Background: Recent research suggested thatreligious coping, based on dispositional religiousness and spirituality (R/S), is an important modulating factor in the process of dealing with adversity. In contrast to the United States, the effect of R/S on psychological adjustment to stress is a widely unexplored area in Europe. Methods: We examined a Swiss sample of 328 church attendees in the aftermath of stressful life events to explore associations of positive or negative religious coping with the psychological outcome. Applying a cross-sectional design, we used Huber’s Centrality Scale to specify religiousness and Pargament’s measure of religious coping (RCOPE) for the assessment of positive and negative religious coping. Depressive symptoms and anxiety as outcome variables were examined by the Brief Symptom Inventory. The Stress-Related Growth Scale and the Marburg questionnaire for the assessment of well-being were used to assess positive outcome aspects. We conducted Mann-Whitney tests for group comparisons and cumulative logit analysis for the assessmentof associations of religious coping with our outcome variables. Results: Both forms of religious coping were positively associated with stress-related growth (p < 0.01). However, negative religious coping additionally reduced well-being (p = 0.05, β = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.27–0.99) and increased anxiety (p = 0.02, β = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.10–3.39) and depressive symptoms (p = 0.01, β = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.27–4.06). Conclusions: The effects of religious coping on the psychological adjustment to stressful life events seem relevant. These findings should be confirmed in prospective studies.

Keywords:
Stressful life events, Adjustment, Psychological outcome, Religiousness, Spirituality, Religious coping
1.
Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson DB: Handbook of Religion and Health: A Century Of Research Reviewed. New York, Oxford University Press, 2001.
2.
Harris JI, Erbes CR, Engdahl BE, Olson RH, Winskowski AM, McMahill J: Christian religious functioning and trauma outcomes. J Clin Psychol 2008;64:17–29.
3.
Pargament KI, Smith BW, Koenig HG, Perez L: Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. J Sci Study Relig 1998;37:710–724.
4.
Ano GG, Vasconcelles EB: Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol 2005;61:461–480.
5.
Lüchau P: Report on surveys of religion in Europe and the United States, research priority area religion in the 21st century. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2004. http://www.ku.dk/satsning/Religion/indhold/publikationer/working_papers/report_surveys_of_religion_in_Europe_and_the_United_States.pdf (accessed March 26, 2008).
6.
Richter V, Guthke J: Leipziger Ereignis- und Belastungsinventar (LEBI). Göttingen, Hogrefe, 1996.
7.
Pargament KI: The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York, Guilford, 1997.
8.
Pargament KI, Koenig HG, Perez LM: The many methods of religious coping: development and initial validation of the RCOPE. J Clin Psychol 2000;56:519–543.
9.
Pargament KI: Religious/spiritual coping; in Abeler R, Ellision C, George LK, Idler L, Krause N, Levin J, Ory M, Pargament P, Powell L, Underwood L, Williams D (eds): Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spiritually for Use in Health Research. Kalamazoo, Fetzer Institute, 1999, pp 43–56. http://www.fetzer.org/PDF/total_fetzer_book.pdf (accessed March 26, 2008).
10.
Huber S: Zentralität und Inhalt. Ein neues multidimensionales Messmodell der Religiosität. Wiesbaden, Leske und Budrich, 2003.
11.
Huber S: Are religious beliefs relevant in daily life?; in Streib H (ed): Religion Inside and Outside Traditional Institutions. Leiden, Brill Academic Publishers, 2007, pp 211–230.
12.
Stark R, Glock CY: American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1968.
13.
Huber S: Zentralität und Inhalt. Eine Synthese der Messmodelle von Allport und Glock, in Religiosität: Messverfahren und Studien zu Gesundheit und Lebensbewältigung; in Zwingmann C, Moosbrugger H (ed): Neue Beiträge zur Religionspsychologie. Münster, Waxmann, 2004, pp 79–105.
14.
Park CL, Cohen LH, Murch RL: Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth. J Pers 1996;64:71–105.
15.
Maercker A, Langner R: Persönliche Reifung (Personal Growth) durch Belastungen und Traumata: Validierung zweier deutschsprachiger Fragebogenversionen. Diagnostica 2001;47:153–162.
16.
Herda C, Scharfenstein A, Basler HD: Marburger Fragebogen zum habituellen Wohlbefinden. Marburg, Philipps-Universität, 1998.
17.
Basler HD: The Marburg questionnaire on habitual health findings – a study on patients with chronic pain (in German). Schmerz 1999;13:385–391.
18.
Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N: The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med 1983;13:595–605.
19.
Franke GH: Erste Studien zur Validität des Brief Symptom Inventories. Z Med Psychol 1997;6:159–166.
20.
van Buuren S, Boshuizen HC, Knook DL: Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Stat Med 1999;18:681–694.
21.
Lee J: Cumulative logit modelling for ordinal response variables: applications to biomedical research. Comput Appl Biosci 1992;8:555–562.
22.
Shaw A, Joseph, S, Linley PA: Religion, spirituality, and posttraumatic growth: a systematic review. Ment Health Relig Cult 2005;8:1–11.
23.
Fitchett G, Rybarczyk BD, DeMarco GA, Nicholas JJ: The role of religion in medical rehabilitation outcomes: a longitudinal study. Rehabil Psychol 1999;44:333–353.
24.
Pargament KI, Ishler K, Dubow EG, Stanik P, Rouiller R, Crowe P, Cullman EP, Albert M, Royster BJ: Methods of religious coping with the Gulf War: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. J Sci Study Relig 1994;33:347–361.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.