Measuring beliefs about suffering: Development of the Views of Suffering Scale.

Abstract

Efforts to measure religion have intensified and many specific dimensions have been identified. However, although belief is a core dimension of all world religions, little attention has been given to assessment of religious beliefs. In particular, one essential set of religious beliefs, those concerning the reasons for human suffering, has remained virtually unexamined in spite of the potential clinical relevance of these beliefs. To fill the need for a measure of people’s beliefs about suffering, we developed the Views of Suffering Scale (VOSS). Analyses identified factors related to traditional Christian teachings, unorthodox theistic beliefs, karma, and randomness. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability for VOSS subscale scores were good (α’s and r’s ≥ .70). Comparisons to measures of related constructs suggest that the VOSS scores demonstrate good convergent validity. One subscale score was modestly correlated with social desirability related to image management, and seven were positively correlated to self-deceptive enhancement. These preliminary studies suggest that the VOSS differentiates religious perspectives on suffering among a sample of US university students, though more research is needed to confirm its utility in diverse populations. The VOSS provides a valid way to measure individuals’ beliefs about suffering, allowing for inquiry into the factors that lead to various beliefs about suffering and the roles of these beliefs in adjusting to stressful life events.

Religion/spirituality and health in the context of cancer: Cross‐domain integration, unresolved issues, and future directions

“…Research regarding the content of R/S beliefs (e.g., specific theodicies) and the structure of these beliefs (e.g., complexity, tolerance for ambiguity) may be especially helpful. 12, 13 …”

Emerging Adulthood, Evolving Worldviews

“…VOSS indices administered aimed to examine both theistic (e.g., divine responsibility) and nontheistic (e.g., randomness) beliefs about suffering; VOSS indices measuring atypical or faith-specific views of suffering (i.e., uncommon or population-specific beliefs) were excluded from the study to reduce participant burden (see Hale-Smith et al, 2002 for a discussion of all VOSS subscales). The VOSS has been established as a valid measure of theodicean beliefs in past research with college samples (Hale-Smith et al, 2012), and the five indices demonstrated good internal consistency in the our sample (as ! .81).…”

Anger toward God(s) Among Undergraduates in India

“…Prior studies have not shown consistent associations with gender, ethnicity, or religiousness (Exline et al 2011;Wood et al 2010). Granted, people who are more religious are more likely to see God as the cause of events in general (e.g., Gorsuch and Smith 1983;Weeks and Lupfer 2000), including negative events (Gray and Wegner 2010;Hale-Smith et al 2012); however, they typically see God's intent as positive, which attenuates or at least dilutes angry feelings to some degree (Exline et al 2011;Wilt et al 2017).…”

“…Even if people can quickly offer natural explanations, they may also assign part of the responsibility for suffering to a divine agent (Hale-Smith et al 2012). In referring to such a divine agent, many people use the term God (or, in polytheistic contexts, a god; we use "God" throughout to refer to either a single God or multiple gods except where either is specified).…”