Research on the relationship between belief in God and mental health is scarce and often limited to comparing group differences in mental health across various self-reported religious identities (e.g., atheists, agnostics, believers). To advance this work, we focused on how the extent of belief in God related to three indices of psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) in a sample of undergraduate students (N = 632) with a variety of religious identities. We used a model comparison approach to evaluate both linear and curvilinear relationships between belief in God and psychological distress and tested potential mediating pathways for linear relationships. The findings revealed that belief in God was negatively linearly related to depression; this relationship was fully mediated by meaning in life, feeling comforted by God, positive religious coping, positive reappraisal, and substance use coping. In contrast, belief in God was curvilinearly related to anxiety but unrelated to stress. These results suggest that both strength and certainty of the belief in God may be important in understanding religion’s relationship with psychological distress.

In two national samples in the United States, we aimed to determine the extent to which GTG is distinct from both general gratitude and general religiousness, using statistical methods to determine (1) if GTG shows patterns of association with other variables distinct from general gratitude and religiousness, and (2) whether GTG predicts wellbeing above and beyond both general gratitude and religiousness. Online studies were conducted with 267 (Study 1) and 184 (Study 2) adults. Results across the two studies were consistent in demonstrating that GTG shows associations with relevant constructs that are distinct from both general religiousness and general gratitude. Further, GTG independently predicted aspects of psychological wellbeing, although findings were not consistent across all aspects. These findings indicate GTG is a unique construct warranting future research.

Global meaning systems help people make sense of their experiences, but suffering can violate global meaning and create distress. One type of potential violation is conflict between one’s experience of suffering and one’s deeply-held beliefs about God as loving, powerful, and just. The problem of theodicy—why an all-powerful and all-loving God would allow suffering—has long been an important theological and philosophical concern, but little is known about how theodicy plays out psychologically for religious individuals facing serious life difficulties. To address this issue within a specific religious tradition, Christianity, we drew upon philosophy, Christian theology, and psychology to develop the construct of theodical struggling. Through theological and philosophical input, we generated a 28-item pool and conducted 10 cognitive interviews with a diverse sample of Christian adults. In three consecutive online studies of Christian adult samples, we reduced the scale to 11 items through PCA, found a strong one-factor solution using EFA, and found support for the one-factor solution along with preliminary reliability and validity. This newly-developed Theodical Struggling Scale represents an important advance in understanding individuals’ experiences of ruptures in their beliefs regarding God’s goodness and paves the way for future research on this topic. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04642-w.

No abstract

No abstract