
==== Front
Gerontologist
Gerontologist
geront
The Gerontologist
0016-9013
1758-5341
Oxford University Press US

39093686
10.1093/geront/gnae097
gnae097
Research Article
AcademicSubjects/SOC02600
Religiosity and Spirituality Development: An Accelerated Longitudinal Design
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5975-2731
Nelson Niccole A PhD Department of Psychology and Columbine Health Systems Center for Healthy Aging, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9546-9893
Joiner Raquael J PhD USC Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2441-2002
Martinez Brandy S PhD Raleigh II Clinic, Durham VA Health Care System, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0276-3442
Bergeman Cindy S PhD Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA

Gaugler Joseph E PhD, FGSA Decision Editor
Address correspondence to: Niccole A. Nelson. E-mail: niccole.nelson@colostate.edu
10 2024
02 8 2024
02 8 2024
64 10 gnae09706 1 2024
14 6 2024
13 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.

Abstract

Background and Objectives

The central aim of the present study was to model developmental trends in communal and independent religious practices, spirituality, positive and negative religious/spiritual coping, as well as their confluence, across ages 45–80.

Research Design and Methods

Participants derived from the Notre Dame Study of Health & Well-being (NDHWB), a longitudinal study spanning 10 years in an age-heterogeneous sample. Using 2-level multilevel models, we estimated no change, linear change, quadratic change, and cubic change functions across ages 45–80 in each construct. Cohort differences were also tested.

Results

Communal and independent practices, spirituality, negative religious/spiritual coping, as well as composite religiosity/spirituality, followed cubic trajectories across mid- to later life. Communal religious practices peaked twice: once at 45 and again around age 70. Independent practices, in contrast, peaked at age 45 and then declined in a stage-like manner until age 80. Spirituality reached its nadir around age 50 and peaked in the early 70s; the reverse was true for negative religious/spiritual coping. The change trajectory in composite religiosity/spirituality most resembled that of independent religious practices. Finally, positive religious/spiritual coping followed a linear trajectory, but a cohort difference precluded its interpretation as developmental change.

Discussion and Implications

Individuals appear to engage with their faith in different ways as they age, meaning extant conclusions about age-related differences and change in global religiosity/spirituality may be distorted.

Daily spiritual experiences
Faith
Organizational practices
Religiosity
National Institute on Aging 10.13039/100000049 1 R01 AG023571-A1-01
==== Body
pmcIt is well accepted that older individuals report greater religiosity and spirituality (R/S) than younger individuals (Shulgin et al., 2019), although this conclusion is complicated by the distinct, multidimensional nature of R/S. Indeed, religiosity entails various convictions, rituals, and lifestyles that are shared within congregations that are seeking relationships with divine beings, whereas spirituality refers to individualized convictions, rituals, and lifestyles that support the formation and maintenance of relationships with divine beings (Koenig et al., 2024). Religious individuals hold beliefs and live out values that are in accordance with their specific doctrines, and often engage in several communal and independent religious practices as a result (Fetzer/NIA, 2003). Spiritual individuals feel a divine presence in their lives, either through major life events or everyday experiences (Fetzer/NIA, 2003), and may or may not seek understanding of such experiences in the context of organized religiosity (Koenig et al., 2024; Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005). Whether individuals identify as religious, spiritual, or both, however, they may engage in various forms of religious/spiritual coping as they navigate daily hardships (Fetzer/NIA, 2003).

Although age-related differences in these specific R/S dimensions have been established (Idler et al., 2003), whether these differences reflect distinct age-related trajectories across mid- to later life is an empirical question that remains unexplored. Midlife is a period that is characterized by conflicting demands, prospects, and milestones, and its associated time constraints may restrict midlife individuals’ participation in several pursuits (Infurna et al., 2020), including organized religious practices. Furthermore, as individuals age, they begin to recognize and grapple with their mortalities, often leading them to prioritize inner peace and fulfillment over achievement striving (Carstensen, 2021). An increased sense of mortality and motivational shifts, together, may result in an increased desire to connect with a higher power, and thus, a greater sense of spirituality. Additionally, as individuals’ time constraints dwindle after reaching milestones like retirement (Infurna et al., 2020), individuals may feel more freedom to explore their spiritual pursuits, both inside and outside organized religiosity. As health and cognition decline across later life (Nelson et al., 2020), however, individuals may become more restricted in terms of the activities that they can engage in (Baltes, 1987), perhaps reducing their opportunities to connect with a higher power. In sum, although ample extant theory and research suggest that various R/S facets may follow unique developmental trajectories across mid- to later life, this argument lacks extant empirical support. Therefore, in the present study, we modeled developmental change in several distinct R/S constructs, specifically communal and independent religious practices, spirituality, positive and negative religious/spiritual coping, as well as their confluence, across ages 45–80.

Developmental Trajectories of R/S Facets

Religious individuals commonly engage in communal religious practices, such as attending religious services or congregation-sponsored social events (Fetzer/NIA, 2003; Idler et al., 2003), yet participation in these activities appears to decline with age. Indeed, religious service attendance consistently declines over late adulthood, a finding evident in Polish Catholics (Grygiel & Humenny, 2012) and Florida retirement community residents (Wang et al., 2014). These findings, however, cannot be interpreted as developmental given that change was modeled across study waves in age-heterogeneous samples (Grygiel & Humenny, 2012; Wang et al., 2014). By modeling generational differences in the effects of aging on religious attendance in a multigenerational sample based in Southern California, Bengtson and colleagues (2015) found that religious attendance (1) followed a quadratic, inverted U-shaped trajectory in the oldest cohort from age 65–95, (2) increased steadily in the oldest cohort’s children across ages 45–85, and (3) initially increased before slightly declining in the oldest cohort’s grandchildren aged 16–55. Finally, using a piecewise growth curve model to examine developmental change in religious service attendance in the same multigenerational sample, Hayward and Krause (2013a) found that religious attendance tended to follow a U-shaped trajectory across young adulthood (15–25), remained stable across midlife (26–65), and increase modestly before sharply declining in older adulthood (66 and older). Thus, although there may be cohort differences in this change (Bengtson et al., 2015), individuals’ engagement in communal religious practices may remain stable across midlife (Hayward & Krause, 2013a), followed by later-life decline (Grygiel & Humenny, 2012; Wang et al., 2014).

In addition to communal practices, religious individuals tend to engage in several independent religious practices, such as prayer or studying religious texts (Fetzer/NIA, 2003; Idler et al., 2003); whether engagement in these independent practices changes with age, however, remains unknown. According to the 1988 Gallup Poll, older individuals tend to pray more often than younger individuals (Peacock & Poloma, 1999). Although informative, such cross-sectional findings may not be indicative of developmental change. Notably, in a sample comprised of White and Latinx older adults over age 60, frequency of praying remained stable across study waves (Markides, 1983; Markides et al., 1987). This pattern, however, cannot inform the developmental trajectory of independent religious practices given that change was modeled across study waves instead of age. Thus, study designs that directly model age-related change in private religious practices are needed.

Like independent religious practices, evidence for developmental change in spirituality, or the sense of a divine presence in one’s life, is scant. Specifically, in French individuals aged 62–95, daily spiritual experiences remained stable across a 5-year study period (Bailly et al., 2018). This study, however, only examined changes across study waves as opposed to age, potentially masking age-related change. Clarifying this issue, in a two-cohort, longitudinal study spanning adulthood, a younger cohort steadily increased in spirituality from early adulthood (~30s) to later adulthood (~60s/70s), whereas an older cohort remained stable from young adulthood (~30s) to later midlife (~50s/60s), and then increased in spirituality until later adulthood (~60s/70s; Wink & Dillon, 2002). This study was limited to four time points, however, and used a repeated-measures ANOVA, which precluded the examination of complex change trajectories in spirituality. Despite these limitations, the consistent increase from later midlife to older adulthood indicates that individuals might increase in spirituality as they age.

Whether someone is religious, spiritual, or both, they may engage in positive or negative religious/spiritual coping (Fetzer/NIA, 2003; Idler et al., 2003), and there is evidence that these facets change with age. First, positive religious/spiritual coping, or reliance on one’s faith (Idler et al., 2003), declined across 5 years in African Americans aged 21 and over, and this decline was buffered by greater religious attendance and stronger religious beliefs (Holt et al., 2017). Negative religious/spiritual coping, which is characterized by blaming a higher power for stressful times (Idler et al., 2003); however, remained stable across the 5 years (Holt et al., 2017). Next, using growth mixture modeling, Hayward and Krause (2016) identified five trajectories of positive religious/spiritual coping, and three trajectories of negative religious/spiritual coping. Most individuals had higher initial levels of positive coping, with trajectories characterized by stability (~73%), slow decline (~17%) or rapid decline (~3%). Fewer individuals had initially low positive coping, which was followed by a sharp increase (~5%), or stability over time (~3%). Considering negative coping, most individuals initially had low levels of negative religious coping, and either sustained low levels (~93%) or increased over time (~3%). Others began with high levels of negative religious coping and declined over time (~5%). Given these studies' research aims, the average developmental trajectories of positive and negative religious/spiritual coping were not modeled; furthermore, change was examined across study waves as opposed to age (Hayward & Krause, 2016; Holt et al., 2017). Thus, it is unknown how positive and negative coping, on average, change across adulthood.

The Current Study

In sum, R/S is multifaceted, and the aging trajectories of the various facets are unclear. Using the Notre Dame Study of Health & Well-being (NDHWB; Bergeman et al., 2021), a longitudinal study of adult development and aging, four change trajectories (i.e., no change, linear, quadratic, and cubic) in religious practices (communal and independent), spirituality, religious/spiritual coping (positive and negative), and composite R/S were modeled across ages 45–80. We hypothesized that (1) communal practices would remain stable across midlife, followed by a later-life decline (Hayward & Krause, 2013a), (2) private practices would remain stable (Markides et al., 1987), (3) spirituality would increase (Wink & Dillon, 2002), and (4) both positive and negative coping would remain stable (Hayward & Krause, 2016). The age-related trend in composite R/S was also tested, but no hypotheses were formulated given the exploratory nature of the question.

Method

Participants

Participants included 768 individuals from the NDHWB (see Bergeman et al., 2021, for detailed NDHWB overview). NDHWB participants were initially recruited from a five-county region of northern Indiana in 2005, and the sample is representative of the area from which it was drawn (Bergeman et al., 2021). Although the NDHWB incorporates several data collection modalities, only annual questionnaire packets on several psychosocial constructs, including communal and independent religious practices, spirituality, as well as positive and negative religious/spiritual coping, were used in the present study. Depending on when they were recruited into the study, NDHWB participants were eligible to complete up to 10 annual questionnaire packets (see Supplementary Table 1 for the number of observations included in the present analyses). For inclusion in the present analyses, participants needed to have provided information on each R/S construct of interest on at least two measurement occasions when they were aged 45–80. Measurement occasions that were associated with ages under 45 and over 80 were removed prior to analysis to avoid unreliable estimation at the tails of our age distribution (see Nelson & Bergeman, 2021, for example). Data collection procedures for this study underwent and received approval from the University of Notre Dame Institutional Review Board (protocol #12-07-399).

The present sample size of 768 reflects the number of NDHWB participants who provided sufficient data across the study period based on the inclusion criteria described herein. At the first measurement occasion, participants ranged in age from 38 to 78 years old (Mage = 59.24, SDage = 8.65). This range represents all participants’ ages at the beginning of the study in 2005, and thus is used to index cohort effects in the present study. Most participants identified as female (60.55%) and White (83.71%; 11.56% Black, 2.23% Hispanic/Latinx). Additionally, most participants had at least some college education (25.67% some college classes; 18% college degree; 6.06% post-college professional degree; 8.38% graduate degree), as well as an annual household income greater than $25,000 (23.99% $25,000–$39,999; 30.04% $40,000–$74,999; 7.88%, $75,000–$99,999; 8.06% over $100,000). Participants’ baseline religious affiliations are displayed in Supplementary Table 2; most reported practicing a form of Christianity.

Measures

Four subscales from the Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness and Spirituality (BMMRS; Fetzer Institute/NIA, 2003), including Daily Spiritual Experiences, Private Religious Practices, Religious and Spiritual Coping, and Organizational Religiousness, were used in the present study (see Supplementary Appendix A for general BMMRS discussion). Composite R/S scores derived from a bifactor confirmatory factor analysis model; details of this approach are provided in Supplementary Appendix B.

Communal and independent religious practices

The two-item Organizational Religiousness subscale of the BMMRS, as well as the five-item Private Religious Practices subscale of the BMMRS, measured the frequency of individuals’ engagement in communal and independent religious practices, respectively (Fetzer Institute/NIA, 2003). The eight-point Likert-type response options for the Private Religious Practices subscale, which ranged from 1 (Never or almost never) to 8 (More than once a day), were used for both scales in the NDHWB. Items for both communal (e.g., “How often do you go to religious services?”) and independent (e.g., “How often do you pray privately in places other than at church or synagogue?”) religious practices were summed, with higher scores indicating more frequent practices (communal range: 2–16; independent range: 5–40). If any items were missing on either scale at a given measurement occasion, items were not summed, and the respective scale’s score was coded as blank. Both subscales demonstrated reasonable internal consistency reliability (Communal Wave 1 Cronbach’s α = 0.776; Independent Wave 1 Cronbach’s α = 0.852), with most variation lying between individuals as opposed to within (Communal intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.81; Independent ICC = 0.88).

Spirituality

The six-item Daily Spiritual Experiences subscale of the BMMRS measured spirituality (Fetzer Institute/NIA, 2003). NDHWB participants responded to a series of statements regarding the frequency of their everyday feelings of connectedness to a higher power (e.g., “I feel God’s presence”; “I am spiritually touched by the beauty of creation”) on a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never or almost never) to 6 (Many times a day). Items were summed to measure the frequency of individuals’ daily spiritual experiences, with higher values reflecting greater spirituality (Range = 6–36). If one item was missing at a given measurement occasion, a mean substitution was performed before the spirituality score was computed; if two or more items were missing, items were not summed, and the score was coded as blank. This scale demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (Wave 1 Cronbach’s α = 0.93), and most variability was between individuals (ICC = 0.82).

Positive and Negative Religious/Spiritual Coping

The seven-item Religious/Spiritual Coping Subscale of the BMMRS was adapted to measure the extent of participants’ engagement in both positive and negative religious/spiritual coping (Fetzer Institute/NIA, 2003). Although originally intended to be used as single coping scale (Fetzer Institute/NIA, 2003), subsequent psychometric work indicated that the positive items were distinct from the negative items (Idler et al., 2003). Indeed, the positive coping items (e.g., “I work together with God as partners”) reflect relying on a higher power to get through hard times, whereas the negative coping items (e.g., “I feel that God is punishing me for my sins or lack of spirituality”) reflect blaming a higher power for negative experiences. Thus, five positive coping items and two negative coping items were summed separately to measure both forms of religious/spiritual coping. Notably, during three waves of the NDHWB, six coping items were altered to reference stressful times (e.g., “I work together with God as partners to get through hard times”). These alterations were made in line with an alternative, situational form of the measure that was also recommended by the Fetzer Institute and NIA Workgroup (2003). NDHWB participants rated how often they think or behave in a manner that is consistent with each item on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Always) to 4 (Never), although a “Does Not Apply” option (coded as missing), was added at Wave 4. Items were reverse coded as necessary and summed, with higher scores reflecting more use of positive (Range = 5–20) or negative coping (Range = 2–8). If any items were missing on either scale at a given measurement occasion, items were not summed, and the respective scale’s score was coded as blank. The scales showed reasonable internal consistency reliability (Positive Wave 1 Cronbach’s α = 0.86; Negative Wave 1 Cronbach’s α = 0.73). Although most variation in positive coping was between individuals (ICC = 0.81), there was approximately even variation in negative coping between and within individuals (ICC = 0.56).

Data Availability

This work was not preregistered. Data are not publicly shared because individuals interested in using the NDHWB must complete a Data Use Agreement with Notre Dame Research. Data will be made available upon request after this process. The software code used for analyses will be made available upon request.

Analytic Approach

The present study followed an accelerated longitudinal design (Duncan et al., 1996), which capitalizes on longitudinal data from age-heterogeneous samples by modeling continuous change across participants’ ages instead of study waves. We used two-level, multilevel modeling, nesting up to 10 longitudinal measurement occasions within individuals (Singer & Willett, 2003). Consistent with prior work utilizing NDHWB data (Nelson & Bergeman, 2021), we followed a two-step approach. First, an appropriate change function for each R/S domain was identified; no change, linear, quadratic, and cubic change functions were examined. Given that each of these models are nested, the best-fitting growth model was selected based on likelihood ratio tests. To provide a meaningful intercept and avoid computational difficulties, age was centered at 45, the youngest included measurement occasion, and rescaled such that decades were the time metric. First, the Level-1 linear model for each R/S index was fit with the following equation:

R/Sit= β0i+ β1i(Ageit−4510) + εit. (1)

Here, β0i  represents the level of the religiosity/spirituality domain at age 45 (i.e., intercept) for individual i, β1i represents the decennial linear rate of change (i.e., linear slope) in R/S for individual i, and εit  represents the residual around the fitted trajectory for individual i at time t (Singer & Willett, 2003). Second, the Level-1 equation for the quadratic model was fit with the following equation:

R/Sit= β0i+ β1i(Ageit−4510)+ β2i(Ageit−4510)2+ εit, (2)

in which β1i and β2i cannot be interpreted in isolation from one another. Specifically, β1i represents the rapid linear rate of change in R/S per decade at age 45 for individual i, and β2i denotes the acceleration (i.e., curve) in the rate of change per decade for individual i. Finally, the Level-1 equation for the cubic function is

R/Sit= β0i+ β1i(Ageit−4510)+ β2i(Ageit−4510)2 + β3i(Ageit−4510)3 +εit, (3)

in which β1i, β2i, and β3i cannot be interpreted separately. Specifically, β1i represents the decennial, linear rate of change in R/S at age 45, and both β2i and β3i represent two curves in the change trajectory.

After identifying the appropriate functional form of change, the second step was to rule out cross-sectional age differences in the longitudinal aging trajectories by incorporating the main and moderating effects of Age at Wave 1 at Level 2 (i.e., full model). This allowed for a test of between-person age differences in age-related R/S changes. Estimates of the full models and the reduced models (i.e., without Age at Time 1 as a Level-2 predictor) were compared using likelihood ratio tests (Miyazaki & Raudenbush, 2000). Given that simpler models tend to be over rejected in large samples like the NDHWB with this approach, Wald tests were also used to evaluate the presence of cross-sectional age differences in the aging trajectories (see Nelson & Bergeman, 2021, for example). In this approach, significant main or moderating effects of Age at Time 1 would support a significant likelihood ratio test and indicate which aging parameters were influenced by cohort effects. In the presence of cohort effects, the change function model selected in Step 1 of the analysis cannot be interpreted as developmental change.

Results

Multilevel modeling was conducted with SAS 9.4 software, specifically Proc Mixed. Full-information maximum-likelihood estimation was used. All models included random effects for both the intercept and linear slope of age. Given that the study goals centered around the fixed effect estimates, random effects estimates for quadratic and cubic change parameters were not incorporated into the models to facilitate model convergence. Results from the likelihood ratio tests are presented in Supplementary Table 3. Parameter estimates from the best-fitting growth models are presented in Table 1, with the estimates from the cohort effects models reported in Supplementary Table 4.

Table 1. Parameter Estimates for Final Growth Models

	Communal practices	Independent practices	Spirituality	Positive coping	Negative coping	Composite religiosity	
Fixed effects:							
 Intercept, b00^	6.56***	22.54***	23.77***	14.90***	2.96***	0.12	
 Age, b10^	−1.05*	−3.38**	−1.49	0.21*	0.24	−0.31*	
 Age2, b20^	0.84**	2.32***	1.98**		−0.30*	0.24***	
 Age3, b30^	−0.17***	−0.45***	−0.43***		0.06**	−0.05***	
Variance/covariance:							
 Intercept, σ^02	17.80***	137.29***	105.55***	17.33***	1.24***	1.48***	
 Age, σ^12	2.39***	19.48***	16.66***	2.42***	0.07*	0.25***	
 Covariance, σ01^	−4.83***	−34.43***	−31.22***	−4.46***	−0.23**	−0.43***	
 Residual variance, σ^ε2	1.84***	9.60***	10.01***	2.24***	0.57***	0.11***	
Notes:

*** p < .001.

** p < .01.

* p < .05.

Religious Practices

Likelihood ratio tests indicated that both communal (Χ2(1) = 11.4, p < .001) and private religious practices (Χ2(1) = 13.1, p < .001) followed cubic change trajectories from ages 45 to 80 (see Supplementary Table 3). Although likelihood ratio tests also indicated there may be cohort effects in these trajectories (Communal: Χ2(4) = 19.7, p < .001; Independent: Χ2(4) = 19.7, p < .001; see Supplementary Table 3), the nonsignificant Wald tests for cohort effects indicate that the trajectories can be interpreted as developmental change (see Supplementary Table 4). Thus, the model-implied trajectories of communal and independent religious practices are depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. In terms of communal religious practices, individuals frequently engaged in communal practices at age 45 (b00^ = 6.56, p < .0001; see Table 1), followed by decline until approximately age 53 (b10^  = −1.05, p = .024). Thereafter, individuals increased in engagement until about age 70, where they reached about the same level of engagement seen at age 45 (b20^ = 0.84, p = .002) before sharply declining until age 80 (b30^ = −0.17, p = .0007). Considering independent religious practices, individuals engaged in independent practices most frequently at age 45 (b00^ = 22.54, p < .0001; see Table 1). This engagement tended to decline until approximately age 55 (b10^  = −3.38, p = .004), followed by a slight increase until approximately age 70 (b20^ = 2.32, p = .0007). After age 70, engagement in private practices tended to decline until age 80 (b30^ = −0.45, p = .0003).

Figure 1. Longitudinal change in communal religious practices from 45 to 80. Because age was centered at 45 and rescaled to represent decades, 0 corresponds to age 45, 1 corresponds to age 55, 2 corresponds to age 65, and 3 corresponds to age 75. Thus, the change trajectory can be interpreted as change in communal religious practices from age 45 to 80.

Alt Text: A blue plot of the model-based, cubic trajectory of Communal Religious Practices with shading to denote 95% confidence limits.

Figure 2. Longitudinal change in independent religious practices from 45 to 80. Because age was centered at 45 and rescaled to represent decades, 0 corresponds to age 45, 1 corresponds to age 55, 2 corresponds to age 65, and 3 corresponds to age 75. Thus, the change trajectory can be interpreted as change in independent religious practices from age 45 to 80.

Alt Text: A blue plot of the model-based, cubic trajectory of Independent Religious Practices with shading to denote 95% confidence limits.

Spirituality

Likelihood ratio tests indicated that spirituality followed a cubic trend from age 45 to 80 (Χ2(1) = 12.7, p < .001), with no evidence for cohort effects (Χ2(4) = 9.3, ns; see Supplementary Table 3). Because Wald tests supported this conclusion (see Supplementary Table 4), the model-implied, cubic trajectory of Spirituality is depicted in Figure 3. On average, individuals tended to report a moderate level of spirituality at age 45 (b00^ = 23.77, p < .0001; see Table 1), which declined nonsignificantly until roughly age 50 (b10^  = −1.49, p = .193). After age 50, spirituality steadily increased until the early 70s (b20^ = 1.98, p = .003), but declined sharply thereafter (b30^ = -0.43, p = .0004).

Figure 3. Longitudinal change in spirituality from 45 to 80. Because age was centered at 45 and rescaled to represent decades, 0 corresponds to age 45, 1 corresponds to age 55, 2 corresponds to age 65, and 3 corresponds to age 75. Thus, the change trajectory can be interpreted as change in spirituality from age 45 to 80.

Alt Text: A blue plot of the model-based, cubic trajectory of Spirituality with shading to denote 95% confidence limits.

Religious/Spiritual Coping

Likelihood ratio tests indicated that positive religious/spiritual coping followed a linear trajectory (Χ2(3) = 79, p < .001), whereas negative religious/spiritual coping followed a cubic trajectory (Χ2(1) = 7.1, p < .01). In terms of cohort effects, likelihood ratio tests also indicated that there may be cohort effects in positive (Χ2(6) = 17, p < .01), but not negative (Χ2(4) = 5.9, ns), religious/spiritual coping trajectories (see Supplementary Table 3), and Wald tests supported these conclusions (see Supplementary Table 4). Thus, only the negative religious/spiritual coping trajectory can be interpreted as developmental change, and its model-implied trajectory is depicted in Figure 4. On average, individuals engaged in high levels of negative religious/spiritual coping at age 45 (b00^ = 2.96, p < .0001; see Table 1), followed by a nonsignificant increase until approximately age 50 (b10^  = 0.24, p = .250). Engagement in negative religious/spiritual coping then steadily declined until the early 70s (b20^  = −0.30, p = .017), and increased thereafter (b30^  = 0.06, p = .008).

Figure 4. Longitudinal change in negative religious/spiritual coping from 45 to 80. Because age was centered at 45 and rescaled to represent decades, 0 corresponds to age 45, 1 corresponds to age 55, 2 corresponds to age 65, and 3 corresponds to age 75. Thus, the change trajectory can be interpreted as change in negative religious/spiritual coping from age 45 to 80.

Alt Text: A blue plot of the model-based, cubic trajectory of Negative Religious/Spiritual Coping with shading to denote 95% confidence limits.

Composite R/S

Likelihood ratio tests indicated that composite R/S followed a cubic trajectory from age 45 to 80 (Χ2(1) = 14.7, p < .001), and that there may be cohort effects in this change trajectory (Χ2(4) = 31.3, p < .001; see Supplementary Table 3). Because there were no significant Wald tests to support the presence of cohort effects (see Supplementary Table 4), the trajectory can be interpreted as developmental change. Thus, the cubic change trajectory in composite R/S is displayed in Supplementary Figure 1. Individuals tended to peak in composite R/S at age 45 (b00^ = 0.12, p = .174; see Table 1), after which they declined until the mid-50s (b10^  = −0.31, p = .013). They then increased until approximately age 70 (b20^ = 0.24, p = .001) before declining until age 80 (b30^ = −0.05, p = .0001).

Discussion

Distinct patterns of cubic, developmental change were found across communal and independent religious practices, spirituality, negative religious/spiritual coping, and composite R/S. In terms of religious practices, the frequency of engagement in communal practices peaked twice, once at age 45 and again at 70, whereas the extent of engagement in independent practices peaked at age 45 and never recovered, ultimately declining in stages across adulthood. These findings partially supported Hypothesis 1 in that communal practices did decline across later adulthood, although the staged decline in independent practices did not support Hypothesis 2. Prior work indicated that service attendance, a communal practice, was stable across midlife, but followed a modest quadratic trajectory, characterized by a slight increase followed by decline, during later life (Hayward & Krause, 2013a); private prayer, in contrast, was stable across mid- to later life (Markides et al., 1983, 1987). There is nuance to these trends, however, in that Blazer and Palmore (1976) combined independent and communal practices in their longitudinal study, and detailed steady decline in composite religious practices over time. Perhaps both practice types decline in early midlife due to the increasing demands on individuals’ time that typically occur during this lifespan stage (Infurna et al., 2020). As individuals transition into later adulthood, however, free time associated with retirement, paired with age-graded increases in social losses, may drive individuals to re-engage in communal religious practices as a source of social support (Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 2002).

Spirituality and negative religious/spiritual coping also followed cubic trends across mid- to later life. The developmental trend in spirituality was characterized by a sharp increase from approximately age 50 to the early 70s, followed by a sharp decline. Partially supporting Hypothesis 3, this trend replicates and extends prior work on the developmental trend in spirituality, which indicated that spirituality uniformly increased across two cohorts from later midlife to early older adulthood (Wink & Dillon, 2002). Negative religious/spiritual coping, however, is characterized by decline from approximately age 50 to the early 70s, followed by a later-life increase. Directly contrasting Hypothesis 4, this developmental trend clarifies prior work, in which negative religious/spiritual coping was overwhelmingly stable across historical time (Hayward & Krause, 2016; Holt et al., 2017). By estimating change across age instead of study waves, and ruling out cohort effects, it became apparent that negative coping declines across most of mid- to later life, followed by a later-life increase, as opposed to remaining stable. Notably, the developmental trends in spirituality and negative religious/spiritual coping appear to be inversely related, and future work might formally investigate whether changes in one construct predict changes in the other.

The nuanced change in R/S dimensions may indicate shifts in the ways individuals engage with their faith across adulthood. Although communal and independent religious practices seem to initially decline in midlife, individuals continue to search for a connection to a higher power during this time. This connectedness, which steadily increases from mid- to later life, coincides with a decline in negative religious coping. As this connection strengthens, individuals also appear to re-engage in communal religious practices such as service attendance. Notably, however, all constructs undergo negative changes after age 70. Perhaps as physical health and cognition decline across later life (Nelson et al., 2020), individuals’ activities become restricted, limiting opportunities to connect with the divine. Thus, instead of following staged decline across adulthood, as indicated by composite R/S, different R/S dimensions are emphasized during different life stages. Future work might investigate the relationships among changes in the different R/S facets, as well as how changes in physical health and cognitive functioning associate with these changes.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The NDHWB is powerful in that it comprises 768 participants with up to 10 years of repeated measurements on several R/S facets; a limitation, however, is its homogeneity with respect to race and religious affiliation. Participants were exclusively sampled from northern Indiana, with most identifying themselves as White and Christian. Although the NDHWB’s demographic makeup is representative of the region from which it was drawn (Bergeman et al., 2021), the sample’s demographic makeup not only limits the generalizability of our findings to other geographic regions and populations, but also our ability to reliably investigate potential demographic differences in these trajectories. For example, in a study of God-mediated control, a construct similar to positive religious/spiritual coping, Hayward and Krause (2013b) not only found that trajectories of God-mediated control depended on personal control and religious attendance, but also that trajectories differed markedly between Black and White individuals. Future work with more diverse samples should not only replicate the present analyses, but also investigate racial and/or religious affiliation differences in the trajectories.

Additionally, the developmental trends observed in the present study may differ across historical periods in time. Although we did not find evidence of cohort effects in the present study, data collected during different historical periods in time, such as the Great Depression, may show different patterns of change (Gerstorf et al., 2020). The present data were collected during the Great Recession, and the lack of significant cohort effects suggests that, apart from positive religious/spiritual coping, individuals of different ages did not report significantly different levels or changes in R/S dimensions across mid- to later life across ages 45–80. Future work should examine whether the average trends in these R/S dimensions are robust to other history-graded influences, and thus truly indicative of developmental change.

Finally, although developmental trends in several R/S facets were modeled, the predictors and outcomes of these developmental changes remain unclear. Recent work from our team has established a within-person mediating effect of perceived control on the relationship between subjective well-being and three R/S facets that were similar those used in the present study (i.e., general religious practices, spirituality, and general religious/spiritual coping; Joiner et al., 2022). Specifically, a greater extent of R/S facets at one wave were associated with a higher sense of personal control, and thus higher subjective well-being, at the same study wave, and there was evidence that this mediating effect of control may be bidirectional. Notably, the relationships among perceived control, subjective well-being, and cognitive R/S facets, namely spirituality and religious/spiritual coping, strengthened over historical time, and were stronger among younger individuals than older individuals. Future work might extend findings from the present study and those of Joiner et al. (2022) by investigating not only the potential consequences of R/S changes, but also what these changes may be attributed to.

Conclusion

In conclusion, developmental change was found among communal and independent religious practices, spirituality, negative religious/spiritual coping, and composite R/S. Given their unique trajectories, researchers should exercise caution when drawing general conclusions about age-related differences and changes in R/S. Instead, it appears that individuals change the ways in which they engage with their faith across adulthood.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary data are available at The Gerontologist online.

gnae097_suppl_Supplementary_Tables_S1-S4_Figure_S1

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (1 R01 AG023571-A1-01 to C. S. Bergeman).

Conflict of Interest

None.

Data Availability

This work was not preregistered. Data are not publicly shared because individuals interested in using the NDHWB must complete a Data Use Agreement with Notre Dame Research. Data will be made available upon request after this process. The software code used for analyses will be made available upon request.
==== Refs
References

Bailly, N., Martinent, G., Ferrand, C., Agli, O., Giraudeau, C., Gana, K., & Roussiau, N. (2018). Spirituality, social support, and flexibility among older adults: A five-year longitudinal study. International Psychogeriatrics, 30 (12 ), 1745–1752. 10.1017/S1041610218000029 29380710
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23 (5 ), 611–626. 10.1037//0012-1649.23.5.611
Bengtson, V. L., Silverstein, M., Putney, N. M., & Harris, S. C. (2015). Does religiousness increase with age? Age changes and generational differences over 35 years. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54 (2 ), 363–379. 10.1111/jssr.12183
Bergeman, C. S., Boker, S. M., Rose, N., Bonanno, G. A., & Seeman, T. (2021). Integrative science approach to resilience: The Notre Dame Study of Health & Well-being (NDHWB). Research in Human Development, 18 (3 ), 164–180. 10.1080/15427609.2021.1964897
Blazer, D., & Palmore, E. (1976). Religion and aging in a longitudinal panel. Gerontologist, 16 (1 ), 82–85. 10.1093/geront/16.1_part_1.82 1245308
Carstensen, L. L. (2021). Socioemotional selectivity theory: The role of perceived endings in human motivation. Gerontologist, 61 (8 ), 1188–1196. 10.1093/geront/gnab116 34718558
Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., & Hops, H. (1996). Analysis of longitudinal data within accelerated longitudinal designs. Psychological Methods, 1 (3 ), 236–248. 10.1037//1082-989x.1.3.236
Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging Working Group. (2003). Multidimensional measurement of religiousness/spirituality for use in health research: A report of the Fetzer Institute/National Institue on Aging Working Group. John E. Fetzer Institute.
Gerstorf, D., Hülür, G., Drewelies, J., Willis, S. L., Schaie, K. W., & Ram, N. (2020). Adult development and aging in historical context. American Psychologist, 75 (4 ), 525–539. 10.1037/amp0000596 32378947
Grygiel, P., & Humenny, G. (2012). Longitudinal investigation of religiosity trajectories: A latent class growth analysis. International Journal of Sociology, 42 (4 ), 33–55. 10.2753/ijs0020-7659420402
Hayward, R. D., & Krause, N. (2013a). Patterns of change in religious service attendance across the life course: Evidence from a 34-year longitudinal study. Social Science Research, 42 (6 ), 1480–1489. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.06.010 24090846
Hayward, R. D., & Krause, N. (2013b). Trajectories of late-life change in God-mediated control. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68 (1 ), 49–58. 10.1093/geronb/gbs054 22865820
Hayward, R. D., & Krause, N. (2016). Classes of individual growth trajectories of religious coping in older adulthood: Patterns and predictors. Research on Aging, 38 (5 ), 554–579. 10.1177/0164027515593347 26187618
Holt, C. L., Roth, D. L., Huang, J., Park, C. L., & Clark, E. M. (2017). Longitudinal effects of religious involvement on religious coping and health behaviors in a national sample of African Americans. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 187 , 11–19. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.014 28645040
Idler, E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K., Krause, N., Ory, M. G., Pargament, K. I., Powell, L. H., Underwood, L. G., & Williams, D. R. (2003). Measuring multiple dimensions of religion and spirituality for health research: Conceptual background and findings from the 1998 General Social Survey. Research on Aging, 25 (4 ), 327–365. 10.1177/0164027503025004001
Infurna, F. J., Gerstorf, D., & Lachman, M. E. (2020). Midlife in the 2020s: Opportunities and challenges. American Psychologist, 75 (4 ), 470–485. 10.1037/amp0000591 32378943
Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Krause, N., & Morgan, D. (2002). Religious trajectories and transitions over the life course. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 55 (1 ), 51–70. 10.2190/297Q-MRMV-27TE-VLFK 12400725
Joiner, R. J., Martinez, B. S., Nelson, N. A., & Bergeman, C. S. (2022). Within-person changes in religiosity, control beliefs, and subjective well-being across middle and late adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 37 (7 ), 848–862. 10.1037/pag0000713 36201826
Koenig, H. G., VanderWeele, T. J., & Peteet, J. R. (2024). Handbook of religion and health (3rd ed.). Oxford. 10.1093/oso/9780190088859.003.0001
Markides, K. S. (1983). Aging, religiosity, and adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Gerontology, 38 (5 ), 621–625. 10.1093/geronj/38.5.621 6886320
Markides, K. S., Levin, J. S., & Ray, L. A. (1987). Religion, aging, and life satisfaction: An eight-year, three-wave longitudinal study. Gerontologist, 27 (5 ), 660–665. 10.1093/geront/27.5.660 3678906
Miyazaki, Y., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2000). Tests for linkage of multiple cohorts in an accelerated longitudinal design. Psychological Methods, 5 (1 ), 44–63. 10.1037//1082-989x.5.1.44 10937322
Nelson, N. A., & Bergeman, C. S. (2021). Development of generative concern across mid-to later life. The Gerontologist, 61 (3 ), 430–438. 10.1093/geront/gnaa115 33119756
Nelson, N. A., Jacobucci, R., Grimm, K. J., & Zelinski, E. M. (2020). The bidirectional relationship between physical health and memory. Psychology and Aging, 35 (8 ), 1140–1153. 10.1037/pag0000579 33074692
Peacock, J. R., & Poloma, M. M. (1999). Religiosity and life satisfaction across the life course. Social Indicators Research, 48 , 321–345. 10.1023/A:1006928028270
Shulgin, S., Zinkina, J., & Korotayev, A. (2019). Religiosity and aging: Age and cohort effects and their implications for the future of religious values in high-income OECD countries. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 58 (3 ), 591–603. 10.1111/jssr.12613
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford.
Wang, K.-Y., Kercher, K., Huang, J.-Y., & Kosloski, K. (2014). Aging and religious participation in late life. Journal of Religion and Health, 53 (5 ), 1514–1528. 10.1007/s10943-013-9741-y 23754581
Wink, P., & Dillon, M. (2002). spiritual development across the adult life course: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Adult Development, 9 , 79–94. 10.1023/A:1013833419122
Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F.Paloutzian, & C. L.Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21–42). Guilford.
