Next Article in Journal
God, Moral Requirements, and the Limits of Freedom
Next Article in Special Issue
The Psycho-Didactic Approach in Religious and Moral Education. Towards Personal Growth and Positive Mental Health of Students
Previous Article in Journal
Gods and Things: Is “Animism” an Operable Concept in Korea?
Previous Article in Special Issue
“Dies Irae?” The Role of Religiosity in Dealing with Psychological Problems Caused by The COVID-19 Pandemic—Studies on a Polish Sample
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/rel12040284
religions-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Loss of Self-Dignity and Anger among Polish Young Adults: The Moderating Role of Religiosity

by
Wojciech Rodzeń
,
Małgorzata Maria Kulik
,
Agnieszka Malinowska
,
Zdzisław Kroplewski
and
Małgorzata Szcześniak
*
Institute of Psychology, University of Szczecin, 70-451 Szczecin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2021, 12(4), 284; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040284
Submission received: 12 February 2021 / Revised: 8 April 2021 / Accepted: 9 April 2021 / Published: 20 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Religion and Mental Health: Antecedents and Consequences (Volume I))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Does the way we think or feel about ourselves have an impact on our anger-based reactions? Is the direction and strength of this relationship direct, or affected by other factors as well? Given that there is a lack of research on the loss of self-dignity and anger, the first aim of the present study consisted in examining whether or not there is a connection between both variables, with particular emphasis on early adulthood. The second purpose was to explore the moderating role of religiosity on the relationship between loss of self-dignity and anger. Methods: Data were gathered from 462 participants aged 18 to 35. The main methods applied were the Questionnaire of Sense of Self-Dignity, Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire, and Religious Meaning System Questionnaire. The results show a statistically significant positive correlation between loss of self-dignity and anger, a negative correlation between religiosity and anger, and no significant association between the loss of self-dignity and religiosity. However, all other dimensions of the sense of self-dignity correlated positively with religiosity. Our findings also confirm that the level of anger resulting from the loss of self-dignity is significantly lower as the level of religiosity increases. Such outcomes seem to support the conception that religiosity may act as a protective factor between the risk (loss of self-dignity) and the outcome factor (anger).

1. Introduction

Does the way we think or feel about ourselves have an impact on our angry reactions? Is the direction and strength of this relationship direct or affected by other factors as well? Given that there is a lack of research on the loss of self-dignity and anger, the first aim of the present study consisted in examining whether or not there is a connection between both variables, with particular emphasis on early adulthood. Past research has shown many antecedents, mediators, and moderators of anger (Mill et al. 2018), differentiating them into dispositional processes and/or situational events. However, self-dignity or its loss have not been considered as potential correlates of anger, although, as Kuppens and Tuerlinckx (2007) have observed, aspects of personality connected to self-esteem seem to be particularly pertinent for its occurrence. The second purpose of our research was to explore the moderating role of religiosity on the relationship between loss of self-dignity and anger. The rationale behind this assumption is based on (non)experimental studies showing that while intrinsically oriented religious individuals tend to report lower aggression or anger (Leach et al. 2008; Merrill et al. 2009; Vishkin et al. 2020), those who experience religious/spiritual struggle display higher levels of being angry (Exline et al. 2017).

1.1. Anger, Age, and Self-Dignity

Anger is widely recognized by psychologists representing different traditions as one of the basic and complex emotions (Keltner et al. 2019; Ortony and Turner 1990; Williams 2017; Tracy and Robins 2004; Turner et al. 2007; Schieman 2003) with a rather negative connotation (Averill 1983; Halperin and Gross 2011; Harmon-Jones 2003; Christensen et al. 2019; Mill et al. 2018). It may emerge when goal pursuit becomes frustrated (Schmitt et al. 2018; Fischer and Roseman 2007) as well as in response to an unpleasant, unjust, or adverse circumstance for which another person is accountable (Kuppens et al. 2007; Berkowitz 2012). Berkowitz and Harmon-Jones (2004, p. 108) define anger as “a syndrome of relatively specific feelings, cognitions, and physiological reactions linked associatively with an urge to injure some target”. Clore et al. (1993) link anger with the perception and attributions of blame.
Hamdan-Mansour and colleagues (2012) assert that anger is experienced by most individuals throughout their lives, and many of them declare having problems with its control. More specifically, there is some empirical evidence that young adults report higher levels of anger than their older counterparts (Birditt and Fingerman 2003; Blanchard-Fields and Coats 2008; Mienaltowski et al. 2011; Kunzmann et al. 2014). These findings seem to provide strong support for socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen et al. 1999, 2000, 2003), which states that over time, people start to value the most important aspects of life, give them meaning, and are able to better regulate their own emotional states. Consequently, the higher focus of older adults on managing their emotions is associated with diminution in the frequency and duration of their negative emotions, such as anger (Fung et al. 2019).
Research on the causes of anger (Schieman 2003; Okuda et al. 2015; Zhu et al. 2018; Jensen-Campbell et al. 2007; Fava and Rosenbaum 1999; Pawliczek et al. 2013; Novaco and Chemtob 2002) suggests that angry reactions are associated with a wide spectrum of situational and dispositional factors (Mill et al. 2018) such as sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age or social status), physical discomfort (headache or arthritis), emotional states (e.g., shame, frustration, contempt, or resentment), personality traits (e.g., agreeableness or conscientiousness), and psychiatric disorders (e.g., depression or post-traumatic stress). Moreover, different studies of the appraisal features responsible for anger (Baumeister et al. 1996; Kuppens and Tuerlinckx 2007; Kuppens and Van Mechelen 2007; Kuppens et al. 2007; Turner et al. 2007) indicate the threat to self-esteem as one of its most relevant components.
The sense of self-dignity is considered to be a subjective conviction of people that they are valuable and deserve regard from others (Brudek and Steuden 2017a). Jacelon (2003) perceives self-dignity both as an internal concept, referring to an individual’s self-worth, and an interpersonal or social construct, meaning respect given to us by others. A sense of self-dignity is also understood as a multidimensional concept. Brudek and Steuden (2017b) present a model of self-dignity that includes cognitive, axiological, relational, and experience aspects. The cognitive facet refers to respect for oneself deriving from the hierarchy of values considered significant and adopted in one’s own life. The axiological aspect manifests itself especially in difficult situations where people have the opportunity to make different choices in line with or contradicting their personally accepted values. When they differ from the established hierarchy, it can lead to the loss of the sense of self-dignity. A loss of self-dignity may arise from adverse or harmful comments or unpleasant or unjust behaviors as well (Grudziewska and Mikołajczyk 2020). The relational aspect is associated with the interpersonal level and the role of self-dignity in building social interactions. Finally, the dimension of experiencing self-dignity refers to the personal engagement in reflection on their dignity.
Considering that self-dignity is a psychological variable related to self-esteem (Kozielecki 1977; Grudziewska and Mikołajczyk 2020), we are relying on the research in which this relationship has been studied. For example, Fehr et al. (1999) have reported the threat to self-esteem as one of the most common causes of anger. Kuppens and Van Mechelen (2007) have observed that frequently experienced threats to self-esteem may lead an individual to diminish their sense of self-worth, and thus, to a higher propensity to feel anger. Individuals with lower levels of self-esteem have been found to experience greater anger both as children/adolescents (Waschull and Kernis 1996) and adults (Kuppens and Tuerlinckx 2007; Park et al. 2007). Other studies have revealed (Barry et al. 2015; Perez et al. 2005; Roberts et al. 1995) that fragile, labile, and unstable self-esteem positively correlates with proactive and reactive aggression. Anger can also be related to the defense of self-image (Lazarus 1993; Gausel and Bourguignon 2020), since the feeling of being blamed, rejected, devalued, or condemned may lead to angry reactions or other anti-social behaviors (Gausel and Leach 2011), such as a prejudiced valuation of others (Fein and Spencer 1997). Therefore, on the bases of the abovementioned literature, we hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
A loss of self-dignity would positively correlate with anger.

1.2. Religiosity, Anger, and Self-Dignity

Religiosity, considered to be one of the most powerful forces of human beings (Emmons and Paloutzian 2003), has been found to be a positive predictor of different criteria of psychological well-being (Jackson and Bergeman 2011; Villani et al. 2019), and mental, physical, and social health (Cragun et al. 2016; Parker et al. 2003; Son and Wilson 2011; Zimmer et al. 2018). The world’s main religions teach their followers to abstain from anger (Vishkin et al. 2020). As indicated by Vishkin and colleagues (Vishkin 2020; Vishkin et al. 2016), religion affects or alters the process of efficient emotion regulation. For example, according to Ano and Vasconcelles (2005), negative forms of religious coping correlate with anger and other signs of emotional strain. Prayer, understood as a form of religiosity, seems to be a constructive method of reducing anger (Bremner et al. 2011). In fact, Koole et al. (2010) propose a theoretical model that associates religiosity with the implicit self-regulation that leads individuals to the realization of high standards. Moreover, self-worth based on religious beliefs may reduce aggressive emotions and behaviors (Crocker et al. 2004). However, there is still some research that supports the positive association between religiosity/spirituality and the experience of anger among college students (Winterowd et al. 2005) and adolescents (Carlozzi et al. 2010). Furthermore, some studies show that religiosity is not significantly associated with anger (Stroope et al. 2020). Although the results of previous studies are somewhat contradictory, most of them confirm the traditional role of religion in guiding behavior and adhering to values. Based on this classical approach to religiosity, we assumed that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Religiosity would negatively correlate with anger.
Religiosity is also regarded as an important factor having a significant impact on self-dignity (Brudek and Steuden 2017a; Jo et al. 2012). In fact, Christian teachings connect human dignity to the biblical concept of people as created in the image of God, and thus being worthy of respect (Vorster 2012). Crocker et al. (2004) affirm that in different religious meaning systems, one’s worth is related to the fact of being human. On the one hand, the sense of self-worth is positively associated with images of God perceived as loving and compassionate (Francis et al. 2001; Park et al. 2007). Further, there is strong evidence that internalized and committed religiousness is moderately positively (0.30–0.40) correlated with self-esteem (Blaine and Crocker 1995; Szcześniak and Timoszyk-Tomczak 2020; Sherkat and Reed 1992) and feelings of self-worth (Krause 1995). Religious people in religious cultures self-enhance in areas essential to their self-concept more than their counterparts in secular cultural contexts (Sedikides and Gebauer 2020; Joshanloo and Gebauer 2019). In a Polish sample, experience of God’s love was one of the conditions for self-esteem in women (Mandal and Moroń 2019). On the other hand, some studies suggest that individuals who are more religiously involved have less positive self-worth (Krause 1995). Such a discrepancy may be due to the fact that religiosity is a broad multidimensional reality that may affect self-esteem differently. By combining the above assumptions with the hypothetical relationship between religiosity and anger, we assumed that:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The loss of self-dignity would be a mediator between religiosity and anger.
We expected a negative association between religiosity and the loss of self-dignity, assuming that religious people, perhaps due to religious teachings, would tend to experience lower loss of self-dignity and, in turn, experience less anger.
Lastly, some findings suggest that religiosity provides a buffer against a broad variety of negative outcomes, such as stress (Mascaro and Rosen 2006; Ellison et al. 2019), depression (Ahles et al. 2016), and anxiety (Wink and Scott 2005; Soenke et al. 2013; Piotrowski et al. 2020). This is because people may rely on religion as a means of making or finding a sense of meaning in otherwise meaningless circumstances (Hayes et al. 2017). For example, several studies argue that religiosity acts as a moderator in the relationship between self-efficacy and traumatic stress (Israel-Cohen et al. 2016); sensation-seeking, bullying victimization, and substance use (Galbraith and Conner 2015); job strain, income inequality, and well-being (Achour et al. 2016; Joshanloo and Weijers 2016); and antisocial behavior and self-control (Laird et al. 2011). The common feature of these studies is that people in difficult situations believe that no matter how difficult their lives are, God can be their support and help (Joshanloo and Weijers 2016). The lack of unambiguous premises regarding the relationship between loss of self-dignity, religiosity, and anger may lead to considerations on the moderating role of religiosity. In other words, the degree of religious commitment can play a significant role in manifesting the anger that results from losing one’s self-esteem. Therefore, we assumed that religious beliefs could moderate the effect of the loss of self-dignity on feelings of anger, thus showing that the influence of religion on self-dignity may result in lower levels of anger. We hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
The level of anger resulting from loss of self-esteem would be significantly different at different levels of religiosity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics Approval

This research was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Szczecin (KB12/2020) and was performed in conformity with the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Participants

Data were gathered from 462 participants aged 18 to 35 (M = 21.26; SD = 3.55). The study included 326 women (70.6%) and 136 men. In the entire research sample, two people had primary education (0.4%), 41 people lower secondary education (8.8%), 10 basic vocational education (2.2%), 322 secondary education (69.7%), and 87 people higher (18.8%). All participants (N = 462) were assigned to three equal subgroups (n = 154) in terms of their declared degree of religiosity: (1) non-believers, (2) non-practicing believers, and (3) practicing believers. All believers were Roman Catholic. The detailed characteristics of the three selected subgroups in terms of the basic demographic variables are presented in Table 1.

2.3. Data Collection

The respondents were voluntarily recruited to participate in the study through information posted on forums and social media websites. Before completing the online survey, each participant was informed about the scientific purpose of the research and was assured about the full anonymity and confidentiality of the collected data. The study was intended for adults over 18 years of age.

2.4. Questionnaire of Sense of Self-Dignity (QSSD-3)

The Questionnaire of Sense of Self-Dignity (Brudek and Steuden 2017b) is a four-factor tool to measure the overall level of an individual’s sense of self-dignity and its four dimensions—cognitive, loss, relational, and experience. The cognitive dimension determines the way of understanding and the meaning attached to self-dignity. It also refers to the acknowledgment of self-dignity as a font of confidence that enables people to successfully realize personal goals even in difficult times in their life (e.g., “a manifestation of the sense of self-dignity is the awareness of self-worth and self-respect”). The dimension of loss of self-dignity determines the situations of loss of self-dignity by an individual and to what extent non-compliance with one’s own system of values is associated with the loss of self-dignity. It reflects the emotions and attitudes that individuals assign to themselves (e.g.,: “in difficult situations, a sense of my own dignity bothers me”). The relational dimension reflects the degree of the individual’s awareness of the role played by the sense of self-dignity in building interpersonal relationships and in overall psychosocial functioning (e.g.,: “the awareness that others recognize my dignity helps me in my life”). The experience dimension determines the extent to which an individual reflects on the sense of their own dignity in crisis and difficult situations (e.g.,: “in moments of various choices and decisions appear in me questions about my own dignity”). The QSSD-3 consists of 36 items, which are answered using a five-point scale (from 1 = yes to 5 = no). The tool obtained satisfactory values of Cronbach’s alpha reliability indices for the overall score—a total sense of self-dignity (α = 0.89), and four dimensions – cognitive (α = 0.83), loss (α = 0.80), relational (α = 0.83), and experiencing (α = 0.71). In addition, the questionnaire obtained satisfactory values of selected indicators of goodness of fit using confirmatory factor analysis (χ2(584) = 1106.69, p <.001; CMIN/DF = 1.895; RMSEA = 0.044; GFI = 0.877; AGFI = 0.859; TLI = 0.878; IFI = 0.888).

2.5. Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire

The results of one of the subscales of the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (Amity version 2005) were used to measure anger. The BPQA is used to identify various aggressive tendencies—physical and verbal aggression, anger and hostility. The questionnaire consists of 29 self-report statements, which are answered using a five-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = does not fit me at all to 5 = fits me completely). The tool obtained satisfactory values of Cronbach’s alpha reliability indicators in the range of 0.67–0.83 for individual subscales (physical aggression—0.83; verbal aggression—0.67; anger—0.75; hostility—0.74) and 0.87 for the entire questionnaire. Moreover, the test obtained good values of the model fit indices (χ2(365) = 1146.12, p <.001; CMIN/DF = 3.14; RMSEA = 0.068; GFI = 0.845; AGFI = 0.815; TLI = 0.793; IFI = 0.816).

2.6. Religious Meaning System Questionnaire (RMS)

The Religious Meaning System Questionnaire (Krok 2014) was used to determine the degree of religiosity of the three research subgroups (non-believers, non-practicing believers, and practicing believers). The RMS consists of two factors (religious orientation, religious meaning) based on 20 statements. The religious orientation scale assesses the degree to which religiosity can help individuals understand their lives. The religious meaning scale is used to measure the potential of religion to empower individuals to find purpose in their lives. The answers are given on a seven-point scale (from 1 = definitely not to 7 = definitely yes). The tool obtained high values of reliability indicators for both subscales: religious orientation (α = 0.93) and religious sense (α = 0.92), as well as the overall score (α = 0.96). The study obtained satisfactory values of selected model fit indices (χ2(165) = 624.728, p < 0.001; CMIN/DF = 3.786; RMSEA = 0.078; GFI = 0.869; AGFI = 0.833; TLI = 0.930; IFI = 0.940).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analyses were performed using G*Power 3.1.9.4, IBM SPSS AMOS 24.0, and IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 using PROCESS macro 3.4 (Hayes et al. 2017). No missing values were found in the data obtained. In the first step of the analysis, the G*Power 3.1.9.4 software was used to determine the minimum size of the research sample necessary to conduct moderation analyses of the developed models of the studied variables. The adopted a priori criteria included the low strength of the effect (f2 = 0.03), the maximum value of the α = 0.05 coefficient, and the recommended power equal to 0.80 (Anderson et al. 2017). The analysis showed the minimum size of the entire research sample for the specified criteria at the level of 368 participants.
The next steps of the analysis concerned the determination of basic descriptive statistics for all selected variables, both for the entire research sample (n = 462) and the three separate subgroups (n = 154), and checking the degree of fulfillment of the assumptions imposed on the data. The performed analyses showed the determination of the nature of the distributions of the measured variables using the Shapiro–Wilk test and the values of skewness and kurtosis, the fulfillment of the assumption of homogeneity of variance with Levene’s test, and the equivalence of the compared groups using the χ2 test for the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in the intergroup plan. Due to the failure to meet the assumption of homogeneity of variance, it was decided to perform a post hoc analysis using Tamhane’s T2 test. To test for the presence of the common method bias of the applied measures (Jakobsen and Jensen 2015), Harman’s single-factor test was used. All of the scales’ items were introduced into an exploratory factorial analysis and examined through an unrotated factor solution. We assumed that if one component had less than 50% of the covariance, this confirmed the lack of common method bias (Rodríguez-Ardura and Meseguer-Artola 2020).
The mediation and moderation analyses of the created hypothetical models were performed using the bootstrapping method (IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 with PROCESS macro 3.4; Hayes et al. 2017). Before the proper analysis, the degree of collinearity of the explanatory variables with the variance inflation factor (VIF) parameter and the levels of homogeneity of variance and homoscedasticity of all observations were estimated using Cook’s distance, the Mahalanobis distance, and leverage points indices. Failure to meet two of the three assumptions of the distance indicators used was adopted as the criterion for rejecting observations. For the analysis of the interactions obtained, the simple slopes analysis with unstandardized regression coefficients was used, excluding the Johnson–Neyman Technique (Johnson and Neyman 1936) due to the use of a qualitative variable as a moderator.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The analysis of the distributions of the studied variables, performed for the entire research sample and the three compared groups using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, showed that in most cases, these distributions were statistically significantly (p < 0.05) different from the normal distribution (Table 2). However, the values of skewness and kurtosis for most of the variables were in the range [−2; 2], which does not question the validity of using the data for further statistical analyses (George and Mallery 2016). For the loss of self-dignity variable for the entire sample and for the non-practicing believers and practicing believers groups, the kurtosis values were above the value of 2. However, due to the relatively high resistance to breaking the assumption about the normal distribution of the measured variables for the analysis of variance (Young and Veldman 1965) and the lack of necessity to meet this criterion for bootstrapping methods, it was decided to carry out further statistical analyses without any modification of the obtained data.

3.2. Correlations

The analysis of the correlation with the Pearson r coefficient showed a weak but statistically significant (p < 0.01) positive correlation between loss of self-dignity and anger (r = 0.3), and a negative correlation between anger and religious meaning (r = −0.12). The Pearson’s r values turned out to be statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) for loss of self-dignity and religiosity (for both religious orientation r = −0.03 and religious meaning r = −0.05), and anger and religious orientation (r = −0.08). The results of the correlation between all measured variables are presented in Table 3. The obtained statistically insignificant or significant-but-weak correlation values between individual predictors in the form of self-dignity, the dimension of loss of self-dignity, anger, and religiosity eliminate the problem of multicollinearity and at the same time seem to confirm the validity of testing the hypothetical moderation models.

3.3. One-Way ANOVA

To check the reliability of the answers obtained regarding the nominal variable religiosity (non-believers/non-practicing believers/practicing believers), it was decided to compare the mean scores of the religious orientation and religious meaning scales in all subgroups using a one-way ANOVA in the plan for independent groups. Due to the failure to meet the assumption of homogeneity of variance (p < 0.05 for Levene’s test), the analysis was performed using Welch’s test, which is characterized by a greater power of difference detection compared to the Brown–Forsythe test (Brown and Forsythe 1974; Welch 1951) and post hoc Tamhane’s T2 test.
The results (Table 4) showed a statistically significant effect of the religious grouping variable for religious orientation (W(2, 299) = 238,790; p < 0.001) and religious meaning (W(2, 303) = 417.401; p < 0.001). Post hoc comparisons revealed statistically significant (p < 0.001) differences between all groups.
In the case of both measured quantitative variables, the highest mean score was obtained by practicing believers, and the lowest by non-believers. As a result, it was decided to treat the nominal variable religiosity as a moderating variable in both models of moderation analysis.
The VIF score for all tested predictors (sense of self-dignity, loss of self-dignity, religious orientation, religious meaning) for the dependent variable anger was between 1.21 and 4.21 (below 10), which proves that the predictors were not correlated. Moreover, the tolerance value did not exceed 0.24, which confirmed the correct estimation of the beta coefficients of all predictors. The obtained result of the Durbin–Watson test equal to 1.92 confirms the fulfillment of the criterion of lack of correlation of regression residuals (the value ranged from 1 to 3). The applied outliers analysis using the three distance measures did not identify any influential outliers among the collected observations.
Harman’s single-factor test confirmed the lack of common method bias. The measure showed the presence of one factor with 31.51% of the covariance.

3.4. Mediation Analyses

The obtained statistically insignificant results of the mediation analyses (Figure 1) were consistent with the obtained results of the correlation between the individual variables included in both tested models.
The first model assumed a significant mediating role of the loss of self-dignity (M) in the relationship between religious orientation (X) and anger (Y), while the independent variable in the second model assumed the dimension of religious meaning.
Both the first model (F(1, 460) = 0.21; R2 = 0.02; p > 0.05) and the second model (F(1, 460) = 0.74; R2 = 0.04; p > 0.05) were not matched to the data. The obtained results (Table 5) of individual regression coefficients turned out to be statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) between the independent variable and the mediator as well as between the independent variable and the dependent variable for each tested model. No significant relationship was confirmed between the loss of self-esteem and religious orientation (b = −0.01; p > 0.05; 95% CI[−0.04; 0.03]) and religious sense (b = −0.01; p > 0.05; 95% CI[ −0.05; 0.02]).
The obtained statistically insignificant results of the conducted mediation analysis seem to further confirm the correctness of the formulated H4 and further analysis toward testing the interactions between selected variables.

3.5. Moderation Analysis

3.5.1. Loss of Self-Dignity, Anger, and Religiosity

The analysis of the first moderation model (Figure 2) using the bootstrapping method was carried out using the criterion of the confidence interval at the level of 95% and a selection of 5000 random samples. The proposed model was well-fit to the data (F(3, 451) = 16.59, p < 0.001) and explained 10% of the variance of the dependent variable (R2 = 0.10).
Overall, a positive and statistically significant regression was obtained between the independent and dependent variables (b = 0.59, t(451) = 4.57, p <.001, 95% CI[0.34; 0.84]). The regression value for the total interaction coefficient of the tested model was b = −0.13, t(451) = 2.25, p <.05, 95% CI[−0.25; −0.02].
The analysis of interactions using the simple slopes method with unstandardized regression coefficients (Figure 3) showed that for the non-believers group, the value of the regression coefficient between loss of self-dignity and anger was highest (b = 0.45, t(451) = 5.90, p < 0.001), among non-practicing believers it was moderate (b = 0.32, t(451) = 6.45, p < 0.001), and among practicing believers it was lowest (b = 0.18, t(451) = 2.36, p < 0.05).

3.5.2. Sense of Self-Dignity, Anger, and Religiosity

The analysis of the second moderation model by bootstrapping was performed using the criterion of the confidence interval at the level of 95% and a random selection of 5000 samples. The obtained model fit the data well (F(3, 451) = 3.89, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.03). The regression value for the interaction coefficient of the tested model was b = −0.03, t(451) = 1.99, p < 0.05, 95% CI[−0.06; −0.01]. A positive and statistically significant regression was also obtained between the independent variable self-dignity and the dependent variable anger (b = 0.10, t(451) = 2.70, p < 0.01, 95% CI[0.03; 0.17]).
The analysis of the obtained values of interaction coefficients at individual moderator levels showed (Figure 4) that the regression value between the independent and dependent variable for non-believers was highest (b = 0.07, t(451) = 2.98, p < 0.01), for non-practicing believers it took an intermediate value (b = 0.03, t(451) = 2.57, p < 0.05), and for practicing believers it was lowest and was statistically insignificant (b = 0.01, t(451) = 0.15, p = 0.883).

4. Discussion

The first purpose of this study was to examine the character of the relationship between the loss of self-dignity and anger (H1). The second aim was to verify whether religiosity would negatively correlate with anger (H2). The third goal was to identify whether religiosity would mediate the relationship between the loss of self-dignity and anger (H3). Finally, the fourth target was to investigate whether the level of anger resulting from the loss of self-dignity would be significantly different at different levels of one’s religiosity (H4). This research corroborates three hypotheses well enough (H1, H2, and H4), while hypothesis H3 was not confirmed. However, all other dimensions of the sense of self-dignity correlated positively with religiosity.
With reference to the first hypothesis, the results show a weak but still statistically significant positive correlation between loss of self-dignity and anger, thus showing that individuals who display higher levels of loss of self-dignity tend to feel a higher degree of anger. This outcome is consistent with some previous studies. For example, Shanahan et al. (2010) observe that lower self-worth may lead to unhealthy anger, which serves as an attempt to defend against humiliation. In support of this, Hong et al. (2020) notice that decreased levels of self-esteem may activate in a person a psychological defense system in the form of negative emotions in order to protect their threatened self-dignity. Similarly, Kernis et al. (1989) perceive that unstable self-esteem and threats to self-worth serve as predictors of the tendency to experience anger and hostility. Another interesting outcome, although we did not consider it in our hypotheses due to the focus being on the loss of self-dignity, regards positive correlations between anger and sense of self-dignity and the experience dimension of self-dignity. This seemingly counterintuitive finding confirms some prior results showing that anger may be dissimilar from other negative emotions and may serve vital evolutionary functions (Zajenkowski and Gignac 2018). For example, anger was found to be positively associated with optimism (Lerner and Keltner 2001) and subjectively assessed intelligence (Zajenkowski and Gignac 2018). The positive association between self-dignity and anger can be explained by the fact that people with a higher sense of self-worth give themselves permission to be angry, especially in crisis and difficult situations that relate directly to the particular dimension of experienced self-esteem.
As regards to the second hypothesis, the outcomes show a negative correlation between religiosity and anger. Similar results, in different research groups, can be observed in other studies. For example, religious beliefs and practices tend to diminish the intensity of anger in Roman Catholic (Marsh and Dallos 2004) and Abrahamic faith couples (Lambert and Dollahite 2006). Márquez-González et al. (2010) suggest that spiritual meaning and support from a religious community are directly and negatively related to anger. There is also some clinically based evidence that meditation may alleviate the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral expressions of anger (Wright et al. 2009). Maddi et al. (2006) show that religiosity, together with hardiness, has a buffering effect on anger among military and governmental personnel. According to other researchers (Bremner et al. 2011), people often turn to intrinsically religious practices such as prayer or meditation when they experience anger or fear.
In terms of the third hypothesis, the present findings do not support our assumptions, as the dimension of the loss of self-dignity did not have a mediating effect on the relationship between religiosity and anger, especially in terms of regression between religiosity and the loss of self-dignity. One of the possible explanations for this lack of correlation might be that these particular participants do not consider religion as a part of their loss of self-worth. We can presume that, besides religious meaning, there are many other factors that influence a sense of self-worth, such as a lack of achievement (Covington 1984), appearance and body image (Mirza et al. 2011; Stefanone et al. 2011), and an individual’s beliefs and feelings (Pelham and Swann 1989). However, religiosity correlated with the overall sense of self-dignity and its other dimensions, which seems to confirm both theoretical assumptions and empirical studies about the role of religious faith in strengthening self-worth. On the bases of the outcomes received, it can be cautiously assumed that religiosity, which empowers individuals to find purpose and understand their lives, can increase their sense of self-dignity. In fact, Crescioni and Baumeister (2013) mention religion as a factor that fulfills the human need for self-worth.
With regard to the fourth hypothesis, our results confirm that the level of anger resulting from a loss of self-dignity significantly decreases as the level of religiosity increases. Such results seem to support the conception that religiosity may act as a protective factor between the risk (e.g., loss of self-dignity) and the outcome factor (e.g., anger). In fact, higher levels of religiosity may be enough to defend individuals against the adverse effect of a decline both of self-respect and trust in oneself, thus leading them to experience a lower level of anger. It is worth noting that religion provides believers with a cognitive schema that helps them find meaning in difficult personal experiences and life events (Laufer et al. 2009). Berger (1990) speaks about religiosity as a reality that supplies its believers with specific viewpoints, called theodicies, which allow them to explain and deal with challenging circumstances. Thus, feeling their self-worth threatened, believers may find more meaning in what they experience than their less believing counterparts. Moreover, religious people may be more convinced than those who do not believe that they are priceless in God’s eyes, even though others do not appreciate them.

5. Limitations

Besides the valuable results, the current research also presents some limitations. Firstly, the study participants were recruited through social media websites, making it difficult to reach others, especially older adults. Therefore, future research should include adolescents and/or people from middle and late adulthood to verify whether a similar pattern of results will be obtained in the mentioned age groups. Moreover, the cross-sectional character of the present study does not allow us to assess causality between the variables taken into account. Consequently, it would be meaningful to employ an experimental or longitudinal design to better comprehend the dynamics lying behind a correlational and a moderation approach.

6. Implications

The present study seems to confirm the conception that religiosity may act as a protective factor between the risk (loss of self-dignity) and the outcome factor (anger). Understanding the role that religiosity plays in dealing with a declining sense of dignity in different developmental stages may help in the implementation of therapeutic plans among various groups of people affected by a lower self-esteem due to different normative and non-normative crises.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.R., M.M.K. and A.M.; Methodology, W.R., M.M.K. and A.M.; Resources, W.R., M.M.K., A.M., Z.K. and M.S.; Data curation, W.R., M.M.K., A.M., Z.K. and M.S.; Writing—original draft preparation, W.R., M.M.K., A.M., Z.K. and M.S.; Writing—review and editing, W.R., Z.K. and M.S.; Supervision, Z.K. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Szczecin (12/2020, 12.11.2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, W.R., upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Achour, Meguellati, Mohd Roslan Mohd Nor, and Mohd Yakub Zulkifli MohdYusoff. 2016. Islamic personal religiosity as a moderator of job strain and employee’s well-being: The case of Malaysian academic and administrative staff. Journal of Religion and Health 55: 1300–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ahles, Joshua J., Amy H. Mezulius, and Melissa R. Hudson. 2016. Religious coping as a moderator of the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 8: 228–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ano, Gene G., and Erin B. Vasconcelles. 2005. Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61: 461–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Anderson, Samantha F., Ken Kelley, and Scott E. Maxwell. 2017. Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science 28: 1547–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Averill, James R. 1983. Studies on anger and aggression. Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist 38: 1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Barry, Christopher T., Della C. Loflin, and Hannah Doucette. 2015. Adolescent self-compassion: Associations with narcissism, self-esteem, aggression, and internalizing symptoms in at-risk males. Personality and Individual Differences 77: 118–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baumeister, Roy F., Laura Smart, and Joseph M. Boden. 1996. Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review 103: 5–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Berger, Peter L. 1990. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York: Random House. [Google Scholar]
  9. Berkowitz, Leonard. 2012. A different view of anger: The cognitive-neoassociation conception of the relation of anger to aggression. Aggressive Behavior 38: 322–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berkowitz, Leonard, and Eddie Harmon-Jones. 2004. Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion 4: 107–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Birditt, Kira S., and Karen L. Fingerman. 2003. Age and gender differences in adults’ descriptions of emotional reactions to interpersonal problems. The Journals of Gerontology B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 58: 237–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Blaine, Bruce, and Jennifer Crocker. 1995. Religiousness, race, and psychological well-being: Exploring social psychological mediators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 1031–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Blanchard-Fields, Fredda, and Abby H. Coats. 2008. The experience of anger and sadness in everyday problems impact age differences in emotion regulations. Developmental Psychology 44: 1547–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bremner, Ryan H., Sander L. Koole, and Brad J. Bushman. 2011. “Pray for those who mistreat you”: Effects of prayer on anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37: 830–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Brown, Morton B., and Alan B. Forsythe. 1974. Robust tests for the equality of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69: 364–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brudek, Paweł, and Stanisława Steuden. 2017a. Predictors of sense of self-signity in late adulthood. A synthesis of own research. Psychoterapia 4: 81–92. [Google Scholar]
  17. Brudek, Paweł, and Stanisława Steuden. 2017b. Questionnaire of Sense of Self-Dignity (QSSD-3): Construction and analysis of psychometric properties. Przegląd psychologiczny 60: 457–77. [Google Scholar]
  18. Carlozzi, Barbara L., Carrie Winterowd, R. Steven Harrist, Nancy Thomson, Kristi Bratkovich, and Sheri Worth. 2010. Spirituality, Anger, and Stress in Early Adolescents. Journal of Religion and Health 49: 445–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Carstensen, Laura L., Derek M. Isaacowitz, and Susan T. Charles. 1999. Taking time seriously. A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist 54: 165–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Carstensen, Laura L., Monisha Pasupathi, Ulrich Mayr, and John R. Nesselroade. 2000. Emotional experience in everyday life across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 644–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Carstensen, Laura L., Helene H. Fung, and Susan T Charles. 2003. Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion 27: 103–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Christensen, Julia F., Steven Di Costa, Brianna Beck, and Patrick Haggard. 2019. I just lost it! Fear and anger reduce the sense of agency: A study using intentional binding. Experimental Brain Research 237: 1205–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Clore, Gerald L., Andrew Ortony, Bruce Dienes, and Frank Fujity. 1993. Where does anger dwell? In Perspectives on Anger and Emotion. Edited by Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 57–88. [Google Scholar]
  24. Covington, Martin V. 1984. The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal 85: 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cragun, Deborah, Ryan T. Cragun, Brian Nathan, J. E. Sumerau, and Alexandra C. H. Nowakowski. 2016. Do religiosity and spiritual really matter for social, mental, and physical health?: A tale of two samples. Sociological Spectrum 36: 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Crescioni, A. Will, and Roy F. Baumeister. 2013. The four needs for meaning, the value gap, and how (and Whether) society can fill the void. In The Experience of Meaning in Life: Classical Perspectives, Emerging Themes, and Controversies. Edited by Joshua A. Hicks and Clay Routledge. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  27. Crocker, Jennifer, Shawna J. Lee, and Lora E. Park. 2004. The pursuit of self-esteem: Implications for good and evil. In The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. Edited by Arthur G. Miller. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 271–302. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ellison, Christopher G., Reed T. Deangelis, Terrence D. Hill, and Paul Froese. 2019. Sleep quality and the stress-buffering role of religious involvement: A mediated moderation analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 58: 251–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Emmons, Robert A., and Raymond F. Paloutzian. 2003. The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology 54: 377–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Exline, Julie J., Shanmukh Kamble, and Nick Stauner. 2017. Anger toward God(s) among undergraduates in India. Religions 8: 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Fava, Maurizio, and Jerrold F. Rosenbaum. 1999. Anger attacks in patients with depression. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 60: 21–24. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fehr, Beverley, Mark Baldwin, Lois Collins, Suzanne Patterson, and Riva Benditt. 1999. Anger in close relationships: An interpersonal script analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fein, Steven, and Steven J. Spencer. 1997. Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fischer, Agneta H., and Ira J. Roseman. 2007. Beat them or ban them: The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 103–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Francis, Leslie J., Harry M. Gibson, and Mandy Robbins. 2001. God images and self-worth among adolescents in Scotland. Mental Health, Religion and Culture 4: 103–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fung, Helene H., Minjie Lu, and Derek M. Isaacowitz. 2019. Aging and attention: Meaningfulness may be more important than valence. Psychology and Aging 34: 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Galbraith, Todd, and Bradley T. Conner. 2015. Religiosity as a moderator of the relation between sensation seeking and substance use for college-aged individuals. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 29: 168–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gausel, Nicolay, and David Bourguignon. 2020. Dropping out of school: Explaining how concerns for the family’s social-image and self-image predict anger. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gausel, Nicolay, and Colin Wayne Leach. 2011. Concern for self-image and social image in the management of moral failure: Rethinking shame. European Journal of Social Psychology 41: 468–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. George, Darren, and Paul Mallery. 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  41. Grudziewska, Ewa, and Marta Mikołajczyk. 2020. The sense of self-dignity of people with mobility disabilities in Poland—a survey report. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 5: 290–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Halperin, Eran, and James J. Gross. 2011. Intergroup anger in intractable conflict: Long-term sentiments predict anger responses during the Gaza war. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 14 4: 477–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Harmon-Jones, Eddie. 2003. Anger and the behavioral approach system. Personality and Individual Differences 35: 995–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hayes, Andrew F., Amanda K. Montoya, and Nicholas J. Rockwood. 2017. The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal 25: 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hong, Wei, Liu Ru-De, Ding Yi, Oei Tian Po, Fu Xinchen, Jiang Ronghaun, and Jiang Shuyang. 2020. Self-esteem moderates the effect of compromising thinking on forgiveness among Chinese early adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Israel-Cohen, Yael, Oren Kaplan, Smadar Noy, and Gabriela Kashy-Rosenbaum. 2016. Religiosity as a moderator of self-efficacy and social support in predicting traumatic stress among combat soldiers. Journal of Religion and Health 55: 1160–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Jacelon, Cynthia S. 2003. The dignity of elders in an acute care hospital. Qualitative Health Research 13: 543–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jackson, Brenda R, and Cindy S. Bergeman. 2011. How does religiosity enhance well-being? The role of perceived control. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 3: 149–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Jakobsen, M., and Rasmus Jensen. 2015. Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal 18: 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jensen-Campbell, Lauri A., Jennifer M. Knack, Amy M. Waldrip, and Shaun D. Campbell. 2007. Do Big Five personality traits associated with self-control influence the regulation of anger and aggression? Journal of Research in Personality 41: 403–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jo, Kae Hwa, Gyeong-Ju An, and Ardith Z. Doorenbos. 2012. Attitudes of Korean adults towards human dignity: A Q methodology approach. Japan Journal of Nursing Science 9: 101–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Johnson, Palmer Oliver, and Jerzy Neyman. 1936. Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs 1: 57–93. [Google Scholar]
  53. Joshanloo, Mohsen, and Jochen E. Gebauer. 2019. Religiosity’s nomological network and temporal change. European Psychologist 25: 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Joshanloo, Mohsen, and Dan Weijers. 2016. Religiosity moderates the relationship between income inequality and life satisfaction across the globe. Social Indicators Research 128: 731–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Keltner, Dacher, Disa Sauter, Jessica Tracy, and Alan Cowen. 2019. Emotional expression: Advances in basic emotion theory. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 43: 133–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kernis, Michael H., Bruce D. Grannemann, and Lynda C. Barclay. 1989. Stability and level of self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56: 1013–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Koole, Sander, Michael E. McCullough, Julius Kuhl, and Peter HMP Roelofsma. 2010. Why religion’s burdens are light: From religiosity to implicit self-regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review 14: 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kozielecki, Józef. 1977. O Godności Człowieka. Warszawa: Czytelnik. [Google Scholar]
  59. Krause, Neal. 1995. Religiosity and self-esteem among older adults. The Journal of Gerontology 50: 236–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Krok, Dariusz. 2014. The religious meaning system and subjective well-being: The mediational perspective of meaning in life. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 36: 253–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kunzmann, Ute, Cathleen Kappes, and Carsten Wrosch. 2014. Emotional aging: A discrete emotions perspective. Frontiers in psychology 5: 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Kuppens, Peter, and Francis Tuerlinckx. 2007. Personality traits predicting anger in self-, ambiguous-, and other caused unpleasant situations. Personality and Individual Differences 42: 1105–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kuppens, Peter, and Iven Van Mechelen. 2007. Interactional appraisal models for the anger appraisals of threatened self-esteem, other-blame, and frustration. Cognition and Emotion 21: 56–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Kuppens, Peter, Iven Van Mechelen, Dirk J. M. Smits, Paul De Boeck, and Eva Ceulemans. 2007. Individual differences in patterns of appraisal and anger experience. Cognition and Emotion 21: 689–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Laird, Robert D., Loren D. Marks, and Matthew D. Marrero. 2011. Religiosity, self-control, and antisocial behavior: Religiosity as a promotive and protective factor. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32: 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lambert, Nathaniel M., and David C. Dollahite. 2006. How religiosity helps couples prevent, resolve, and overcome marital conflict. Family Relations 55: 439–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Laufer, Avital, Yaira Raz-Hamama, Stephen Z. Levine, and Zahava Solomon. 2009. Posttraumatic growth in adolescence: The role of religiosity, distress, and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 28: 862–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lazarus, Richard L. 1993. Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine 55: 234–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Leach, Mark M., Mitchell Berman, and Lea Eubanks. 2008. Religious Activities, Religious Orientation, and Aggressive Behavior. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47: 311–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lerner, Jennifer S., and Dacher Keltner. 2001. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 146–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Maddi, Salvatore R., Marnie Brow, Deborah M. Khoshaba, and Mark Vaitkus. 2006. Relationship of hardiness and religiousness to depression and anger. Consulting Psychology Journal Practice and Research 58: 148–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mandal, Eugenia, and Marcin Moroń. 2019. Contingencies of self-worth and global self-esteem among college women: The role of masculine and feminine traits endorsement. Social Psychological Bulletin 14: e33507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Márquez-González, María, Javier Lopez, Rosa Romero-Moreno, and Andres Losada. 2010. Anger, spiritual meaning and support from the religious community in dementia caregiving. Journal of Religion and Health 51: 176–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Marsh, Robert, and Rudi Dallos. 2004. Roman Catholic couples: Wrath and religion. Family Process 40: 343–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Mascaro, Nathan, and David H. Rosen. 2006. The role of existential meaning as a buffer against stress. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 46: 168–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Merrill, Ray, Curtis Read, and Alisha LeCheminant. 2009. The influence of religiosity on positive and negative outcomes associated with stress among college students. Mental Health, Religion and Culture 12: 501–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mienaltowski, Andrew, Paul M. Corballis, Fredda Blanchard-Fields, Nathan A. Parks, and Matthew R. Hilimire. 2011. Anger management: Age differences in emotional modulation of visual processing. Psychology and Aging 26: 224–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Mill, Aire, Liisi Kööts-Ausmees, Jüri Allik, and Anu Realo. 2018. The role of co-occurring emotions and personality traits in anger expression. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Mirza, Nazrat M., Eleanor Race Mackey, Bridget Armstrong, Ana Jaramillo, and Matilde M. Palmer. 2011. Correlates of self-worth and body size dissatisfaction among obese Latino youth. Body Image 8: 173–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Novaco, Raymond W., and Claude M. Chemtob. 2002. Anger and combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress 15: 123–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Okuda, Mayumi, Julia Picazo, Mark Olfson, Deborah S. Hasin, Shang-Min Liu, Silvia Bernardi, and Carlos Blanco. 2016. Prevalence and correlates of anger in the community: Results from a national survey. CNS Spectrums 20: 130–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Ortony, Andrew, and Terence J. Turner. 1990. What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychological Review 3: 315–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Park, Lora E., Jennifer Crocker, and Amy K. Kiefer. 2007. Contingencies of self-worth, academic failure, and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33: 1503–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Parker, Michael W., L. Lee Roff, David L. Klemmack, Harold G. Koenig, P. Baker, and R. M. Allman. 2003. Religiosity and mental health in southern, community-dwelling older adults. Aging and Mental Health 7: 390–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pawliczek, Christina M., Birgit Derntl, Thilo Kellermann, Ruben C. Gur, Frank Schneider, and Ute Habel. 2013. Anger under control: Neural correlates of frustration as a function of trait aggression. PLoS ONE 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pelham, Brett W., and William B. Swann. 1989. From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 672–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Perez, Marisol, Kathleen D. Vohs, and Thomas E. Joiner. 2005. Discrepancies between self- and other-esteem as correlates of aggression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 24: 607–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Piotrowski, Jarosław P., Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska, and Amanda Clinton. 2020. Spiritual transcendence as a buffer against death anxiety. Current Psychology 39: 994–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Roberts, John E., Jon D. Kassel, and Ian H. Gotlib. 1995. Level and stability of self-esteem as predictors of depressive symptoms. Personality Individual Differences 19: 217–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rodríguez-Ardura, Inma, and Antoni Meseguer-Artola. 2020. Editorial: How to prevent, detect and control common method variance in electronic commerce research. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 15: I–V. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Schieman, Scott. 2003. Socioeconomic status and the frequency of anger across the life course. Sociological Perspectives 46: 207–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Schmitt, Antje, Michael M. Gielnik, and Sebastian Seibel. 2018. When and how does anger during goal pursuit relate to goal achievement? The roles of persistence and action planning. Motivation and Emotion 43: 205–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Sherkat, Darren, and Mark D. Reed. 1992. The effects of religion and social support on self-esteem and depression among the suddenly bereaved. Social Indicators Research 26: 259–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sedikides, Constantin, and Jochen E. Gebauer. 2020. Do religious people self-enhance? Current Opinion in Psychology 40: 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Shanahan, Sarah, Jason Jones, and Brian Thomas-Peter. 2010. Are you looking at me, or am I? Anger, aggression, shame and self-worth in violent individuals. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 29: 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Soenke, Melissa, Mark J. Landau, and Jeff Greenberg. 2013. Sacred armor: religion’s role as buffer against the anxieties of life and the fear of death. In Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. Edited by Kenneth I. Pargament, Julie J. Exline and James W. Jones. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 105–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Son, Joonmo, and John Wilson. 2011. Generativity and volunteering. Sociological Forum. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  98. Stefanone, Michael A., Derek Lackaff, and Devan Rosen. 2011. Contingencies of self-worth and social-networking-site behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14: 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Stroope, Samuel, Blake Victor Kent, Ying Zhang, Namratha Kandula, Alka Kanaya, and Alexandra Schields. 2020. Self-rated religiosity/spirituality and four health outcomes among US South Asian findings from the study on stress, spirituality, and health. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 208: 165–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Szcześniak, Małgorzata, and Celina Timoszyk-Tomczak. 2020. Religious Struggle and Life Satisfaction Among Adult Christians: Self-esteem as a Mediator. Journal of Religion and Health 59: 2833–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tracy, Jessica L., and Richard W. Robins. 2004. Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry 15: 103–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Turner, R. Jay, David Russel, Regan Glover, and Pamela Hutto. 2007. The social antecedents of anger proneness in young adulthood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 48: 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Villani, Daniela, Angela Sorgente, Paola Iannello, and Alessandro Antonietti. 2019. The role of spirituality and religiosity in subjective well-being of individuals with different religious status. Frontiers in Psychology 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Vishkin, Allon. 2020. Variation and consistency in the links between religion and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Vishkin, Allon, Yochanan E. Bigman, Roni Porat, Nevin Solak, Eran Halperin, and Maya Tamir. 2016. God rest our hearts: Religiosity and cognitive reappraisal. Emotion 16: 252–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Vishkin, Allon, Shalom H. Schwartz, Ben-Nun Bloom Pazit, Nevin Solak, and Maya Tamir. 2020. Religiosity and desired emotions: Belief maintenance or prosocial facilitation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Vorster, Nico. 2012. A theological perspective on human dignity, equality and freedom. Verbum et Ecclesia 33: 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Waschull, Stefanie B., and Michael H. Kernis. 1996. Level and stability of self-esteem as predictors of children intrinsic motivation and reason for anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22: 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Welch, Bernard Lewis. 1951. On the comparison of several mean values: An alternative approach. Biometrika 38: 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Williams, Riccardo. 2017. Anger as a basic emotion and its role in personality building and pathological growth: The neuroscientific, developmental and clinical perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Wink, Paul, and Julia Scott. 2005. Does religiousness buffer against the fear of death and dying in late adulthood? Findings from a longitudinal study. The Journals of Gerontology Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 60: 207–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Winterowd, Carrie, Steve Harrist, Nancy Thomason, Sherri Worth, and Barbara Carlozzi. 2005. The relationship of spiritual beliefs and involvement with the experience of anger and stress in college students. Journal of College Student Development 46: 515–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wright, Steven, Andrew Day, and Kevin Howells. 2009. Mindfulnness and the treatment of anger problems. Aggression and Violent Behavior 14: 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Young, Robert K., and Donald J. Veldman. 1965. Introductory Statistics for the Behavioral. New York: Sciences, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Google Scholar]
  115. Zajenkowski, Marcin, and Gilles E. Gignac. 2018. Why do angry people overestimate their intelligence? Neuroticism as a suppressor of the association between Trait-Anger and subjectively assessed intelligence. Intelligence 70: 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zhu, Ruida, Xu Zhenhua, Tang Honghong, Liu Jiting, Wang Huanqing, An Ying, Mai Xiaoqin, and Liu Chao. 2018. The effect of shame on anger at others: Awereness of the emotion-causing events matters. Cognition and Emotion 33: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Zimmer, Zachary, Rojo Florencia, Ofstedal Mary Beth, Chiu Chi-Tsun, Saito Yasuhiko, and Jagger Carol. 2018. Religiosity and health: A global comparative study. SSM- Population Health 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Religions 12 00284 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagram of the tested simple mediation model.
Figure 1. Diagram of the tested simple mediation model.
Religions 12 00284 g001
Religions 12 00284 g002 550
Figure 2. First model of moderation analysis.
Figure 2. First model of moderation analysis.
Religions 12 00284 g002
Religions 12 00284 g003 550
Figure 3. Simple slopes plot for the moderating role of religiosity in the relationship of loss of self-dignity and anger.
Figure 3. Simple slopes plot for the moderating role of religiosity in the relationship of loss of self-dignity and anger.
Religions 12 00284 g003
Religions 12 00284 g004 550
Figure 4. Simple slopes plot for the moderating role of religiosity in the relationship between sense of self-dignity and anger.
Figure 4. Simple slopes plot for the moderating role of religiosity in the relationship between sense of self-dignity and anger.
Religions 12 00284 g004
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the members of the subgroups selected in the study (N = 462).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the members of the subgroups selected in the study (N = 462).
Non-BelieversNon-Practicing Believers Practicing Believers
(n = 154)(n = 154)(n = 154)
Age18–3518–3518–35
(M = 21.09; SD = 3.39)(M = 21.49; SD = 3.66)(M = 21.21; SD = 3.61)
Sex100 women (64.9%)103 women (66.9%)123 women (79.9%)
54 men (35.1%)51 men (33.1%)31 men (20.1%)
Education level0 primary (0%)1 primary (0.6%)1 primary (0.6%)
13 lower secondary (8.4%)14 lower secondary (9.1%)14 lower secondary (9.1%)
4 vocational (2.6%)4 vocational (2.6%)2 vocational (1.3%)
110 secondary (71.4%)104 secondary (67.5%)108 secondary (70.1%)
27 higher (17.5%)31 higher (20.1%)29 higher (18.8%)
Table
Table 2. Basic descriptive statistics and the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
Table 2. Basic descriptive statistics and the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
Group/VariableMSDSkKurtK-S
Research sample (n = 462)
Loss of self-dignity18.605.8512.660.098 ***
Sense of self-dignity106.0720.740.37−0.030.078 ***
Anger20.415.730.07−0.510.047 *
Religious orientation28.2315.090.65−0.420.113 ***
Religious meaning36.9716.140.20−0.970.072 ***
Non-believers (n = 154)
Loss of self-dignity19.125.940.811.890.071
Sense of self-dignity103.8020.830.280.410.059
Anger20.876.240.04−0.540.046
Religious orientation16.808.441.602.050.210 ***
Religious meaning22.018.660.65−0.300.098 **
Non-practicing believers (n = 154)
Loss of self-dignity18.695.881.263.810.115 ***
Sense of self-dignity104.4518.630.590.160.076 *
Anger20.475.42−0.18−0.420.065
Religious orientation24.9710.320.941.750.073 *
Religious meaning35.5110.220.07−0.490.058
Practicing believers (n = 154)
Loss of self-dignity17.975.690.992.640.117 ***
Sense of self-dignity109.9722.180.23−0.540.108 ***
Anger19.885.480.28−0.580.083 *
Religious orientation42.9212.180.01−0.210.082 *
Religious meaning53.4010.32−0.42−0.320.067
Note: Sk—skewness; Kurt—kurtosis; K-S—Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Pearson’s r correlation results for all measured variables.
Table 3. Pearson’s r correlation results for all measured variables.
SDCOGLOSRELEXPP-AV-AANGHOSRORM
SD10.83 **0.38 **0.82 **0.79 **−0.050.090.16 **0.12 **0.14 **0.15 **
COG-1−0.050.71 **0.48 **−0.090.14 **0.04−0.060.14 **0.15 **
LOS--10.030.39 **0.12 **0.040.30 **0.31 **−0.02−0.04
REL---10.50 **−0.12 *0.010.02−0.010.14 **0.15 **
EXP----1−0.020.010.18 **0.23 **0.11 *0.13 **
P-A-----10.39 **0.42 **0.27 **−0.01−0.14 **
V-A------10.51 **0.34 **−0.09−0.16 **
ANG-------10.52 **−0.08−0.12 **
HOS--------1−0.09−0.12 **
RO---------10.87 **
RM----------1
Note: SD—sense of self-dignity; COG—cognitive dimension of self-dignity; LOS—loss of self-dignity; REL—relational dimension of self-dignity; EXP—experience dimension of self-dignity; P-A—physical aggression; V-A—verbal aggression; ANG—anger; HOS—hostility; RO—religious orientation; RM—religious meaning; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Results of the one-way ANOVA and Tamhane’s T2 test.
Table 4. Results of the one-way ANOVA and Tamhane’s T2 test.
VariableABA-BSEpW(df)
RON-BN-PB−8.18 *1.075<0.001238.790(2, 299) ***
PB−26.12 *1.194<0.001
N-PBN-B8.18 *1.075<0.001
PB−17.95 *1.287<0.001
PBN-B26.12 *1.194<0.001
N-PB17.95 *1.287<0.001
RMNBN-PB−13.51 *1.079<0.001417.401(2, 303) ***
PB−31.40 *1.086<0.001
N-PBN-B13.506 *1.079<0.001
PB−17.890 *1.170<0.001
PBN-B31.396 *1.086<0.001
N-PB17.890 *1.170<0.001
Note: RO—religious orientation; RM—religious meaning; N-B—non-believers; N-PB—non-practicing believers; PB—practicing believers; W—Welch’s test; *** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Results of the performed mediation analysis.
Table 5. Results of the performed mediation analysis.
ModelXMYabcc’Indirect95%CI
1ROLOSANG−0.010.29 ***−0.03−0.03−0.01[−0.01; 0.01]
2RMLOSANG−0.010.29 ***−0.04−0.04−0.01[−0.01; 0.01]
Note: LOS—loss of self-dignity; ANG—anger; RO—religious orientation; RM—religious meaning; *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodzeń, W.; Kulik, M.M.; Malinowska, A.; Kroplewski, Z.; Szcześniak, M. The Loss of Self-Dignity and Anger among Polish Young Adults: The Moderating Role of Religiosity. Religions 2021, 12, 284. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040284

AMA Style

Rodzeń W, Kulik MM, Malinowska A, Kroplewski Z, Szcześniak M. The Loss of Self-Dignity and Anger among Polish Young Adults: The Moderating Role of Religiosity. Religions. 2021; 12(4):284. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040284

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodzeń, Wojciech, Małgorzata Maria Kulik, Agnieszka Malinowska, Zdzisław Kroplewski, and Małgorzata Szcześniak. 2021. "The Loss of Self-Dignity and Anger among Polish Young Adults: The Moderating Role of Religiosity" Religions 12, no. 4: 284. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040284

APA Style

Rodzeń, W., Kulik, M. M., Malinowska, A., Kroplewski, Z., & Szcześniak, M. (2021). The Loss of Self-Dignity and Anger among Polish Young Adults: The Moderating Role of Religiosity. Religions, 12(4), 284. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040284

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop