Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies CHARLES H. HACKNEY GLENN S. SANDERS A meta-analysis was performed in an attempt to clarify the proposed relationship between religiosity and psycho- logical adjustment. Specific focus was given to the issue of definition, namely, whether differences in researchers’ conceptualizations of religiosity and mental health could account for the various contradictory findings by psy- chologists of religion. Analysis of 34 studies conducted during the past 12 years revealed that the definitions of religiosity and mental health utilized by psychologists in this field were indeed associated with different types and strengths of the correlations between religiosity and mental health. Discussion of results assesses the fit between relevant theory and the pattern of change in effect size across categories of religion and adjustment, and concludes with implications for therapeutic uses of religious involvement. INTRODUCTION Psychologists have long been interested in the role that religion plays in the interpretation of and response to life events and how this manifests itself in everyday psychological adjustment. Some (e.g., Ellis 1965) claim that religion represents institutionalized irrationality and is deleteri- ous to psychological functioning. Other psychologists (e.g., Jung 1933; Allport 1950) see religion as a source of meaning and stability in an uncertain world and conducive to positive psychological health. With the debate thus framed, much research has gone into the question of whether religion is beneficial, detrimental, or neutral in regard to psychological adjustment. Many studies have been performed examining this topic and the results have been varied. Some have found religion to be positively correlated with adjustment (e.g., Koenig and Larson 2001; Gartner, Larson, and Allen 1991), some have found it to be negatively correlated (e.g., Dreger 1952; Schaefer 1997), and some have found no significant relationship at all (e.g., Lewis et al. 1997). It is the purpose of this current study to address this discrepancy and attempt an explanation as to why such divergent results exist. It is the position taken by the authors that the contradictory findings obtained by researchers are due to their operationalizations of religiosity and of mental health. Religion is a multifaceted construct and it is possible that different aspects of religiosity are differentially related to mental health. Further analyses are performed examining the impact of various definitions of mental health. The possibility that religiosity and mental health definitions interact, producing a pattern in which different aspects of religiosity demonstrate different relationships with different definitions of psychological adjustment, is examined. Religiosity and Mental Health: Past Reviews and Meta-Analyses Several reviews have been published concerning the relationship between religiosity and mental health. Some have been general in nature, while others have focused on one specific Charles H. Hackney is a doctoral candidate at the University of Albany, State University of New York. Address corre- spondence to Charles H. Hackney, Psychology Department, University at Albany, SUNY, SS 369, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222. E-mail: charleshackney@hotmail.com Glenn S. Sanders is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Albany, State University of New York. Address correspondence to Glenn S. Sanders, Psychology Department, University at Albany, SUNY, SS 369, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42:1 (2003) 43–55