MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090489116 · doi:10.1037/h0087008

Understanding the Nature and Role of Spirituality in Relation to Coping and Health: A Conceptual Framework.

2005· article· en· W2090489116 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
FundersSaint Paul University
KeywordsPsychologySpiritualityCoping (psychology)PsychotherapistSocial psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The past several years have seen a virtual explosion of research in the area of religion, spirituality, coping, and health. Despite this inundation, most studies have remained at the descriptive level of analysis. It has only been within the past few years that more complex associations, pathways (i.e., mediation), and possible models concerning the influence of religion and/or spirituality on health have been investigated. One psychosocial model of adjustment that holds promise as a potential scaffold for the organization and understanding of these vast data on spirituality is the transactional model of stress and coping originally put forth by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). The present paper uses the basic tenets (e.g., dynamic process) and structural components (e.g., coping behaviour) of the transactional model as a framework for the integration of the growing empirical literature on spirituality, coping, and health. The resultant application of the model in a spiritual context was reviewed by four spiritual care workers and/or chaplains from different religious backgrounds. These multifaith chaplains critiqued the fit of this model in relation to their understanding of health and coping from their faith perspective and offered suggestions on modifications to the model that would create a better fit. Over the past 20 years, the study of religion, spirituality, and coping has become an abundant area of research. This surge in interest in religion and spirituality may be due to the fact that many people turn toward their faith under extreme circumstances such as severe illness (Ganzevoort, 1998; Oxman, Freeman, & Manheimer, 1995). Religious coping in particular has demonstrated associations with a variety of social, personal, and situational factors, as well as links to psychological and physical health (Harrison, Koenig, Hays, Eme-Akwari, & Pargament, 2001; Koenig & Futterman, 1996). As a result, attempts have been made to integrate aspects of religiosity and spirituality into psychosocial models of adjustment (e.g., Daaleman, Kuckelman Cobb, & Frey, 2001). While these models are insightful, they often present religiosity as having a cognitive role (Dull & Skokan, 1995), thus ignoring its other possible functions in the overall coping process. As well, such models can be limited in their focus on a Christian view of religion (Nooney & Woodrum, 2002; Stolley, Buckwalter, & Koenig, 1999) rather than on what could be considered the broader concept of spirituality (Stifoss-Hanssen, 1999). The purpose of this paper is to organize and integrate the diverse findings and concepts found within this literature into a conceptual model of the role of spirituality in coping. In its vastness, the existing literature on spirituality, coping, and health can be overwhelming to the established, as well as to the new, researcher in this area. Although rich in possibility, this literature is plagued by a lack of consistency in the definitions given to spirituality, the domains of spirituality investigated, and in the diverse measures used to assess spirituality. As a whole, the empirical work also tends to remain at the descriptive level with little reference to an overarching conceptual model that could guide hypotheses and set the groundwork for the investigation of specific pathways of effect among the various spiritual constructs. As a leading researcher in this field, Pargament (1997) makes reference to the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) as a potential point of departure for understanding and organizing research on religiosity and spirituality. Notably, he has focused on the process of religious coping behaviour with some additional emphasis on religious appraisals or attributions in response to various life stressors (e.g., Pargament & Hahn, 1986; Pargament, Koenig, & Perez, 2000). Pargament continues to expand the application of these religious and spiritual domains in the coping process, most recently addressing the importance of spiritual attachment (connection) to God as a key factor in driving the religious coping process (Belavich & Pargament, 2002). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it