Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19

Religion plays an important role in making sense of adversity, and individuals hold varying beliefs about God’s role in suffering (theodicy). This study examined the association between individuals’ theodicies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and outcomes of their religiousness and psycholo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kenneth T. Wang, Krista J. Cowan, Cynthia B. Eriksson, Matthew Januzik, Moriah R. Conant
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2022-05-01
Series:Religions
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/5/453
_version_ 1797496010718576640
author Kenneth T. Wang
Krista J. Cowan
Cynthia B. Eriksson
Matthew Januzik
Moriah R. Conant
author_facet Kenneth T. Wang
Krista J. Cowan
Cynthia B. Eriksson
Matthew Januzik
Moriah R. Conant
author_sort Kenneth T. Wang
collection DOAJ
description Religion plays an important role in making sense of adversity, and individuals hold varying beliefs about God’s role in suffering (theodicy). This study examined the association between individuals’ theodicies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and outcomes of their religiousness and psychological well-being. The first aim was to classify participants into profile groups based on theodicy. The second aim was to compare the groups on religious commitment, COVID-19 stress, anxiety, and psychological well-being. Theodicy was measured with the Views of Suffering Scale among 233 participants. Three distinct groups emerged, viewing God as active, God as passive, and suffering as random. Individuals who held an active view of God’s role were most religiously committed and had the lowest levels of general anxiety and stress regarding COVID-19. In contrast, those who viewed God as passive reported the highest general anxiety level. Those who viewed suffering as random reported the highest level of COVID-19 stress and the lowest level of religious commitment. This study demonstrates the benefits of considering a person-centered approach to understanding theodicy. Even within a predominantly religious sample, the three clusters of active, passive, and random views demonstrated meaningful differences in outcomes between the groups of participants.
first_indexed 2024-03-10T01:57:36Z
format Article
id doaj.art-29f3d69815184e939a0b97c4ec277580
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2077-1444
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-10T01:57:36Z
publishDate 2022-05-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Religions
spelling doaj.art-29f3d69815184e939a0b97c4ec2775802023-11-23T12:53:19ZengMDPI AGReligions2077-14442022-05-0113545310.3390/rel13050453Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19Kenneth T. Wang0Krista J. Cowan1Cynthia B. Eriksson2Matthew Januzik3Moriah R. Conant4School of Psychology & Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182, USASchool of Psychology & Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182, USASchool of Psychology & Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182, USASchool of Psychology & Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182, USASchool of Psychology & Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182, USAReligion plays an important role in making sense of adversity, and individuals hold varying beliefs about God’s role in suffering (theodicy). This study examined the association between individuals’ theodicies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and outcomes of their religiousness and psychological well-being. The first aim was to classify participants into profile groups based on theodicy. The second aim was to compare the groups on religious commitment, COVID-19 stress, anxiety, and psychological well-being. Theodicy was measured with the Views of Suffering Scale among 233 participants. Three distinct groups emerged, viewing God as active, God as passive, and suffering as random. Individuals who held an active view of God’s role were most religiously committed and had the lowest levels of general anxiety and stress regarding COVID-19. In contrast, those who viewed God as passive reported the highest general anxiety level. Those who viewed suffering as random reported the highest level of COVID-19 stress and the lowest level of religious commitment. This study demonstrates the benefits of considering a person-centered approach to understanding theodicy. Even within a predominantly religious sample, the three clusters of active, passive, and random views demonstrated meaningful differences in outcomes between the groups of participants.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/5/453COVID-19views of sufferingChristiantheodicyreligious commitmentanxiety
spellingShingle Kenneth T. Wang
Krista J. Cowan
Cynthia B. Eriksson
Matthew Januzik
Moriah R. Conant
Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19
Religions
COVID-19
views of suffering
Christian
theodicy
religious commitment
anxiety
title Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19
title_full Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19
title_fullStr Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19
title_short Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19
title_sort religious views of suffering profile groups during covid 19
topic COVID-19
views of suffering
Christian
theodicy
religious commitment
anxiety
url https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/5/453
work_keys_str_mv AT kennethtwang religiousviewsofsufferingprofilegroupsduringcovid19
AT kristajcowan religiousviewsofsufferingprofilegroupsduringcovid19
AT cynthiaberiksson religiousviewsofsufferingprofilegroupsduringcovid19
AT matthewjanuzik religiousviewsofsufferingprofilegroupsduringcovid19
AT moriahrconant religiousviewsofsufferingprofilegroupsduringcovid19