Skip to main content
NCBI home page
SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Jun 22;51(1):3–18. doi: 10.1177/00916471221102550

Risk Perception of COVID-19, Religiosity, and Subjective Well-Being in Emerging Adults: The Mediating Role of Meaning-Making and Perceived Stress

Dariusz Krok 1,✉, Beata Zarzycka 2, Ewa Telka 3
PMCID: PMC10076236  PMID: 37038469

Abstract

The pressured experienced due to COVID-19 for young people has become clearly visible in the domain of well-being. Although the psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on emerging adults have been examined, little is known about the role played by risk perception and religiosity for their well-being. In addition, the mediating effects of meaning-making and perceived stress still need to be investigated. A total of 316 emerging adults (143 males and 173 females) participated in the present study. Using structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis, we showed that the relationship of risk perception of COVID-19 and religiosity with subjective well-being was largely mediated by meaning-making and perceived stress. However, their mediational roles were different and depended on the interplay of perceptual and religious factors, which can be more fully understood within the meaning-making model. Emerging adults tend to rely on both their personal evaluation of COVID-related risks and religious beliefs to the extent that it helps them understand current life situations and restore cognitive and emotional balance.

Keywords: risk perception of COVID-19, religiosity, meaning-making, perceived stress, subjective well-being, emerging adults

COVID-19 is a disease that has significantly affected public life globally. The pandemic also made a noticeable impact on young people, who, though not markedly affected by COVID-19 in the first few months, gradually started to experience negative mental health consequences more severely in the second half of 2020 (Cunningham et al., 2020). The unprecedented pressure exerted by COVID-19 on every sector of public and social life also became visible in the domain of religion, which was found to play an important role in mental health during the pandemic (Dein et al., 2020). In addition, research demonstrated that the period of COVID-19 self-isolation had an adverse effect on obsessive-compulsive symptoms, hypochondria, depression, and neurasthenia (B. Chen et al., 2020) and contributed to loneliness and suicidal ideation (Snape & Viner, 2020) among young people. However, religious and non-religious factors have not been studied together, and little is known about underlying mediating factors. In attempting to fill the gap, this article is to examine, first, the combined roles of risk perception and religion (i.e., these two variables will be entered into the model and tested at the same time) for emerging adults’ subjective well-being, and, second, whether meaning-making and perceived stress mediate the relationships. It will enable us to deeply understand the interactive effects of risk and religious factors, and the mediating role played by the spheres of meaning and mental tension in the cognitive and affective domains of well-being, especially in the developmental context of emerging adulthood.

Perceptual and Religious Factors in Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The way in which individuals perceive potential threats strongly influences their well-being. Research showed that the perceived threat of COVID-19 was associated with both detrimental emotional reactions (e.g., intensification of negative emotions) among Chinese health care personnel exposed to the disease (Lai et al., 2020) and mental health problems in the general Chinese population (Li et al., 2020). In addition, self-control moderated the association between perceived severity of COVID-19 and mental health problems, with the relationship weakening as the level of self-control increased. Higher levels of risk perception of COVID-19 were also related to lower psychological well-being among health care personnel in Poland (Krok & Zarzycka, 2020a). However, research on how the risk perception of COVID-19 may account for variation in cognitive and affective dimensions of subjective well-being has not been conducted.

In addition to risk perception, religiosity, which can be regarded as a form of personal resources (Hobfoll, 2001), has been found to contribute to well-being, albeit to varying degrees. The stage of emerging adulthood is associated with dynamic changes occurring in young adults who actively develop their identity, become more independent, and explore various life possibilities (Arnett, 2000). It is also a period characterized by dynamic variations in religious beliefs and behaviors, which strongly influence individual and social development. Religiosity was found to be positively associated with subjective well-being in young adults; furthermore, the association was mediated by mastery and purpose in life (Ardelt & Ferrari, 2019). A longitudinal study showed that religious involvement (religious service attendance, prayer, meditation) was related to greater life satisfaction and positive affect among late adolescents and young adults (Y. Chen & VanderWeele, 2018).

Despite most studies indicating that religious people tend to achieve higher levels of life satisfaction and positive emotions and lower levels of negative emotional states (e.g., depression and anxiety), these effects are relatively small (Dein, 2013; Diener et al., 2011). Some studies have pointed out that positive associations between religiosity and well-being are not universal; they can also be negative and rather depend more on developmental aspects, specific cultural norms, and the ways in which religion is expressed than religiosity itself (A. B. Cohen & Johnson, 2017; Hayward & Elliott, 2014). The explanation for these differences may lie in unique beliefs, varying morals and values that change during mental development and socialization. It is thus likely that specific developmental characteristics and the social context may determine relations between religiosity and well-being among emerging adults.

The Mediating Function of Meaning-Making and Perceived Stress

Research has indicated that the relationship of risk perception and religiosity with subjective well-being is frequently rooted in a mediation context, which can be due to both the personal and social natures of these variables (Krok & Zarzycka, 2020a; Ramsay et al., 2019). One potential mediator that has only been investigated in several studies is meaning-making, which represents one’s cognitive ability to understand and integrate equivocal behavior into coherent structures of meaning and goals (Park, 2010; Park & George, 2013). Meaning-making was consistently found to play a significant role in emerging adults’ social perception processes and religious behavior ((Barry & Abo-Zena, 2014; Liang & Ketcham, 2017). Research suggests that perceived risk may be connected with meaning-making. In a sample of people exposed to trauma (suicide death), a higher level of perceived suicide risk was associated with more active meaning-making (Miklin et al., 2019). Risk perceptions, along with self-observations and relational environments, were found to be related to higher meaning-making in people with diabetes during the COVID-19 lockdown (Grabowski et al., 2020). During the COVID-19 period, risk perception and corresponding responsible behavior were associated with meaning-making on a basis of coping mechanisms, which enabled individuals to endure uncertain and difficult experiences of fear of COVID-19; meaning-making and coping were used as a frame of reference (Siddiqui & Qamar, 2021).

Meaning-making also mediated the relationship between religious struggles and psychological well-being in the Polish adult population (Zarzycka et al., 2020). In clinical samples, meaning-making coping was a mediator between intrinsic religiosity and subjective well-being in bereaved individuals (Park, 2005) and between intrinsic religiosity and quality of life in people with schizophrenia (Tabak & de Mamani, 2014). However, to date, no study has examined whether meaning-making may mediate the relationship of risk perception of COVID-19 and general religiosity with cognitive and affective dimensions of subjective well-being in emerging adults. Given their strong interest in the search for meaning and purpose, it is reasonable to examine the function of meaning-making processes.

Another factor that may play a role in this relationship is perceived stress, which, as some researchers suggest, relates to risk perception and religiosity and is likely to mediate their effects on well-being in emerging adults. Examining health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kuang et al. (2020) found that perceiving the risk of contracting coronavirus was associated with higher levels of stress due to the lockdown and staying inside the home. However, overall stress was not measured in that study. Furthermore, stress was found to mediate the relationship of COVID-19-related distress and fear with subjective well-being in health care personnel (Krok et al., 2021). Research has demonstrated a range of stressors that could affect young people’s mental health during the pandemic. Social isolation and loneliness was found to lead to higher levels of depression and anxiety in late adolescents (Loades et al., 2020). Other factors associated with more negative mental health symptoms among young people during the COVID-19 pandemic included increased internet addiction (Fernandes et al., 2021), decreased physical activity (Grubic et al., 2020), and limited access to academic education opportunities (Grubic et al., 2020).

There is an extensive body of research demonstrating associations between religiosity and stress in young people. Examining the role of religion and personality in emerging adult mental health, Haney and Rollock (2020) found that religiosity was inversely related to life stress. Religiosity was also negatively associated with several types of stress: general social stress, academic, familial, and environmental acculturative stress, and perceived discrimination stress in Arab American middle and late adolescents (Goforth et al., 2014). Reviewing the literature on religion and adolescent health outcomes (ages 11–21), Cotton et al. (2006) stated that religion was a protective factor for adolescents’ mental health, as it alleviated stress and provided important values, meaning/purpose in life, and social support; these factors can also be the potential mediating pathways through which religion influences mental health. The major world religions are also considered to offer spiritual guidance and encourage followers to express gratitude to God, which, through easing worry and anxiety, is to reduce stress and, consequently, improve well-being (Newman & Graham, 2018). Examining associations among religion, stress, and well-being, Maltby and Day (2003) found that appraisals of stress were mediators between religious coping and psychological well-being in UK adults.

The theoretical justification for investigating the above-mentioned mediating relationships is the meaning-making model that describes the process through which individuals reorganize and comprehend difficult and stressful situations within their personal system of beliefs and goals, including those related to religion (Park, 2010, 2013) According to the model, people are characterized by global meaning systems that include three major components: general beliefs about the world, overarching goals, and subjective feelings of meaning in life (Park, 2017; Park & George, 2013). They all provide people with cognitive consistency and affect their cognitive actions. While facing stressful events (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic), people tend to make different kinds of appraisals, during which appraised meanings become compared with global meanings. In the event of a discrepancy between them, distress occurs, which, in turn, initiates meaning-making processes; their aim is to restore coherence among facets of global meanings and appraised meanings. This process will also depend on the level of stress perceived by emerging adults, who tend to experience increasingly negative consequences during the current pandemic (Snape & Viner, 2020). Assuming the meaning-making activities prove successful and the level of perceived stress is low, it should lead to higher levels of well-being, as it would reduce discrepancies between the appraised risk perception of COVID-19 and the global system of beliefs and goals in emerging adults (Park, 2017; Park & George, 2013).

This supposition is supported by empirical research indicating that religiosity can act as a stress buffer or deterrent by helping emerging adults to come to terms with traumatic and difficult events (Carpenter et al., 2012). Within the meaning-making model, religious beliefs and goals (global meaning) can influence one’s perceptions and interpretations (situational meaning) by providing emerging adults with comprehensive frameworks of meaning that enable them to understand coronavirus-related experiences in satisfactory ways, and thus to alleviate stress. Yet, due to the complex nature of religiosity and cognitive and affective dimensions of subjective well-being, the actual function of meaning-making and perceived stress is still little known and needs further empirical examination.

The Present Study

The aim of this article is to examine the mediating role of meaning-making and perceived stress in the relationship among risk perception of COVID-19 (operationalized in two parts: risk of contracting COVID-19 and perceived threat of COVID-19), religiosity, and subjective well-being in emerging adults. Drawing on the meaning-making model and previous research, four hypotheses were proposed:

  • Hypothesis 1: risk perception of COVID-19 will be positively associated with meaning-making and perceived stress;

  • Hypothesis 2: religiosity will be positively associated with meaning-making, but negatively associated with perceived stress;

  • Hypothesis 3: meaning-making and perceived stress will mediate the relationship between risk perception of COVID-19 and subjective well-being; and

  • Hypothesis 4: meaning-making and perceived stress will mediate the relationship between religiosity and subjective well-being.

Yet, the mediating effects of meaning-making and stress would differ because of their dissimilar character.

A priori power analysis G* was conducted to estimate a sufficient sample size N (Faul et al., 2009). The parameters were set as follows: a function of power level (1–β), pre-specified significance level α = .05, and test power (1–β) = .90. The requisite number of participants was N = 280 in relation to the factor levels of the study. The sample is thus regarded as representative of the population of emerging adults in Poland.

Method

Participants and procedure

A total of 316 Polish emerging adults (143 males and 173 females) participated in this study. The mean age of participants was 21.58 years (standard deviation (SD) = 2.03, range = 17–24, median = 22, interquartile range = 4.00 [24.00–20.00]). The criteria for representativeness of the sample were met by putting quota sampling on the key characteristics: sex, age, socioeconomic status, and types of education versus work. To avoid potential biases against a particular religion, the study was conducted in as broad a cultural context as possible. Due to its characteristic sociodemographic features in Poland, the sample consisted of mostly White (n = 312) and Christian participants (Catholics = 262, Protestants [Evangelical-Augsburg Church and Pentecostal Church adherents] = 22, atheists/agnostics = 32), with some participants being mixed race (n = 4). It represented the distribution of religion in the group of 17–24 years old in Poland.

Prior to the investigation, participants were approached by research assistants who invited them to participate in the study aimed at examining psychological causes and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the sample was to be representative of emerging adults, participants were found in high schools, universities, workplaces, and social and cultural groups. The survey announcements were also posted on notice boards in the student residences. Participants were provided with a thorough description of the study protocol and gave their informed consent. Then, they were asked to complete the questionnaire. In case of any queries, research assistants were willing to provide adequate answers. Parental consent was also obtained from minor-age participants. The study was anonymous, and due to its religious content, participants were assured that their data would be treated with strict confidentiality. The University Ethics Committee granted approval for our research study.

Measures

Risk of contracting COVID-19

The Risk of Contracting COVID-19 Scale evaluated the danger and risk of coronavirus infection (Krok & Zarzycka, 2020a). Risk of contracting COVID-19 denotes an individual’s subjective assessment of the level of risk caused by coronavirus infection and its potential health and social consequences for the person. The scale consists of six items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “Getting infected with coronavirus threatens my health” and “Contracting coronavirus endangers the quality of my life.” The overall score was calculated by taking an unweighted average. A high score represents a higher risk of contracting coronavirus. The Cronbach’s α reliability for the current study was .84.

Perceived threat of COVID-19

The Perceived Threat of COVID-19 Scale assessed perceptions of threat severity associated with the coronavirus pandemic (Krok & Zarzycka, 2020a). Perceived threat of COVID-19 refers to the degree of threat (danger) posed by the coronavirus pandemic to individuals, interpersonal relationships as well as social and economic life. The scale contains six items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “Coronavirus is a serious threat to people” and “The coronavirus pandemic disrupts relations between people.” The overall score was calculated by taking an unweighted average. A high score reflects a higher level of perceived threat. The Cronbach’s α reliability for the current study was .80.

Religiosity

The Religious Meaning System Questionnaire (RMS) measured participants’ ability to perceive and interpret their life through the lens of religious significance in purpose (Krok, 2014). It includes 20 items, rated from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 5 (very strongly agree). Sample items include “My religious beliefs help me find purpose in difficult and complicated events” and “I think that the world has more sense thanks to religion.” The overall score was calculated by taking an unweighted average. The higher the score, the higher the level of religiosity. The Cronbach’s α for the sample was .88.

Meaning-making

The Meaning-Making Questionnaire (MMQ) (Krok & Zarzycka, 2020b) was applied to assess one’s cognitive capacity to understand and integrate challenging or ambiguous situations within the framework of personal meaning, beliefs, and goals. It comprises eight items scored on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Sample items include “I try to discover what is most important in a given situation” and “I focus on meaning and purpose in current events.” The overall score was calculated by taking an unweighted average. The Cronbach’s α for the sample was .87.

Perceived stress

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) was used to evaluate the level of stress perceived by emerging adults (S. Cohen et al., 1983). It includes 10 items scored on a scale of 0 (never) to 4 (very often). The overall score was calculated by taking an unweighted average. Higher scores indicate a higher level of perceived stress. Sample items include “In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and stressed?” and “In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things?.” The Cronbach’s α for the sample was .79.

Life satisfaction

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985) measured the degree to which people are satisfied with their lives as a whole (i.e., the cognitive component of subjective well-being). The SWLS includes five items scored on a scale of 1 (absolutely untrue) to 5 (absolutely true). The overall score was calculated by taking an unweighted average. A higher score represents greater satisfaction with life. The Cronbach’s α for the sample was .85.

Positive and negative affect

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X) (Watson & Clark, 1991) evaluated the affective component of subjective well-being, specifically its two dimensions: positive affect and negative affect. Participants were asked how they usually felt during the past 2 weeks. Each dimension includes 10 items scored on a scale of 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). The overall scores were calculated by taking an unweighted average. The Cronbach’s α for the sample was .85 for positive affect and .86 for negative affect.

Statistical methods

The current study used a cross-sectional design. First, descriptive statistics and correlational analyses were calculated among all the variables examined, which enabled us to establish preliminary relationships among them. Within our proposed research model, risk perception of COVID-19 and religiosity were independent variables; meaning-making and perceived stress were mediators; and life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect were dependent variables. Second, we applied structural equation modeling (SEM) with bootstrapping as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to test and evaluate direct and indirect effects among the variables; the following parameters were set: 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals and 5,000 bootstrap re-samples. Third, the final model was tested for mediational effects (Hayes, 2013) by using bootstrapping which is a statistical procedure that allows us to resample data to generate many simulated samples. It consists in repeated drawing of large numbers of smaller samples of the same size from an original dataset (Chernick, 2007). Consequently, it enables us to estimate standard errors and confidence intervals, and perform hypothesis testing.

Results

Preliminary analysis

The results of correlational calculations showed that risk of contracting and perceived threat of COVID-19 had positive associations with meaning-making; perceived threat also had a positive association with perceived stress. Religiosity was positively correlated to meaning-making, life satisfaction, and positive affect. Meaning-making was positively correlated to life satisfaction and positive affect, and negatively correlated to negative affect. In contrast, perceived stress was negatively associated with life satisfaction and positive affect, and positively associated with negative affect. Furthermore, there was a negative association between the mediating variables—meaning-making and perceived stress—which demonstrates their opposite character (Table 1).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Risk Perception of COVID-19, Religiosity, Subjective Well-being, Meaning-Making, and Stress.

Variables M/scale range SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Risk of contracting COVID-19 3.78/1–5 .80 ‒
Perceived threat of COVID-19 4.15/1–5 .73 .65*** ‒
Religiosity 2.94/1–5 1.04 .10 .02 ‒
Life satisfaction 3.98/1–5 1.02 .09 .11 .21*** ‒
Positive affect 3.09/1–5 .81 .04 .03 .12* .58*** ‒
Negative affect 2.25/1–5 .89 .07 .08 −.01 −.13* −.14* ‒
Meaning-making 3.61/1–5 .87 .16** .16** .32*** 31*** .34*** −.29*** ‒
Perceived stress 2.05/0–4 .64 .10 .13* −.08 −.38*** −.46*** .54*** −.27***
Open in a new tab

SD = standard deviation;

*

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Structural equation modeling analysis

To investigate the mediational effects of meaning-making and perceived stress in the relationship of risk perception of COVID-19 and religiosity with cognitive and affective measures of subjective well-being, we used SEM. First, the measurement model that comprised one latent factor (risk perception of COVID-19) with two observed variables (i.e., risk of contracting COVID-19 and perceived threat of COVID-19) was tested by confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). The results showed a very satisfactory fit to the data: χ2 (4, N = 316) = 69.14, p < .001; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .93; comparative fit index (CFI) = .91; normed fit index (NFI) = .92; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .03. The factor loadings for the indicators on risk perception of COVID-19 were significant: .78 for risk of contracting and .88 for perceived threat (p < .001). Risk perception of COVID-19 reflects individuals’ subjective judgments about the level of risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential negative consequences.

Second, our proposed research model including directional paths between the variables was tested. It comprised two independent variables (risk perception of COVID-19 and religiosity), two mediators (meaning-making and perceived stress), and three dependent variables (life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect). The initial model did not have good fit indices: χ2 (10, N = 316) = 88.73, p < .001; RMSEA = .16; GFI = .83; CFI = .72; SRMR = .09; Hoelter’s index = 65. In addition, some direct or indirect paths were statistically non-significant.

Third, taking into account modification indices and estimates, we modified and re-tested the initial model. To obtain a final good model fit, we were gradually fixing the intercepts and parameter estimates for the paths, and were performing invariance tests on a basis of modification indices. The non-significant paths were removed and modification indices were calculated separately for each path by using a χ2 test. The following modification indices were taken into consideration to improve the fit of our model: the standardized covariance matrix and regression weights. We were also analyzing the standardized covariance matrix to detect any potential connections that were not sufficiently explained by the initial model. This procedure provided us with a final good model fit: χ2 (15, N = 316) = 51.45, p < .001; RMSEA = .08; GFI = .95; CFI = .92; SRMR = .07; Hoelter’s index = 207. Furthermore, all the paths included in the final model were significant (Figure 1). To estimate the statistical difference between the final and initial models, we calculated the chi-square difference test, whose result showed a more satisfactory fit of the former: Δχ2 (5, N = 316) = 34.76, p < .001, after controlling for the two demographics: age and gender.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The final mediational model of the relationships among risk perception of COVID-19, religiosity, meaning-making, perceived stress, life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect (standardized coefficients).

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

To examine the mediational effects in our model, we used bootstrapping analysis in accordance with Hayes’ (2013) recommendations. The indirect effects turned out to be statistically significant (Table 2).

Table 2.

Bootstrapping Standardized Estimates and 95% Confidence Intervals for the Final Model.

Model pathways Estimate 95% CI
Lower Upper
Risk perception → Meaning-making / Stress → Life satisfaction −.08 a −.10 −.03
Risk perception → Meaning-making / Stress → Positive affect −.09 a −.11 −.02
Risk perception → Meaning-making / Stress → Negative affect .03 −.02 .13
Religiosity → Meaning-making → Life satisfaction .05 a .02 .10
Religiosity → Meaning-making → Positive affect .04 a .03 .11
Religiosity → Meaning-making → Negative affect −.04 a −.09 −.02
Open in a new tab

CI = confidence interval;

a

Empirical 95% confidence interval does not overlap with zero.

The final model included only one significant direct effect from religiosity to life satisfaction, which was rather weak (Effect = .11; p = .032). Yet, most of the indirect effects turned out to be significant. Meaning-making and stress simultaneously mediated the relationships between risk perception of COVID-19 and life satisfaction and positive affect, respectively. In contrast, the mediational effect of meaning-making and stress in the relationship between risk perception and negative affect was insignificant, even though the individual paths were statistically significant. Regarding the path containing a religious factor, meaning-making itself mediated the associations between religiosity and life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect, respectively.

Discussion

In the present article, we examined whether meaning-making and perceived stress mediated the relationship of risk perception of COVID-19 and religiosity with the cognitive and affective dimensions of subjective well-being among Polish emerging adults. Using the path analysis in SEM, we found most support for our research model with which Hypotheses 1 and 3 were fully supported and Hypotheses 2 and 4 were partially supported. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study to examine the relationships between the perceptual and religious factors and subjective well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic within the mediating perspective of meaning-making and perceived stress in a Polish sample.

Associations between risk of perception of COVID-19, religiosity, and meaning-making and stress

Our results demonstrated that risk perception of COVID-19 was positively associated with both meaning-making and perceived stress, which supports Hypothesis 1. It suggests that emerging adults who were more aware of the danger of contracting coronavirus and the severity of its threat more effectively comprehended and integrated the difficult and challenging situations associated with the coronavirus pandemic and also appraised their lives as more stressful. This is in agreement with previous studies regarding the association between risk perception and meaning-based cognitive activities (Bond & Nolan, 2011), risk perceptions and meaning-making (Grabowski et al., 2020), and risk of contracting COVID-19 and stress (Krok et al., 2021). Yet, our findings extend previous research by showing that (1) emerging adults’ perceptions of COVID-19 are not uniquely related to meaning-focused coping (Krok & Zarzycka, 2020a), but also to other forms of cognitive activities aimed at understanding events within a framework of meaning and purpose (i.e., meaning-making) and (2) risky COVID-19 situations that pose serious dangers and threats (e.g., related to the lockdown or infrequent social relations) are likely to generate stress among emerging adults due to perceiving life in terms of unpredictability and uncontrollability (Kuang et al., 2020). Hence, risk perception, which reflects one’s projection of values, representations, and meanings of certain events, is irreversibly associated with cognitive and emotional reactions in emerging adults.

Religiosity was positively related to meaning-making, but not to perceived stress, which partially supports Hypothesis 2. The finding is consistent with prior studies in which religious beliefs and goals were able to trigger a set of cognitive activities aimed at discovering meaning and purpose during stressful situations (Park, 2005; Tabak & de Mamani, 2014). This view is buttressed by the meaning-making model (Park, 2013) in which religion is treated as a personal resource that, being internally linked to global beliefs and goals, enables emerging adults to understand and cognitively work through a challenging situation to achieve mental consistency. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Polish emerging adults tend to draw on religious beliefs and behavior to establish a coherent view of the world and themselves and to reduce their level of distress. This interpretation finds support in recent comments by Dein et al. (2020), who highlighted the important role of religion in coping with the pandemic. Furthermore, although religion has been found to help individuals cope with and reduce stress, the scale we used (i.e., the PSS) may not be able to accurately measure stress levels in a sample of highly religious Christians (Blouin, Proeschold-Bell, 2015).

Mediating effects of meaning-making and stress

The central findings in our study supported prior theoretical presumptions regarding the mediating role of meaning-making and perceived stress in the relationship of risk perception of COVID-19 and religiosity with cognitive and affective dimensions of subjective well-being. Specifically, meaning-making and stress simultaneously mediated the relationship of risk perception of COVID-19 with life satisfaction and positive affect, which fully supports Hypothesis 3. In regard to the sphere of religion, only meaning-making mediated the relationship of religiosity with life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect, which partially supports Hypothesis 4.

Taken together, our results are in line with earlier studies conducted on selected samples of health care personnel in which meaning-making and stress were mediators in the association between COVID-19-related distress with subjective well-being (Krok et al., 2021) and of bereaved people and patients with schizophrenia among which meaning-making mediated the association between intrinsic religiosity and well-being (Park, 2005; Tabak & de Mamani, 2014). However, those studies did not take into account the simultaneous presence of the perceptual and religious factors as independent variables or meaning-making and stress as mediators, but examined them separately. In addition, they mainly involved the adult population. Extending the literature, our findings reveal two important mental antecedents and mechanisms of emerging adult subjective well-being.

First, for emerging adults experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic, the perceptual (risk perception) and religious factors (religiosity) are not separate elements related to their well-being but tend to operate simultaneously on the basis of meaning-making processes that mediate these associations. This interpretation is warranted in view of previous studies that showed the concurrent effect of cognitive appraisal, personal resources, and meaning-making on mental health outcomes during stressful events (Lichtenthal et al., 2011; Park & Blake, 2020). In times of unprecedented challenges caused by COVID-19, emerging adults are likely to rely on both their personal evaluation of COVID-related risks and religious beliefs and behavior to the extent that it enables them to understand the situation and modify potentially conflicting views to achieve consistency among them. Due to its functional adaptation abilities (Park, 2010), meaning-making thus seems vital to predict life satisfaction and happiness in emerging adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is understandable in the framework of the meaning-making model, which assumes that while encountering stressful situations, individuals try to compare and integrate appraised meanings with global meaning (Park & George, 2013). Facing COVID-related challenges, emerging adults tend to “synchronize” personal appraisals of risks posed by the pandemic with religious meanings and goals to maintain a satisfactory level of well-being. Constructive meaning-making activities (e.g., understanding the situation adequately, developing rational solutions, or searching for the meaning of events) can facilitate the process of achieving consistency between them, which will consequently lead to greater well-being.

Second, meaning-making and perceived stress play different mediational roles in the relationship of risk perception and religiosity with subjective well-being dimensions. This is all the more interesting when we consider their different psychological character. While higher meaning-making was related to greater subjective well-being, higher perceived stress was related to lower well-being, which demonstrates an intriguing example of the opposing effects of these two mediators. Expanding Park’s (2010) perspective on meaning-making and stress, this study specifies that for emerging adults, meaning-making offers a significant and beneficial form of coping that can offset the negative impact of the stress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and indirectly increase life satisfaction and positive affect.

This may have important practical implications for developing specific support programs for emerging adults (e.g., meaning-based interventions). Meaning-based intervention programs can be especially beneficial in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As they focus on enhancing meaning of life and identifying important goals, meaning-based interventions will enable emerging adults to comprehend the importance of life choices, make meaningful decisions, and strengthen resilience in the face of adversities caused by the pandemic. They are also likely to allow individuals who enter adulthood to find meaning and purpose in the development of personal and social identity that occurs in emerging adulthood (Ardelt & Ferrari, 2019; Arnoux-Nicolas et al., 2018).

At the macro-social level, national governments and local authorities should be responsible for communicating information on the pandemic in a constructive and sensitive way so as not to increase potential trauma and threats. The overall responsibility also rests with health authorities who should take mental health factors into account when introducing restrictions and lockdowns. As specific cases indicate, some hasty actions by governments were perhaps too harsh and had an adverse impact on individuals’ well-being (Sugawara et al., 2021).

Limitations of the study

Finally, several limitations of the current study should be noted. First, there is a certain degree of recollection bias in evaluating affect, as we used the retrospective method. The period of COVID-19 is considered to significantly affect people’s emotional states with short-range fluctuations, so assessing positive and negative affect was prone to memory and reporting biases (Ritchie et al., 2015). In addition, as religiosity was measured in terms of the religious meaning system, our findings cannot be extrapolated to the studies in which religiosity is measured with other scales that do not include the category of meaning and purpose. Second, our study relied on cross-sectional data, so mediation analyses cannot be fully verified. Future research needs to use longitudinal investigation to examine true mediations. Third, although our study was supported by prior research, the data do not necessarily mean that the analyses support the hypotheses. There could be additional variables (e.g., anxiety and coping), or additional arrangements of variables (e.g., moderating relationships), that would better explain our model. Fourth, assuming that there can be a potential interaction between perceived stress and negative affect, the need arises to introduce other procedures beyond retrospective data collection. Finally, as the sample was very homogeneous, the generalizability of our findings is quite limited.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the current study extends previous findings on risk perception of COVID-19, religiosity, and subjective well-being among emerging adults by highlighting the indirect nature of their relationships and revealing a mediating function of meaning-making and perceived stress. Our results convincingly indicate that the relationships among COVID-19, religiosity, and subjective well-being are mostly indirect with the exception of one direct association between religiosity and satisfaction. It suggests that these relationships are embedded in psychological mechanisms related to meaning and distress. As the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on the youth in terms of hospital admissions (Cunningham et al., 2020), depressive symptoms (Grubic et al., 2020), and suicide-related thoughts and behavior (Ridout et al., 2021), our study provided valuable insight into the psychological factors and mechanisms responsible for shaping the daily well-being of emerging adults. In particular, the previously unexplored mediating role of meaning structures and negative emotional experiences appears especially noteworthy for deeper understanding of subjective well-being evaluations among emerging adults.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participants who volunteered for the study.

Author biographies

Dariusz Krok, PhD, His current research concentrates on the domains of social psychology, personality psychology, and psychology of religion. Within these areas, he has conducted research analyzing relations between health and personality traits, religiousness and quality of life, and quality of life and health. He is author of a few books and a number of peer-review articles. At the moment he is conducting research on coping strategies among cancer patients. It focuses on: (1) examining relations between religion and family and (2) assessing the outcomes of coping with stress on adjustment to cancer among individuals and their families. He is currently working as psychology professor at the University of Opole, Poland.

Beata Zarzycka, PhD, Her academic work focuses on personality psychology, health psychology, and psychology of religion, and religious experience. She has published a few books and articles printed in academic journals, for example, Psycho-Oncology, Journal of Religion and Health, Psychological Annals. At the moment she is doing research on relations between religion and personality factors, and their associations with mental and physical health. She is currently working as psychology professor at the Catholic University of Lublin, Poland.

Ewa Telka, PhD, Her academic work focuses on medical aspects of cancer, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatment, and health psychology. She has published a number of articles printed in academic journals, e.g., Psycho-Oncology, Journal of Religion and Health. She is currently doing research on medical and psychological factors responsible for experiencing pain in cancer patients. She is currently working as associate professor at The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology in Gliwice, Poland.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval: All procedures performed in the current study involving human subjects were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The University Research Ethics Committee at The University of Opole approved the study—the reference number for the approval: UREC ‒ UO/04/2020.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement: The data for this study are openly available in Mendeley. The supplementary material is accessible at the OSF HOME repository, https://osf.io/2wvf8/.

Contributor Information

Dariusz Krok, University of Opole, Poland.

Beata Zarzycka, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland.

Ewa Telka, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology in Gliwice, Poland.

References

  1. Ardelt M., Ferrari M. (2019). Effects of wisdom and religiosity on subjective well-being in old age and young adulthood: Exploring the pathways through mastery and purpose in life. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(4), 477–489. 10.1017/S1041610218001680 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnoux-Nicolas C., Sovet L., Lhotellier L., Baatouche N., Bernaud J.-L., Lepez S., de la Faye B. (2018). Meaning-centered career intervention for college students. In Cohen-Scali V., Rossier J., Nota L. (Eds.), New perspectives on career counseling and guidance in Europe (pp. 133–146). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-61476-2_9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barry C. M., Abo-Zena M. M. (Eds.) (2014). Emerging adults’ religiousness and spirituality: Meaning-making in an age of transition. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blouin R., Proeschold-Bell R. J. (2015). Measuring stress in a clergy population: Lessons learned from cognitive interview testing of the Perceived Stress Scale with clergy. In Village A., Hood R. W. (Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (Vol. 26, pp. 141–154). Brill. 10.1163/9789004299436_010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bond L., Nolan T. (2011). Making sense of perceptions of risk of diseases and vaccinations: A qualitative study combining models of health beliefs, decision-making and risk perception. BMC Public Health, 11(1), Article 943. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carpenter T. P., Laney T., Mezulis A. (2012). Religious coping, stress, and depressive symptoms among adolescents: A prospective study. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4(1), 19–30. 10.1037/a0023155 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen B., Sun J., Feng Y. (2020). How have COVID-19 isolation policies affected young people’s mental health?—evidence from Chinese college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1529. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen Y., VanderWeele T. J. (2018). Associations of religious upbringing with subsequent health and well-being from adolescence to young adulthood: An outcome-wide analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187(11), 2355–2364. 10.1093/aje/kwy142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chernick M. R. (2007). Bootstrap methods: A guide for practitioners and researchers. Wiley-Interscience. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen A. B., Johnson K. A. (2017). The relation between religion and well-being. Applied Research Quality Life, 12, 533–547. 10.1007/s11482-016-9475-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen S., Kamarck T., Mermelstein R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. 10.2307/2136404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cotton S., Zebracki K., Rosenthal S. L., Tsevat J., Drotar D. (2006). Religion/spirituality and adolescent health outcomes: A review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(4), 472–480. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cunningham J. W., Vaduganathan M., Claggett B. L., Jering K. S., Bhatt A. S., Rosenthal N., Solomon S. D. (2020). Clinical outcomes in young US adults hospitalized with COVID-19. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181, 379–381. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dein S. (2013). Religion, spirituality, depression, and anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. In Pargament K. I., Mahoney A., Shafranske E. P. (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol. 2): An applied psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 241–255). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/14046-012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dein S., Loewenthal K., Lewis C. A., Pargament K. I. (2020). COVID-19, mental health and religion: An agenda for future research. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 23(1), Article 19. 10.1080/13674676.2020.1768725 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Diener E., Emmons R. A., Larsen R. J., Griffin S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 71–75. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Diener E., Tay L., Myers D. G. (2011). The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1278–1290. 10.1037/a0024402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., Lang A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fernandes B., Uzun B., Aydin C., Tan-Mansukhani R., Vallejo A., Saldaña-Gutierrez A., . . .Essau C. A. (2021). Internet use during COVID-19 lockdown among young people in low-and middle-income countries: Role of psychological wellbeing. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 14, Article 100379. 10.1016/j.abrep.2021.100379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Goforth A. N., Oka E. R., Leong F. T., Denis D. J. (2014). Acculturation, acculturative stress, religiosity and psychological adjustment among Muslim Arab American adolescents. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 8(2), 3–19. 10.3998/jmmh.10381607.0008.202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Grabowski D., Meldgaard J., Hulvej Rod M. (2020). Altered self-observations, unclear risk perceptions and changes in relational everyday life: A qualitative study of psychosocial life with diabetes during the COVID-19 lockdown. Societies, 10(3), Article 63. 10.3390/soc10030063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Grubic N., Badovinac S., Johri A. M. (2020). Student mental health in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for further research and immediate solutions. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66(5), 517–518. 10.1177/0020764020925108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Haney A. M., Rollock D. (2020). A matter of faith: The role of religion, doubt, and personality in emerging adult mental health. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 12(2), 247–253. 10.1037/rel0000231 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hayward R. D., Elliott M. (2014). Cross-national analysis of the influence of cultural norms and government restrictions on the relationship between religion and well-being. Review of Religious Research, 56(1), 23–43. 10.1007/s13644-013-0135-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hobfoll S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337–421. 10.1111/1464-0597.00062 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Krok D. (2014). The religious meaning system and subjective well-being: The mediational perspective of meaning in life. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 36(2), 253–273. 10.1163/15736121-12341288 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Krok D., Zarzycka B. (2020. a). Risk perception of Covid-19, meaning-based resources and psychological well-being amongst healthcare personnel: The mediating role of coping. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(10), Article 3225. 10.3390/jcm9103225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Krok D., Zarzycka B. (2020. b). Self-efficacy and psychological well-being in cardiac patients: Moderated mediation by affect and meaning-making. The Journal of Psychology, 154(6), 411–425. 10.1080/00223980.2020.1772702 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Krok D., Zarzycka B., Telka E. (2021). Risk of contracting COVID-19, personal resources and subjective well-being among healthcare workers: The mediating role of stress and meaning-making. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(1), 132. 10.3390/jcm10010132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuang J., Ashraf S., Das U., Bicchieri C. (2020). Awareness, risk perception, and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in communities of Tamil Nadu, India. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7177. 10.3390/ijerph17197177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lai J., Ma S., Wang Y., Cai Z., Hu J., Wei N., . . .Hu S. (2020). Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Network Open, 3(3), Article e203976. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Li J. B., Yang A., Dou K., Cheung R. Y. (2020). Self-control moderates the association between perceived severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mental health problems among the Chinese public. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), Article 4820. 10.3390/ijerph17134820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Liang B., Ketcham S. G. (2017). Emerging adults’ perceptions of their faith-related purpose. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9(Suppl. 1), S22–S31. 10.1037/rel0000116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lichtenthal W. G., Burke L. A., Neimeyer R. A. (2011). Religious coping and meaning-making following the loss of a loved one. Counselling and Spirituality / Counseling et Spiritualité, 30(2), 113–135. [Google Scholar]
  37. Loades M. E., Chatburn E., Higson-Sweeney N., Reynolds S., Shafran R., Brigden A., . . .Crawley E. (2020). Rapid systematic review: The impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(11), 1218–1239. 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Maltby J., Day L. (2003). Religious orientation, religious coping and appraisals of stress: Assessing primary appraisal factors in the relationship between religiosity and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1209–1224. 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00110-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Miklin S., Mueller A. S., Abrutyn S., Ordonez K. (2019). What does it mean to be exposed to suicide?: Suicide exposure, suicide risk, and the importance of meaning-making. Social Science & Medicine, 233, 21–27. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Newman D. B., Graham J. (2018). Religion and well-being. In Diener E., Oishi S., Tay L. (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 31–42). DEF Publishers. doi:nobascholar.com [Google Scholar]
  41. Park C. L. (2005). Religion as a meaning-making framework in coping with life stress. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 707–729. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Park C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. 10.1037/a0018301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Park C. L. (2013). Religion and meaning. In Paloutzian R. F., Park C. L. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 357–379). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Park C. L. (2017). Religious cognitions and well-being: A meaning perspective. In Robinson M., Eid M. (Eds.), The happy mind: Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 443–458). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-58763-9_24 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Park C. L., Blake E. C. (2020). Resilience and recovery following disasters: The meaning making model. In Schulenberg S. (Ed.), Positive psychological approaches to disaster (pp. 9–25). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-32007-2_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Park C. L., George L. S. (2013). Assessing meaning and meaning making in the context of stressful life events: Measurement tools and approaches. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 483–504. 10.1080/17439760.2013.830762 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Preacher K. J., Hayes A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ramsay J. E., Tong E. M., Chowdhury A., Ho M. H. R. (2019). Teleological explanation and positive emotion serially mediate the effect of religion on well-being. Journal of Personality, 87(3), 676–689. 10.1111/jopy.12425 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ridout K. K., Alavi M., Ridout S. J., Koshy M. T., Awsare S., Harris B., . . .Iturralde E. (2021). Emergency department encounters among youth with suicidal thoughts or behaviors during the CoViD-19 pandemic. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(12), 1319–1328. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ritchie T. D., Batteson T. J., Bohn A., Crawford M. T., Ferguson G. V., Schrauf R. W., . . .Walker W. R. (2015). A pancultural perspective on the fading affect bias in autobiographical memory. Memory, 23(2), 278–290. 10.1080/09658211.2014.884138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Siddiqui S., Qamar A. H. (2021). Risk perception and protective behavior in the context of COVID-19: A qualitative exploration. Asian Bioethics Review, 13, 401–420. 10.1007/s41649-021-00181-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Snape M. D., Viner R. M. (2020). COVID-19 in children and young people. Science, 370(6514), 286–288. 10.1126/science.abd6165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sugawara D., Masuyama A., Kubo T. (2021). Socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown on the mental health and life satisfaction of the Japanese population. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–15. 10.1007/s11469-020-00461-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Tabak N. T., de Mamani A. W. (2014). Religion’s effect on mental health in schizophrenia: Examining the roles of meaning-making and seeking social support. Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses, 8(2), 91–100. 10.3371/CSRP.TUWE.021513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Watson D., Clark L. A. (1991). The PANAS-X: Preliminary manual for the positive and negative affect schedule–expanded form [Unpublished manuscript]. The University of Iowa. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zarzycka B., Tychmanowicz A., Krok D. (2020). Religious struggle and psychological well-being: The mediating role of religious support and meaning making. Religions, 11(3), Article 149. 10.3390/rel11030149 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Psychology and Theology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES