Mediating effects of coping in the link between spirituality and psychological distress in a culturally diverse undergraduate sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study sets out to examine the spirituality-coping-health link in a culturally and religiously diverse undergraduate sample (N = 301) in Canada. Specifically, this investigation: (a) assessed intrinsic spirituality with a factorially derived measure, created based on a multidimensional measure of spirituality; (b) tested the mediating role of coping in the spirituality-psychological well-being relation with a validated cross-cultural measure of coping; and (c) examined this complex, multivariate web of relationships with a path analysis. The results showed that Intrinsic Spirituality reduced Psychological Distress, promoted the use of Collective Coping, and reduced the use of Avoidance Coping. Furthermore, Engagement Coping reduced Psychological Distress while Avoidance Coping increased the distress. The findings suggest that one way in which spiritual faith and belief can act to improve individuals' psychological well-being is through promoting adaptive and culturally congruent/appropriate coping behaviours in the face of stressful situations. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".