Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong

Lufanna Ching-han Lai

doi:doi:10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17

| Peer-Reviewed

Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong

Lufanna Ching-han Lai

Published in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (Volume 10, Issue 1)

Received: 2 February 2021 Accepted: 15 February 2021 Published: 23 February 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This paper examined the relationship between Christianity and subjective wellbeing by embedding in a revised homeostatic model of subjective wellbeing (SWB) which integrates the affective (homeostatically protected mood: content, happy and excited), cognitive (self-esteem, optimism and perceived control: primary control and secondary control) and experiential factors relating to SWB. In Christianity, God is the creator and lord of life and its doctrine advocates self-abnegation and committing to God; hence, three hypotheses were tested as: First, compared with those without religious belief, the Christians would be higher in SWB, secondary control and optimism, but lower in primary control and self-esteem. Second, for the Christians, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors than that of primary control and self-esteem. Third, compared with those without religious belief, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism for Christians would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors, while that of primary control and self-esteem would predict less significant SWB variance. Four hundred and eighteen Chinese respondents were recruited in Hong Kong (178 Christians and 240 without religious belief) to complete a questionnaire. The results revealed that no significant intergroup difference was found on SWB and all cognitive factors. Besides, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant SWB variance than primary control (3%) and self-esteem (1%), their secondary control failed to make any independent contribution. Additionally, compared with those without religious belief, Christians’ primary control (2%) and self-esteem (3%) explained lesser significant SWB variance. However, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant variance (3%) than those without religious belief, secondary control for each of the groups failed to make any independent contribution. The results were discussed in terms of inappropriateness and non-specificity of the scale used in measuring secondary control, and a newly proposed construct of religious self-esteem.

Published in	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (Volume 10, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17
Page(s)	56-62
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Christianity, Subjective Wellbeing, Self-esteem, Optimism, Primary Control, Secondary Control

References

[1]	Baasten, M. (1986). Pride according to Gregory the Great. Queenstown: Edwin Mellon Press.
[2]	Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[3]	Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. (2003). Optimism. In S. J. Lopez, & C. R. Sydner (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: handbook of models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[4]	Chambers, S., Hollway, J., Parsons, E-R., & Wallage, C. (November, 2003). Perceived control and wellbeing. Paper presented at the 5^th Australian Conference on Quality of Life, Melbourne, Australia.
[5]	Cook, V. (2002). A new direction for Quality of Life: Evaluating the Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale as a measure of satisfaction and depression. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University.
[6]	Cotton, S., Puchalski, C. M., Sherman, S. N., Mrus, J. M., Peterman, A. M., & Feinberg, J., et al. (2006). Spirituality/Religion in patients with HIV. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, S5-S13.
[7]	Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for subjective well-being. Social Research Indicators, 35, 179-200.
[8]	Cummins, R. A. (1998). The second approximation to an international standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 43, 307-334.
[9]	Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64, 225-256.
[10]	Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1-17.
[11]	Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37-69.
[12]	Cummins, R. A., Gullone, E., & Lau, A. L. D. (2002). A model of subjective well-being homeostasis: The role of personality. The Universality of Subjective Well-Being Indicators, 7-46.
[13]	Cummins, R. A., Lau, A. L. D., Mellor, D., & Stokes, M. A. (2009). Encouraging governments to enhance the happiness of their nation: Step 1: Understand subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 91, 23-36.
[14]	Davern, M., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective well-being as an affective/cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 429-449.
[15]	Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43.
[16]	Important-For the right reasons. (1996). Christian Science Monitor, 88(168), 14-25.
[17]	International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index-Adult (PWI-A).
[18]	Johnson, R. D., & Downing. L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1523-1538.
[19]	King, D. L. (2015). The lived experience with Christianity and teenage African-American females’ perceptions of their self-esteem. Christian Education Journal, 12 (1), 45-57.
[20]	Lai, L. C. H., & Cummins, R. A. (2013). The contribution of job and partner satisfaction to the homeostatic defense of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 203-217.
[21]	Lai, L. C. H., Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. L. D. (2013). Cross-cultural differences in subjective wellbeing: Cultural response bias as an explanation. Social Indicators Research, 114 (2), 607-619.
[22]	LaMothe, R. (2005). An analysis of pride systems and the dynamics of faith. Pastoral Psychology, 53(3), 239-253.
[23]	Luk, L. (2007). Spirituality, religion & holistic health: Transcendency of human predicament. Hong Kong: Chung Sum Association Press.
[24]	Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. London: Routledge.
[25]	Parker, S. (1994). Let’s be clear: Self-esteem is the problem, not the solution. Newsmagazine, 21 (19), 9-12.
[26]	Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-56.
[27]	Plante, T. G., Yancey, S., Sherman, A., & Guertin, M. (2000). The association between strength of religious faith and psychological functioning. Pastoral Psychology, 48 (5), 405-412.
[28]	Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
[29]	Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5-37.
[30]	Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110 (1), 145-172.
[31]	Schweitzer, D. (2000). Pride as sin and virtue. Studies in Religion, 29 (2), 167-181.
[32]	Steinfels, P. (1997). Murray Kempton, R. I. P. Commonweal., 124 (11), 13-25.
[33]	Streams in the Desert (2020). Hong Kong: The Christians Press.
[34]	Hogg, M., & Vaughan, G. (2018). Social psychology. UK: Pearson.
[35]	Warren, R. (2011). The purpose-driven life. USA: Zondervan.
[36]	Waters, W. W. (1987). Christianity &amp: Mental health. Humanist, 47(6), 5-32.
[37]	Watts, F., Dutton, K., & Gulliford, L. (2006). Human spiritual qualities: Integrating psychology and religion. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 9 (3), 277-289.
[38]	Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39 (9), 955-969.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Lufanna Ching-han Lai. (2021). Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 10(1), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Lufanna Ching-han Lai. Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2021, 10(1), 56-62. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Lufanna Ching-han Lai. Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong. Psychol Behav Sci. 2021;10(1):56-62. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17,
  author = {Lufanna Ching-han Lai},
  title = {Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong},
  journal = {Psychology and Behavioral Sciences},
  volume = {10},
  number = {1},
  pages = {56-62},
  doi = {10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.pbs.20211001.17},
  abstract = {This paper examined the relationship between Christianity and subjective wellbeing by embedding in a revised homeostatic model of subjective wellbeing (SWB) which integrates the affective (homeostatically protected mood: content, happy and excited), cognitive (self-esteem, optimism and perceived control: primary control and secondary control) and experiential factors relating to SWB. In Christianity, God is the creator and lord of life and its doctrine advocates self-abnegation and committing to God; hence, three hypotheses were tested as: First, compared with those without religious belief, the Christians would be higher in SWB, secondary control and optimism, but lower in primary control and self-esteem. Second, for the Christians, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors than that of primary control and self-esteem. Third, compared with those without religious belief, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism for Christians would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors, while that of primary control and self-esteem would predict less significant SWB variance. Four hundred and eighteen Chinese respondents were recruited in Hong Kong (178 Christians and 240 without religious belief) to complete a questionnaire. The results revealed that no significant intergroup difference was found on SWB and all cognitive factors. Besides, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant SWB variance than primary control (3%) and self-esteem (1%), their secondary control failed to make any independent contribution. Additionally, compared with those without religious belief, Christians’ primary control (2%) and self-esteem (3%) explained lesser significant SWB variance. However, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant variance (3%) than those without religious belief, secondary control for each of the groups failed to make any independent contribution. The results were discussed in terms of inappropriateness and non-specificity of the scale used in measuring secondary control, and a newly proposed construct of religious self-esteem.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong
AU  - Lufanna Ching-han Lai
Y1  - 2021/02/23
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17
T2  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
JF  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
JO  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
SP  - 56
EP  - 62
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-7845
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17
AB  - This paper examined the relationship between Christianity and subjective wellbeing by embedding in a revised homeostatic model of subjective wellbeing (SWB) which integrates the affective (homeostatically protected mood: content, happy and excited), cognitive (self-esteem, optimism and perceived control: primary control and secondary control) and experiential factors relating to SWB. In Christianity, God is the creator and lord of life and its doctrine advocates self-abnegation and committing to God; hence, three hypotheses were tested as: First, compared with those without religious belief, the Christians would be higher in SWB, secondary control and optimism, but lower in primary control and self-esteem. Second, for the Christians, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors than that of primary control and self-esteem. Third, compared with those without religious belief, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism for Christians would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors, while that of primary control and self-esteem would predict less significant SWB variance. Four hundred and eighteen Chinese respondents were recruited in Hong Kong (178 Christians and 240 without religious belief) to complete a questionnaire. The results revealed that no significant intergroup difference was found on SWB and all cognitive factors. Besides, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant SWB variance than primary control (3%) and self-esteem (1%), their secondary control failed to make any independent contribution. Additionally, compared with those without religious belief, Christians’ primary control (2%) and self-esteem (3%) explained lesser significant SWB variance. However, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant variance (3%) than those without religious belief, secondary control for each of the groups failed to make any independent contribution. The results were discussed in terms of inappropriateness and non-specificity of the scale used in measuring secondary control, and a newly proposed construct of religious self-esteem.
VL  - 10
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Lufanna Ching-han Lai

Department of Counselling and Psychology, The Hong Kong Shue Yan University, Hong Kong, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Lufanna Ching-han Lai. (2021). Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 10(1), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Lufanna Ching-han Lai. Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2021, 10(1), 56-62. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Lufanna Ching-han Lai. Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong. Psychol Behav Sci. 2021;10(1):56-62. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17,
  author = {Lufanna Ching-han Lai},
  title = {Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong},
  journal = {Psychology and Behavioral Sciences},
  volume = {10},
  number = {1},
  pages = {56-62},
  doi = {10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.pbs.20211001.17},
  abstract = {This paper examined the relationship between Christianity and subjective wellbeing by embedding in a revised homeostatic model of subjective wellbeing (SWB) which integrates the affective (homeostatically protected mood: content, happy and excited), cognitive (self-esteem, optimism and perceived control: primary control and secondary control) and experiential factors relating to SWB. In Christianity, God is the creator and lord of life and its doctrine advocates self-abnegation and committing to God; hence, three hypotheses were tested as: First, compared with those without religious belief, the Christians would be higher in SWB, secondary control and optimism, but lower in primary control and self-esteem. Second, for the Christians, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors than that of primary control and self-esteem. Third, compared with those without religious belief, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism for Christians would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors, while that of primary control and self-esteem would predict less significant SWB variance. Four hundred and eighteen Chinese respondents were recruited in Hong Kong (178 Christians and 240 without religious belief) to complete a questionnaire. The results revealed that no significant intergroup difference was found on SWB and all cognitive factors. Besides, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant SWB variance than primary control (3%) and self-esteem (1%), their secondary control failed to make any independent contribution. Additionally, compared with those without religious belief, Christians’ primary control (2%) and self-esteem (3%) explained lesser significant SWB variance. However, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant variance (3%) than those without religious belief, secondary control for each of the groups failed to make any independent contribution. The results were discussed in terms of inappropriateness and non-specificity of the scale used in measuring secondary control, and a newly proposed construct of religious self-esteem.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Christianity and Subjective Wellbeing: A Study of Hong Kong
AU  - Lufanna Ching-han Lai
Y1  - 2021/02/23
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17
T2  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
JF  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
JO  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
SP  - 56
EP  - 62
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-7845
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20211001.17
AB  - This paper examined the relationship between Christianity and subjective wellbeing by embedding in a revised homeostatic model of subjective wellbeing (SWB) which integrates the affective (homeostatically protected mood: content, happy and excited), cognitive (self-esteem, optimism and perceived control: primary control and secondary control) and experiential factors relating to SWB. In Christianity, God is the creator and lord of life and its doctrine advocates self-abnegation and committing to God; hence, three hypotheses were tested as: First, compared with those without religious belief, the Christians would be higher in SWB, secondary control and optimism, but lower in primary control and self-esteem. Second, for the Christians, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors than that of primary control and self-esteem. Third, compared with those without religious belief, each of the cognitive factors of secondary control and optimism for Christians would predict more significant SWB variance beyond the other homeostatic model factors, while that of primary control and self-esteem would predict less significant SWB variance. Four hundred and eighteen Chinese respondents were recruited in Hong Kong (178 Christians and 240 without religious belief) to complete a questionnaire. The results revealed that no significant intergroup difference was found on SWB and all cognitive factors. Besides, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant SWB variance than primary control (3%) and self-esteem (1%), their secondary control failed to make any independent contribution. Additionally, compared with those without religious belief, Christians’ primary control (2%) and self-esteem (3%) explained lesser significant SWB variance. However, while Christians’ optimism predicted more significant variance (3%) than those without religious belief, secondary control for each of the groups failed to make any independent contribution. The results were discussed in terms of inappropriateness and non-specificity of the scale used in measuring secondary control, and a newly proposed construct of religious self-esteem.
VL  - 10
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download