God, are You There? Coping and Emotion Regulation Among Religious, Never Religious, and Formerly Religious People Experiencing a Spiritual Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the coping and emotional regulation abilities of currently religious, formerly religious, and never religious people during a self-identified spiritual crisis. Participants (N = 606, undergraduate students recruited from a large religiously diverse Canadian university) completed a series of surveys assessing their coping and emotion regulation abilities during a recalled crisis. Religious, formerly religious, and never-religious groups did not differ in emotional regulation or avoidant coping during their crisis. However, religious individuals used more problem-focused, emotion-focused, and positive spiritual coping techniques, than did people who have disaffiliated or who were never religious. We also found that coping styles predicted emotional dysregulation during the spiritual crisis and religious decline after the crisis. The results of this study shed light on how religious and non-religious people navigate turbulent times in their life and explore the factors that may be protective or harmful to religious commitment in the face of spiritual struggles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".