The meaning as a buffer hypothesis: Spiritual meaning attenuates the effect of disaster-related resource loss on posttraumatic stress.

Abstract

Religious and spiritual beliefs serve a number of functions, including promoting mental health in the wake of negative life events. We explore the "meaning as a buffer" hypothesis, which posits that (spiritual) meaning will shield individuals from the negative psychological consequences associated with adversity. Building on Park's (2010) meaning making model, we investigated whether spiritual meaning can buffer the effect of disaster-related resource loss on posttraumatic stress. Survivors of Hurricane Katrina (N ϭ 485) completed measures of resource loss, spiritual meaning and peace, and posttraumatic stress 3-4 months after the disaster. Survivors who reported experiencing higher spiritual meaning following the disaster reported significantly less severe posttraumatic stress in response to resource loss, relative to survivors who reported lower spiritual meaning and peace. Put differently, spiritual meaning and peace buffered the deleterious effect of disaster-related resource loss on mental health symptoms.

Meaning Violations, Religious/Spiritual Struggles, and Meaning in Life in the Face of Stressful Life Events

“…The finding that MIL moderates the association between goal violations and PTS symptoms is in line with previous studies demonstrating a buffering effect of MIL on negative mental health outcomes (e.g., Haynes et al, 2017;Marco et al, 2017). We extended those findings by showing that MIL might exert those effects by buffering the violations that are often associated with the experience of stressful life events.…”

“…A higher sense of MIL has not only been related to better mental health outcomes in a variety of populations (Blackburn & Owens, 2015;Brassai, Piko, & Steger, 2011;Steger & Kashdan, 2013;Winger, Adams, & Mosher, 2016) but also has been shown to moderate the relationship between stressful life events and negative outcomes (Cohen & Cairns, 2012;Halama & Bakosova, 2009;Haynes et al, 2017;Krause, 2007;Marco, Guillén, & Botella, 2017;Mascaro & Rosen, 2006;Szymanski & Mikorski, 2016). A recent study additionally demonstrated a buffering effect of MIL on the relationship between sacred loss (i.e., the perceived loss of the sacred character of parts of one's life) and indicators of physical health (Krause, Pargament, & Ironson, 2018).…”

Meaning in Life Moderates the Relationship Between Sacred Loss/Desecration and Health

“…But more than this, Frankl saw meaning as being one of the most important resources for coping with adversity: "There is nothing in the world, I would venture to say, that would so effectively help one to survive even the worst conditions as the knowledge that there is a meaning in one's life" ([1946] 1984:126). Consistent with the views of Frankl ([1946] 1984), findings from a number of studies suggest that a sense of meaning in life moderates the effects of stress on health (e.g., Haynes et al 2015;Krause 2007;Krause, Pargament, and Ironson 2017;Krok 2016).…”

“…Consistent with the views of Frankl ([] 1984), findings from a number of studies suggest that a sense of meaning in life moderates the effects of stress on health (e.g., Haynes et al. ; Krause ; Krause, Pargament, and Ironson ; Krok ).…”

Religiosity and the psychological outcomes of trauma: A systematic review of quantitative studies

“…Negative religious appraisals of an event (i.e., the notion of being punished by God) was associated with the severity of symptoms of mental disorders in Berzengi et al (), Blanc, Rahill, Laconi, and Mouchenik (), Feder et al (), Sezgin & Punamäki, (, although the “human” appraisals were associated with even more severe psychopathology), and Rosellini et al (). Meaning‐making appraisals, on the contrary, were associated with resilience (de la Rosa, Barnett‐Queen, Messick, & Gurrola, ) and lower severity of PTSD symptoms (Haynes et al, ). Some studies examined the associations between general religiosity and religious coping; however, most studies that measure religious coping did not assess general religiosity.…”