001. Furthermore, contentiousness r (114) = - .44, p < .001, agreeableness r (114) = - .31, p < .001, extraversion r (114) = - .26, p < .01, openness r (114) = - .23, p < .01, and religiosity r (114) = - .10, p = .16 were negatively correlated with stress and anxiety, however religiosity was not statically significant. To investigate the extent to which religiosity, mindfulness and the big five personality traits predicted Stress and Anxiety, a separate two-stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted. Religiosity and mindfulness were entered at stage one of the regression as the main predictors, to observe their effects on stress and anxiety and further knowledge into these relationships. Next, the big five personality traits were entered at stage two; this order seemed plausible to investigate the influence personality traits may have on these relationships. See table 2. Variable Stress and Anxiety Religiosity Mindfulness Agreeableness Contentiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness Stress and Anxiety
- .10 - .46*** - .31*** - .44*** - .26** .62*** - .23** Religiosity .01** .31** .21* .03 - .24. Mindfulness .20 .50** .18* - .59*** .35*** Agreeableness .32*** - .10 - .30. Contentiousness .10 - .50 .18* Extraversion - .52*** .26* Neuroticism -. Openness
The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one, religiosity and mindfulness contributed significantly to the regression model, ( F (2,111) = 15.06, p < .001).The relationship between variables were strong ( R = .46) and accounted for approximately 21 % ( ΔR² = 19.9%) of the variance in stress and anxiety scores. Although, mindfulness had a statistically significant impact, β = - .47, t(114) = - 5.37, p < .001, whereas religiosity did not, β = .02, t(114) = .17, p = .87. Adding stage 2 to the regression model accounted for an additional 24% ( ΔR² = 41.3%) of variation in stress and anxiety and this change in R² was significant, ( F (7,106) = 12.35, p < .001) and the relationship between these variables were strong ( R = .67). However, of the five personality traits only neuroticism was a significant predictor of stress and anxiety (Agreeableness, β = - .12, t(114) = - 1.49, p = .14; contentiousness, β = - .11, t(114) = - 1.24, p = .22; extraversion, β = .06, t(114) = .62, p = .5 4 ; neuroticism, β = .53, t(114) = 4.39, p < .001; openness, β = - .14, t(114) = - 1.67, p < .10) and neither Religiosity nor mindfulness were significant predictors of stress and anxiety (Religiosity, β = .10, t(114) = 1.34, p = .18; mindfulness, β = - .06, t(114) = - .58, p = .56). Hence, the most important predictor of stress and anxiety was neuroticism. Together the seven predictor variables accounted for 45% of the variance. These results provide insight regarding the research question as they illustrate that even before the big five personality traits are entered into the model, Religiosity is still unable to account for a significant amount of the variance in stress and anxiety. Moreover, it is also demonstrated from the change in the R² value of the model that personality traits are able to account for approximately a further 24% of variation in stress and anxiety. As shown in Table 1, one personality trait of particular interest is that of neuroticism as an indirect effect was observed between mindfulness and stress and anxiety. A significant total effect of mindfulness is shown to consist of a direct effect (as mindfulness decreases stress and anxiety increases) ( r = - .46, p < .001) and a negatively indirect effect (as mindfulness decreases neuroticism increases ( r = - .59, p < .001) and as neuroticism increases, stress and anxiety increases also ( r = .62, p < .00)). This relationship is evident in Table 2. as the effects of mindfulness become non-significant within Stage 2 of the model in which neuroticism is added. These results lead to a second hierarchical multiple regression being conducted to further observe this effect with mindfulness at stage 1 and neuroticism at stage 2, the results of which are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 A table providing a summary of the hierarchical regression analysis between mindfulness and neuroticism on stress and anxiety. Note: For step 1: R= .46 R² = .21 ΔR² = .21, p < .001; for step 2: R= .63 R² = .40 ΔR² = .39, p = .01; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. The second hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one, mindfulness contributed significantly to the regression model, ( F (2,111) = 30.36, p < .001), with a statistically significant impact β = - .46, t(113) = - 5.51, p < .001.The relationship between variables were strong ( R = .46) and accounted for approximately 21 % ( ΔR² = 21%) of the variance in stress and anxiety scores. Adding stage 2 to the regression model accounted for an additional 19% ( ΔR² = 39%) of variation in stress and anxiety and this change in R² was significant, ( F (7,106) = 36.97, p < .001) and the relationship between these variables were strong ( R = .63). While neuroticism was a significant predictor of stress and anxiety, β = .53, t(113) = 5.87, p < .001; mindfulness became non-significant, β = - .11, t(113) = - 1.67, p = .56. Together the two predictor variables accounted for 39% of the variance. Hence, this observation gives rise to an indirect effect between these variables however, further research will need to conduct a mediation analysis to be certain of this claim. A summary of this relationship can be found in Figure 1. Below. Variable B SE B (std. Error) Β t Stage 1 Mindfulness - .34 .06 - .46 - 5.51*** Stage 2 Mindfulness - .11 .07 - .15 - 1. Neuroticism .49 .08 .53 5.87*** Low Mindfulness High Neuroticism High Stress and Anxiety r = - .46, p <. r = - .59, p < .001 r = .62, p <.
Vesa et al., (2016) measured mindfulness using the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ) (Baer et al., 2006). Therefore, it is interesting to note that even though the present study used the MAAS to measure mindfulness, the findings were still consistent with the literature above. The Big Five Personality Traits The current findings revealed that whilst agreeableness, contentiousness, extraversion and openness held a negative relationship with the criterion, neuroticism was positively related. Whereas all relationships were significant, neuroticism, contentiousness and agreeableness were the most significantly linked to the criterion. This partially coincides with previous literature, which also found neuroticism and contentiousness to be highly related to stress and anxiety (Vollrath and Torgerson, 2001 ). However, current analyses not only illustrated a highly significant association between agreeableness and stress, which previous literature such as Kotov et al., (2010) has failed to uncover, but also this relationship was found to be negative which contradicts research by Chu et al., (2015) who observed a positive relationship between these two variables. Hence, future research should further examine agreeableness and the effects it may contribute to psychological well-being. After further analyses the current study demonstrated that the big five personality traits accounted for 24% of variation in stress and anxiety. After the big five personality traits were added to the model mindfulness became no longer significant, only neuroticism held a highly significant association to the criterion. Hence, a by- product of analyses uncovered an indirect effect between mindfulness and neuroticism on stress and anxiety. This conception demonstrated within the current study, has been observed in past research as Wenzel et al., (2015) proposed that the negative emotional reactivity related to Neuroticism is moderately due to low levels of mindfulness. In light of this, it is suggested that mindfulness influences the relationship between neuroticism and anxiety (Kong, 2015) and this framework has even been demonstrated in the face other psychological disorders such as depression (Barnhofer et al., 2011). Consequently, future research should further explore this effect perhaps by conducting mediation analyses to be more certain of these claims. Limitations and Future Research In addition to recommendations already proposed in relation to the findings of the present study, general limitations and suggestions are also considered below. Firstly, the issues surrounding the sample must be brought to light. The use of students aged 19- 24 is not representative of the population as research suggests a clear difference within stress and coping responses in relation to age (Folkman et al., 1987). A study suggests younger individuals experience more stress and are less able to regulate their reactions towards stressors (Birditt et al., 2005) hence, the findings brought about within the prevailing study may not be generalisable to those of older generations.
In addition, research has concluded that women have consistently higher prevalence rates of anxiety disorders (McLean et al., 2011). As women are almost twice as likely as men to be diagnosed with an anxiety disorder in the UK (MHF, 2016). This study consisted of twice as many females than males (Females = 78, Males = 36) hence results may be overstated and therefore not generalisable to males. Future research could investigate these predictor variables in relation to gender and age differences to allow for a more representative exploration within the stress and health domain. Secondly, the methodology may be criticised for the lengthy questionnaire consisting of 85 items. Rolstad et al., (2011) found longer questionnaires result in greater ‘response burden’ that is; increased effort by participants to complete a questionnaire. Consequently, the extensive measure used within the present study may have lead to fatigue within the participants, which could have impacted the results. For future improvements, considering neuroticism was the only significant predictor of stress and anxiety within the big five personality traits, neuroticism should be independently explored to further understanding within stress research and improve methodology. Results obtained via self-report measures must be interpreted with caution as social desirability bias may have occurred. This arises most often when individuals do not complete the questionnaire honestly with the goal to convey themselves in a more favourable manner. Therefore, findings may lack validity as interactions between the predictor variables and the criterion may be concealed (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Future research could conduct indirect questions which involves a projective technique requiring participants to respond to structured questions from the perspective of another, in order to mitigate the effects of social desirability bias (Fisher, 1993). However, it is acknowledged that mindfulness research is still in its formative years (Giluk, 2009). Therefore, the current study was a valuable investigation that furthered understanding surrounding mindfulness and its relation to novel variables, which is essential to investigate the validity of theoretical constructs (Cronbach and Meehl, 1995). Although, the structural framework examined within the present study would benefit from future investigations in order to further knowledge within the stress and health domain. Implications of the findings The present study enhanced knowledge surrounding religiosity, mindfulness and personality on stress and anxiety, and shed light upon areas for future examination. Understanding the processes and influences within stress and anxiety is of paramount importance as anxiety disorders are one of the most predominant mental health problems, with a prevalence of approximately 7.3% worldwide (Baxter et al., 2013). While this debilitating disorder is negatively impacting lives of many, it also contributes to substantial social and economic costs. According to the Mental Health Foundation (MHF) anxiety and stress related problems constituted to 17.6 million days’ sick leave taken in the UK (MHF, 2016).
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) 'The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51(6) pp. 1173 – 1182. Baxter, A., Patton, G., Scott, K., Degenhardt, L. and Whiteford, H. (2013) 'Global Epidemiology of Mental Disorders: What Are We Missing?'. PLoS ONE , 8(6) p.e65514. Beddington, J., Cooper, C., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F., Jenkins, R., Jones, H., Kirkwood, T., Sahakian, B. and Thomas, S. (2008) 'The mental wealth of nations.' Nature. , 455(7216) pp. 1057–60. Bernard, C., Visscher, M., Hoff, H., Guillemin, L., Guillemin, R. and Grande, F. (1967) Claude Bernard and experimental medicine. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Pub. Co. Birditt, K., Fingerman, K. and Almeida, D. (2005) 'Age Differences in Exposure and Reactions to Interpersonal Tensions: A Daily Diary Study.'. Psychology and Aging , 20(2) pp.330-340. Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D. and Devins, G. (2004) 'Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition.' Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice , 11(3) pp. 230–241. Brewer-Smyth, K. and Koenig, H. (2014) 'Could spirituality and religion promote stress resilience in survivors of childhood trauma?' Issues in mental health nursing. , 35(4) pp. 251–6. Britton, W. B., Shahar, B., Szepsenwol, O. and Jacobs, J. W. (2011) 'Mindfulness-Based cognitive therapy improves emotional reactivity to social stress: Results from A Randomized controlled trial.' Behaviour Therapy , 43(2) pp. 365–380. Brown, K. W. and Ryan, R. M. (2003) 'The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being.' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84(4) pp. 822–848. Carlson, L. and Brown, K. (2005) 'Validation of the mindful attention awareness scale in a cancer population.' Journal of psychosomatic research. , 58(1) pp. 29–33. Childs, E. (2010) 'Religious Attendance and Happiness: Examining Gaps in the Current Literature-A Research Note'. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 49(3) pp.550-560. Chu, X., Ma, Z., Li, Y. and Han, J. (2015) 'Agreeableness, Extraversion, Stressor and Physiological Stress Response'. International Journal of Social Science Studies , 3(4). Coakes, S. (2005) SPSS: Analysis without Anguish. 1st ed. Milton, Qld.: Wiley Australia. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, G. S. and Aiken, S. L. (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. 3rd ed., Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooper, D., Blumberg, B. and Schindler, P. (2014) Business research methods. 1st ed. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Corbett, J. (1990) Religion in America. 1st ed. Prentice Hall.
Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R. (1992) 'The Five-Factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders.' Journal of Personality Disorders , 6(4) pp. 343–
Creswell, J. (2002) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amoung 5 traditions. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. D. and Lindsay, E. K. (2014) 'How does Mindfulness training affect health? A Mindfulness stress Buffering account.' Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23(6) pp. 401–407. Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. (1995) 'Construct Validity In Psychological Tests.' Psychological Bulletin , 52(4) pp. 281–302. Creswell, J. and Lindsay, E. (2014) 'How Does Mindfulness Training Affect Health? A Mindfulness Stress Buffering Account'. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23(6) pp.401-407. Darren, G. and Paul, M. (2012) IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Step by step. A simple guide and reference. 12th ed., Pearson. Ebstrup, J., Eplov, L., Pisinger, C. and Jørgensen, T. (2011) 'Association between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: is the effect mediated by general self- efficacy?'. Anxiety, Stress & Coping , 24(4) pp.407-419. Ellison, C. and Levin, J. (1998) 'The Religion-Health Connection: Evidence, Theory, and Future Directions'. Health Education & Behavior , 25(6) pp.700-720. Ellison, C., Boardman, J., Williams, D. and Jackson, J. (2001) 'Religious Involvement, Stress, and Mental Health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Area Study'. Social Forces , 80(1) pp.215-249. Ellison, C., Burdette, A. and Hill, T. (2009) 'Blessed assurance: Religion, anxiety, and tranquility among US adults.' Social science research. , 38(3) pp. 656–67. Exline, J., Yali, A. and Sanderson, W. (2001) 'Guilt, discord, and alienation: The role of religious strain in depression and suicidality.' Journal of clinical psychology. , 56(12) pp. 1481–96. Falb, M. and Pargament, K. (2012) 'Relational mindfulness, spirituality, and the therapeutic bond.' Asian journal of psychiatry. , 5(4) pp. 351–4. Farb, N., Anderson, A., Mayberg, H., Bean, J., McKeon, D. and Segal, Z. (2010) 'Minding one’s emotions: Mindfulness training alters the neural expression of sadness.' Emotion , 10(1) pp. 25–33. Feizi, A., Keshteli, A. H., Nouri, F., Roohafza, H. and Adibi, P. (2015) 'A cross-sectional population-based study on the association of personality traits with anxiety and psychological stress: Joint modeling of mixed outcomes using shared random effects approach.' Journal of research and medical sciences: The official journal of Isfahan University of medical sciences , 20(4) pp. 353–358. Ferguson, E. (2001) 'Personality and coping traits: A joint factor analysis.' British Journal of Health Psychology , 6(4) pp. 311–325. Fisher, R. (1993) 'Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning'. Journal of Consumer Research , 20(2) p.303. Finney, J. R. and Malony, H. N. (1985) 'An empirical study of contemplative prayer as an adjunct to psychotherapy.' Journal of Psychology and Theology , 13 pp. 284–290.