Religious Coping: Positive and Negative Responses to Stress
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Religion, Spirituality & Meaning-Making · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Religious coping is the use of religious beliefs, practices, relationships, and meaning systems to respond to stress. In psychology, the concept describes what people do when a difficult event engages their faith or spirituality: they may seek comfort in prayer, interpret adversity through a religious framework, turn to a faith community, collaborate with God or another sacred source in decision-making, ask spiritual questions, or experience conflict and doubt. The construct concerns coping processes. It does not evaluate whether a religion, doctrine, prayer, or spiritual experience is true.
The modern psychological literature is strongly associated with Kenneth Pargament's theory and research program on religion and coping. His foundational account treated religion as a complex source of significance that can enter the coping process in multiple ways rather than as a single variable that is always helpful or harmful. Pargament (1997).
Research commonly distinguishes positive religious coping and negative religious coping. These labels refer to empirically identified coping patterns, not to the moral quality of a person's faith. Positive religious coping generally reflects spiritual connection, benevolent meaning, collaboration, forgiveness, and perceived support. Negative religious coping generally reflects religious or spiritual tension, such as feeling abandoned or punished by God, conflict with a religious community, or intense struggle over sacred meaning. The same person can experience both patterns at different times, and difficult religious questions are not themselves a psychiatric disorder. Pargament, Feuille, and Burdzy (2011).
The evidence is therefore best read in context. A classic meta-analysis linked positive religious coping with more favorable psychological adjustment and negative religious coping with poorer adjustment on average, while later work has shown substantial variation by population, stressor, culture, measurement, and timing. Ano and Vasconcelles (2005). Recent pooled US evidence likewise found different stress–mental-health patterns for positive and negative religious coping, but the effects varied across cohorts. Britt et al. (2026).
What Is Religious Coping?
Coping is the set of cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social efforts people use to manage demands they experience as stressful. Religious coping is the portion of that process in which religious or spiritual resources become relevant to the stressor. It may shape how a person appraises what happened, where support is sought, how responsibility is understood, what actions are considered possible, and how the event is integrated into a larger story about life and meaning.
Religious coping is more specific than religiosity. Religious affiliation, service attendance, private devotion, religious identity, and the personal importance of religion can all matter psychologically, but they do not tell us how a person is coping with a particular stressor. Someone can be highly religious and use relatively little religious coping in one crisis, while another person may turn intensely toward religious resources during a specific illness, bereavement, family problem, disaster, or period of uncertainty.
Religious coping is also broader than prayer. Prayer may be one coping practice, but religious coping can include meaning-making, communal support, ritual participation, forgiveness, consultation with clergy, reading sacred texts, religiously framed problem solving, service to others, or efforts to restore a relationship with what a person holds sacred. The RCOPE was created to capture this diversity rather than reduce religious coping to a single behavior. Pargament, Koenig, and Perez (2000).
For the broader psychology of coping outside a specifically religious context, see Coping Strategies for Stress: Problem-Focused and Emotion-Focused Approaches.
The Pargament Framework: Religion Inside the Coping Process
Pargament's framework begins from the idea that people seek and protect things of significance. When major stress threatens those significances, coping involves attempts to conserve them, transform them, or find a viable path forward. Religion can become part of this process because it may organize ultimate meanings, identity, relationships, moral commitments, community membership, practices, and a relationship with the sacred. Pargament (1997).
This model helps explain why religious coping is especially visible under conditions that are emotionally intense, difficult to control, or resistant to ordinary problem solving. A diagnosis, death, war, displacement, caregiving burden, serious family conflict, or irreversible loss may raise questions that practical action alone cannot settle. Psychological coping can then include attempts to preserve meaning, reappraise the situation, remain connected to valued relationships, and maintain agency within limits.
Crystal Park's meaning-making account complements this framework by describing how religion can function as a global meaning system. Stress may become particularly difficult when the meaning of an event conflicts sharply with a person's broader beliefs and goals. Coping can involve efforts to reinterpret the event, revise goals, or restore coherence between the event and the larger meaning system. Park (2005).
A dedicated companion article examines these models in greater depth: Religion as Meaning-Making: Psychological Models and Evidence.
Five broad functions often discussed in religious coping
Across Pargament's work, religious coping has been described in terms of functions such as finding meaning, gaining a sense of control, seeking comfort or closeness to the sacred, seeking intimacy and connection with others, and supporting life transformation. These are psychological functions rather than judgments about theology. Two people can engage in the same outward practice for different reasons, and the same person can use one practice for several functions at once. Pargament, Koenig, and Perez (2000).
This functional perspective prevents a common error: treating a religious behavior as if its meaning were self-evident. Attending worship can express belonging, duty, grief, gratitude, habit, identity, social support, or several of these. Prayer can express praise, petition, lament, contemplation, surrender, decision-making, or connection. Psychological interpretation requires the person's own context and meaning.
Positive Religious Coping
Positive religious coping is a research category for patterns that tend to reflect secure spiritual connection, benevolent meaning, collaboration, and support. In the Brief RCOPE literature, this pattern includes domains such as seeking spiritual support, religious forgiveness, collaborative coping, spiritual connection, benevolent religious reappraisal, and a religious focus during stress. Pargament et al. (1998). Pargament et al. (2011).
A person using positive religious coping might understand faith as a source of companionship during illness, seek practical and emotional help from a congregation, pray while also making medical or family decisions, draw on teachings that sustain hope, or interpret endurance as consistent with deeply held values. The defining issue is the coping function and the person's relationship to the sacred, not the outward appearance of the practice.
Positive religious coping does not mean that the person feels calm, certain, or happy. A grieving person may remain devastated while drawing strength from ritual and community. A patient may feel frightened while experiencing prayer as a source of steadiness. Effective coping can coexist with distress because coping is a response to difficulty, not proof that difficulty has disappeared.
Positive religious coping also does not guarantee a better psychological outcome. In the 2005 meta-analysis, average associations favored better adjustment, but studies varied substantially. During the first wave of COVID-19, a meta-analysis of 42 studies from 24 countries found that positive religious coping was not significantly associated with lower anxiety or depressive symptoms overall, while negative religious coping showed a clearer association with more symptoms. Ano and Vasconcelles (2005). Cheng and Ying (2023).
Negative Religious Coping
Negative religious coping is a research label for coping patterns marked by religious or spiritual strain. Examples in the literature include feeling abandoned or punished by God, questioning divine care or power, attributing a stressor to demonic action, or experiencing conflict and disappointment within a religious community. These are measurement categories used to study distress and coping. Psychology does not use them to decide the truth of sacred claims or to rank the sincerity of belief. Pargament et al. (2011).
The word negative can be misleading if it is heard as moral condemnation. In research, it mainly signals that the cluster has tended to correlate with less favorable psychological outcomes. A person who feels anger toward God, experiences doubt, or asks painful religious questions may be going through a meaningful human struggle. The presence of struggle can indicate that a valued religious relationship or meaning system matters deeply, and the psychological task is to understand the struggle rather than shame it.
Across many studies, negative religious coping has been associated with more distress. The classic meta-analysis found that negative religious coping was generally related to poorer psychological adjustment. A later longitudinal meta-analysis of religious and spiritual struggles also found prospective links with psychological distress, supporting the importance of taking spiritual struggle seriously while avoiding simple one-way causal claims. Ano and Vasconcelles (2005). Bockrath et al. (2022).
The causal picture remains complex. Distress can intensify religious struggle, religious struggle can potentially amplify distress, and both may be shaped by the severity of the stressor, prior mental health, social conditions, religious history, and available support. A three-year longitudinal study by Pirutinsky found that negative religious coping was partly stable yet also increased at times of stress; higher average negative coping was associated with more depressive symptoms, and stress could strengthen that relationship. Pirutinsky (2024).
Positive and Negative Religious Coping Can Coexist
Human coping rarely fits into one clean category. A person can seek spiritual comfort while also feeling abandoned, attend worship while doubting, receive strong community support while struggling with a particular teaching, or experience gratitude and anger in the same week. Positive and negative religious coping are typically scored as separate dimensions rather than opposite ends of one single continuum. Pargament et al. (2011).
That distinction matters clinically and scientifically. A high level of positive religious coping does not erase spiritual struggle, and a period of negative religious coping does not mean that faith has ceased to function as a resource. Assessment is more accurate when it asks which forms of coping are present, how often they occur, what they mean to the person, and how they relate to functioning over time.
How Religious Coping May Affect Stress
Meaning and appraisal
Stress depends partly on appraisal: what the event means, what is threatened, and what options seem available. Religious beliefs can influence these appraisals by locating adversity within a larger narrative, providing language for loss and endurance, or offering interpretations of responsibility, hope, suffering, and possibility. Park's model describes religion as one possible meaning system through which people interpret stressful events. Park (2005).
Meaning-making can support adaptation when it helps a person integrate an event into a coherent life story or identify viable goals. It can also become painful when the event shatters previously stable assumptions or when the person cannot reconcile what happened with deeply held beliefs. Psychology can study those processes without deciding which religious interpretation is doctrinally correct.
Perceived support and relationship
Religious coping can include perceived spiritual support and support from people in a religious community. Both may change the subjective burden of a stressor by reducing isolation, expanding practical resources, or providing reassurance and continuity. Community support is psychologically distinct from religious belief itself: a congregation can provide meals, childcare, transportation, companionship, information, or ritual presence during a crisis.
The broader evidence on how relationships buffer stress is summarized in Social Support and Stress: When Relationships Buffer Strain. Religious communities are one possible source of that support, and their effects depend on the quality of the relationships involved.
Control, agency, and collaboration
Some religious coping strategies change how control is experienced. Collaborative religious coping, for example, can frame action as a partnership between the person and God rather than as solitary self-reliance. Other responses may emphasize surrender of what cannot be controlled while preserving action where action remains possible. Psychological consequences depend on how these beliefs function in the person's actual decisions and behavior, not on a universal rule about which theology is best.
Emotion regulation and ritual
Prayer, worship, sacred reading, music, fasting, pilgrimage, confession, meditation, remembrance practices, and other rituals can structure attention and emotion. They may create predictable sequences during uncertainty, connect the present to a tradition, mark transitions, or allow grief, gratitude, repentance, hope, and lament to be expressed in culturally meaningful ways. The psychological effect of any practice depends on the person, tradition, context, and function; no religious practice should be presented as a guaranteed treatment for a mental or physical disorder.
Identity and continuity
Stress can threaten identity as well as mood. Displacement, illness, bereavement, disability, family change, or social upheaval may disrupt familiar roles. Religious identity, community membership, and ritual continuity can help some people preserve a stable sense of who they are and where they belong. For others, the stressor itself may destabilize religious identity. Both patterns are legitimate subjects of psychological study.
When Do People Use Religious Coping?
Religious coping has been studied after natural disasters, serious illness, hospitalization, bereavement, trauma, war-related experiences, family crises, chronic health conditions, and other major stressors. The 1998 work that identified positive and negative patterns drew on samples coping with the Oklahoma City bombing, major life stress among college students, and serious medical illness among hospitalized older adults. Pargament et al. (1998).
Religious coping can become particularly salient when ordinary control is limited. That does not mean that religious people use faith only when other options fail. For many people, religion is already part of everyday identity and decision-making; a crisis simply makes its role more visible. For others, a severe stressor may prompt renewed engagement, temporary distance, questioning, or a change in practice.
Religious coping is not universal. People who are secular, atheist, agnostic, unaffiliated, culturally religious, spiritual but not religious, or only minimally involved in religion may draw on different meaning systems and communities. A respectful psychological account leaves room for all of these orientations.
What Does the Evidence Show About Mental Health?
The strongest conclusion is differentiated rather than absolute. Religious coping is associated with psychological adjustment, but the direction and size of the association depend on the type of coping, the stressor, the population, and the study design. The 2005 meta-analysis synthesized 49 studies and 105 effect sizes and generally supported links between positive religious coping and more favorable adjustment and between negative religious coping and poorer adjustment. Ano and Vasconcelles (2005).
For the broader evidence base on religion, spirituality, and mental health beyond coping-specific mechanisms, see Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health: What Research Shows.
A more recent test comes from the Studies on Stress, Spirituality, and Health project. Britt and colleagues pooled data from 5,059 participants across three US cohorts including Hispanic/Latino, non-Hispanic White, and American Indian adults. Greater perceived stress was associated with poorer mental health. In the combined analysis, positive religious coping attenuated the stress–mental-health association, whereas negative religious coping strengthened it. The pattern varied across cohorts, and the study did not establish that religious coping alone caused the differences. Britt et al. (2026).
Evidence from the first wave of COVID-19 adds another caution. Cheng and Ying's meta-analysis of 42 studies with 25,438 participants across 24 countries found a positive association between negative religious coping and anxiety/depressive symptoms, while general and positive religious coping were not significantly associated with symptoms overall. Context and subgroup differences mattered. Cheng and Ying (2023).
These findings support three practical conclusions. Religious coping should not be treated as one undivided variable. Positive coping is not a universal protective factor. Negative coping deserves attention because it can signal a spiritually framed form of distress, but association is not proof that religious struggle caused the distress.
Religious Coping and Physical Health
Claims about physical health require particular restraint. Religious coping can affect behaviors, stress appraisal, social support, treatment decisions, and emotional functioning, all of which can be relevant to health. Yet observational associations cannot be converted into claims that faith or prayer cures disease. In the 2026 pooled SSSH analysis, perceived stress showed no overall association with physical health in the meta-analysis, and neither positive nor negative religious coping significantly moderated the stress–physical-health association in the pooled result. Britt et al. (2026).
Religious practices can coexist with evidence-based medical and psychological care. When a person experiences spiritual practices as supportive, clinicians can respect and incorporate that resource when appropriate without presenting it as a substitute for indicated diagnosis, treatment, medication, emergency care, or other professional services.
The Brief RCOPE: How Religious Coping Is Measured
The Brief RCOPE is the most widely used short measure of religious coping. It contains 14 items divided into two seven-item subscales: positive religious coping and negative religious coping. The instrument emerged from the larger RCOPE and was developed for research and practical assessment of coping with major life stressors. Pargament et al. (2011).
The positive subscale samples themes such as spiritual connection, support, forgiveness, collaboration, and benevolent reappraisal. The negative subscale samples themes such as spiritual discontent, perceived punishment or abandonment, interpersonal religious discontent, and other forms of religious struggle. The scale's wording reflects the traditions and populations in which it was developed, which becomes important when it is used across cultures.
What a Brief RCOPE score means
A Brief RCOPE score describes responses to a questionnaire. It is not a psychiatric diagnosis, a measure of whether someone's faith is healthy, a test of religious truth, or a stand-alone treatment recommendation. Interpretation should consider the stressor, the person's religious tradition and language, the timing of assessment, and the purpose for which the measure is being used.
The two subscales should also be interpreted separately. A person can score high on positive coping and still report meaningful religious struggle. Conversely, low negative coping does not prove that a person is psychologically well. Mental health assessment requires symptoms, duration, context, impairment, safety, medical factors, and other relevant evidence.
Cross-cultural validity and limits
A 2024 review examined the Brief RCOPE outside the United States. Across multiple countries and religious populations, translated or adapted versions often showed good reliability and evidence of convergent, construct, or concurrent validity. The authors also emphasized that coverage remains incomplete: additional work is needed in more religions, cultures, and minority groups, and normative data remain limited in many settings. Saunders and Stephenson (2024).
Cross-cultural use therefore requires more than literal translation. Concepts such as God, church, divine punishment, spiritual support, or demonic attribution may not map cleanly onto every religion or worldview. Researchers and clinicians should examine linguistic equivalence, doctrinal context, local practices, and whether the measure captures what religious coping actually means in the population being studied.
Religious Coping Across Religious Traditions and Cultures
Religious coping appears across multiple traditions, but its forms are not interchangeable. A review by Abu-Raiya and Pargament found both commonalities and differences across Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while also noting that positive religious coping tends to be reported more frequently than negative coping in diverse samples. Abu-Raiya and Pargament (2015).
The broader lesson is methodological and clinical. Researchers should not treat a scale developed in one cultural setting as a culture-free template. Clinicians should not infer meaning from a practice merely because they recognize its label. The same word can carry different theological, communal, and emotional meanings across traditions, denominations, ethnic groups, families, and individuals.
Cultural competence also requires attention to minority status, migration, discrimination, war, displacement, language, and the social position of a religious community. A person's religious coping may be inseparable from family expectations, communal survival, historical memory, or access to material support. These contextual factors can influence both the coping process and the psychological outcomes researchers measure.
Negative Religious Coping Versus Religious and Spiritual Struggle
Negative religious coping and religious or spiritual struggle overlap, but they are not identical constructs. The Brief RCOPE was designed around coping with a stressor. Broader measures of religious and spiritual struggle can assess conflict involving God, morality, doubt, ultimate meaning, other people, or experiences interpreted as evil even when the struggle is not tightly tied to one event. Exline et al. (2014).
For the broader construct, its domains, measures, and mental-health evidence, see Religious and Spiritual Struggles: Types and Mental Health.
Pirutinsky's 2024 longitudinal analysis directly tested whether negative religious coping behaves mainly as a stress-triggered coping response or as a marker of more generalized spiritual struggle. The results supported both elements: negative coping showed substantial stability while also increasing at times of stress, and both stable differences and time-specific changes related to depressive symptoms. Pirutinsky (2024).
This distinction matters because a score labeled negative religious coping can sometimes capture a broader spiritual difficulty that extends beyond the immediate stressor. Clinical conversation should therefore ask what the struggle is about, when it began, what intensifies it, how it affects the person, and whether the person wants religious, psychological, communal, or combined support.
Religious Coping, OCD, Psychosis, and Clinical Differential Assessment
Religious content alone does not establish a mental disorder. Prayer, ritual, fasting, confession, visions interpreted within a tradition, experiences of divine presence, religious doubt, or strong moral concern can occur within ordinary religious life. Clinical assessment asks how the experience fits the person's cultural and religious context and whether there are symptoms, loss of control, severe distress, impairment, safety concerns, or other features that meet criteria for a disorder.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder provides one important boundary. Religious or moral themes can become the content of obsessions and compulsions, but devout belief is not OCD. Scrupulosity is assessed through the pattern of intrusive doubt, compulsive reassurance or ritualization, time consumption, distress, and impairment rather than through the fact that the topic is religious. See Scrupulosity OCD: Religious Obsessions, Moral Fear, Rituals, Guilt, and Treatment.
Psychotic disorders require a similarly contextual assessment. A clinician does not diagnose psychosis because a belief is religious, unfamiliar, intense, or culturally different from the clinician's own worldview. Assessment considers the person's cultural and religious community, reality testing, associated symptoms, functional change, course, and the wider clinical picture. The psychology of religion examines experience and functioning while remaining outside theological adjudication.
Religious Coping in Psychotherapy
Religion and spirituality can be clinically relevant when the client considers them relevant. Competent practice begins with respectful inquiry rather than assumption. Psychologists can ask whether faith, spirituality, religious community, or sacred practices are sources of strength, conflict, obligation, identity, or distress, and whether the client wants those issues included in therapy. Vieten and Lukoff (2022).
The clinician's role is psychological. It includes understanding the client's worldview, recognizing religious and spiritual resources, identifying struggle that may affect mental health, avoiding the imposition of the clinician's own beliefs, and collaborating with appropriate religious leaders when the client wishes and the boundaries are clear. The American Psychological Association's science brief on spiritual struggles similarly recommends basic assessment, reflection, access to resources, and collaboration with clergy when appropriate. Pargament and Exline (2020).
Does spiritually integrated psychotherapy work?
Evidence supports the feasibility of adapting psychotherapy to clients' religious or spiritual values, but the interpretation is nuanced. A meta-analysis of 97 outcome studies found that religiously or spiritually adapted psychotherapy improved psychological and spiritual outcomes relative to no treatment and some comparison conditions. In the most rigorous additive comparisons, spiritually accommodated psychotherapy was about as effective as standard approaches for psychological distress while showing an advantage for spiritual well-being. Captari et al. (2018).
This does not mean that every client needs explicitly religious therapy. The relevant question is whether religious or spiritual material belongs in this client's formulation and goals. A secular client should not have religion inserted into treatment. A religious client should not have a central source of identity or struggle ignored simply because the clinician is uncomfortable discussing it.
Practical Ways to Use Religious Coping During Stress
For a person whose faith or spirituality is important, a useful starting point is to identify which religious resources genuinely support functioning. That may include prayer, worship, reading, contemplative practice, sacred music, community contact, pastoral conversation, service, confession, forgiveness work, ritual, or simply remaining connected to a familiar tradition. The useful resource is the one that fits the person's beliefs and situation rather than a generic prescription.
Religious coping is often strongest when it works alongside other forms of coping. A person can pray and make a practical plan, seek spiritual support and speak with a therapist, participate in ritual and attend medical appointments, or accept what cannot be changed while acting on what can. In the COVID-19 meta-analysis, positive religious coping by itself was not consistently linked with fewer symptoms, and the authors emphasized the value of combining coping strategies rather than relying exclusively on one approach. Cheng and Ying (2023).
When coping becomes dominated by fear of punishment, abandonment, spiritual failure, or conflict with a religious community, the goal is not to suppress the person's faith. It is to understand the distress, identify supportive relationships and interpretations available within the person's tradition, and consider professional help when symptoms or impairment warrant it. Religious leaders and mental health professionals can sometimes offer complementary forms of support when the person wants both.
Bereavement is one setting in which religious coping and meaning-making may become especially visible. The broader psychological course of loss is covered in Grief: Psychological Responses to Loss.
Risks and Warning Signs
Religious coping deserves closer attention when it increases rather than reduces isolation, fear, shame, conflict, or functional impairment. Examples can include persistent beliefs that one has been divinely abandoned or punished when those beliefs are experienced as overwhelming; escalating conflict with a religious community; spiritual struggle that intensifies depression or anxiety; or coping practices that interfere with necessary medical or psychological care. These patterns call for contextual assessment, not automatic pathologizing.
Immediate safety concerns are evaluated in the same way they are in other clinical contexts. Suicidal thoughts, self-harm, inability to care for oneself, severe agitation, dangerous behavior, or rapidly deteriorating functioning require appropriate professional or emergency assessment regardless of whether the person describes the experience in religious, spiritual, secular, or medical language.
A scale score alone cannot determine risk. The Brief RCOPE can help organize information about coping patterns, but clinical decisions require a fuller assessment of symptoms, history, functioning, current stressors, supports, culture, and safety.
What Religious Coping Research Cannot Tell Us
The field has several recurring limitations. Much of the evidence is observational, so direction of causality is often uncertain. People may turn to religious coping because they are under severe stress, which can make coping appear associated with poor outcomes even when it is a response to distress. Longitudinal designs improve temporal information but still do not eliminate all confounding.
Measurement is another limitation. The Brief RCOPE has a strong research history, yet its wording was developed in a particular cultural and religious environment. Cross-cultural studies support its use in many settings, but they do not justify assuming identical meaning across all faiths, languages, or populations. Saunders and Stephenson (2024).
Publication context also matters. Findings from hospital patients, disaster survivors, college students, military veterans, or one religious community should not automatically be generalized to all people. Positive and negative coping may change over time, and a questionnaire administered once can miss that movement. Pirutinsky's longitudinal findings are a reminder that negative religious coping can include both relatively stable struggle and stress-linked fluctuation. Pirutinsky (2024).
Finally, psychological research measures experiences, behaviors, associations, and outcomes. It cannot adjudicate whether God exists, whether a prayer is heard, whether a miracle occurred, or which religious doctrine is ultimately true. Those questions belong to religious, philosophical, and personal domains beyond the empirical task of this article.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is religious coping in psychology?
Religious coping is the use of religious beliefs, practices, relationships, or meaning systems to manage stress. It can include prayer, religious reappraisal, seeking spiritual support, turning to a faith community, religiously framed problem solving, forgiveness, ritual, or spiritual struggle. The concept describes coping processes rather than the truth or quality of a person's religion.
What is positive religious coping?
Positive religious coping is a research category that commonly includes spiritual connection, benevolent meaning, perceived support, forgiveness, and collaborative coping. On average, it has been associated with more favorable psychological adjustment in some research, but it does not guarantee protection from distress. Ano and Vasconcelles (2005).
What is negative religious coping?
Negative religious coping is a research category describing religious or spiritual tension during stress, such as feeling abandoned or punished by God, conflict with a religious community, or intense struggle over sacred meaning. It has been associated with greater psychological distress in many studies, but the relationship can run in more than one direction. Pargament et al. (2011). Pirutinsky (2024).
Is religious doubt a sign of mental illness?
No. Doubt, questioning, anger, lament, and periods of spiritual struggle can occur within ordinary religious life. A mental health diagnosis requires clinically relevant symptoms, context, course, impairment, and established diagnostic criteria. Religious content by itself does not establish a disorder.
What is the Brief RCOPE?
The Brief RCOPE is a 14-item measure with separate seven-item positive and negative religious coping subscales. It is used in research and sometimes in assessment contexts. It is not a diagnostic test. Pargament et al. (2011).
Can prayer be a form of religious coping?
Yes. Prayer can function as religious coping when it is used in response to stress, but prayer is only one possible form. The psychological meaning of prayer varies across traditions and people, and research on religious coping should not be interpreted as proof that prayer produces a guaranteed clinical or medical effect.
Can positive and negative religious coping happen at the same time?
Yes. They are generally treated as separate dimensions. A person can seek spiritual comfort and community support while also feeling doubt, anger, abandonment, or conflict. Mixed coping is psychologically plausible and often more informative than forcing experience into one label.
Does negative religious coping cause depression?
Research consistently finds associations between negative religious coping or spiritual struggle and greater distress, but causality is not simple. Distress can intensify struggle, struggle may contribute to distress, and both can reflect difficult life circumstances or other vulnerabilities. Longitudinal research supports a dynamic relationship rather than a single universal causal direction. Bockrath et al. (2022). Pirutinsky (2024).
Should therapists ask about religion and spirituality?
When religion or spirituality may be relevant, respectful inquiry can improve cultural and clinical understanding. The therapist should follow the client's worldview and goals, recognize both resources and struggles, avoid imposing personal beliefs, and collaborate with religious professionals when the client wants that support and appropriate boundaries are maintained. Vieten and Lukoff (2022).
Is religious coping a substitute for mental health treatment?
No universal substitution follows from the evidence. Religious coping can be an important resource, and spiritually integrated psychotherapy can be appropriate for clients who want it. Clinical disorders, severe symptoms, safety concerns, or medical problems still require appropriate professional assessment and treatment. Religious and clinical supports can coexist.
Related Articles
Measuring Religiosity and Spirituality: Research Instruments — the EN-47 methods article for selecting and interpreting religiosity/spirituality instruments, including Brief RCOPE, without diagnosis by score.
References
Abu-Raiya, H., & Pargament, K. I. (2015). Religious coping among diverse religions: Commonalities and divergences. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037652
Ano, G. G., & Vasconcelles, E. B. (2005). Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(4), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20049
Bockrath, M. F., Pargament, K. I., Wong, S., Harriott, V. A., Pomerleau, J. M., Homolka, S. J., Chaudhary, Z. B., & Exline, J. J. (2022). Religious and spiritual struggles and their links to psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 14(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000400
Britt, K. C., Boateng, A. C. O., Gu, Y., Schachter, A. B., Daviglus, M. L., Cole, S. A., Eliassen, A. H., Penedo, F. J., Koenig, H. G., Perreira, K. M., Shields, A. E., & Warner, E. T. (2026). Religious Coping, Stress, and Mental and Physical Health: A Pooled Analysis Across Diverse US Cohorts in Studies on Stress, Spirituality, and Health (SSSH). Journal of Religion and Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-026-02696-1
Captari, L. E., Hook, J. N., Hoyt, W. T., Davis, D. E., McElroy-Heltzel, S. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2018). Integrating clients' religion and spirituality within psychotherapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(11), 1938–1951. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22681
Cheng, C., & Ying, W. (2023). A meta-analytic review of the associations between dimensions of religious coping and psychological symptoms during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1097598. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1097598
Exline, J. J., Pargament, K. I., Grubbs, J. B., & Yali, A. M. (2014). The Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale: Development and initial validation. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036465
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. Guilford Press. Publisher page
Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(4), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388152
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods of religious coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 519–543. PubMed
Pargament, K., Feuille, M., & Burdzy, D. (2011). The Brief RCOPE: Current psychometric status of a short measure of religious coping. Religions, 2(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel2010051
Park, C. L. (2005). Religion as a meaning-making framework in coping with life stress. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 707–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x
Pirutinsky, S. (2024). Negative religious coping versus spiritual struggles: Moderator or main effect? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 80(8), 1780–1796. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23694
Saunders, N., & Stephenson, Z. (2024). Reviewing the use of the Brief Religious Coping Scale (Brief RCOPE) across diverse cultures and populations. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(5), 3926–3941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-024-02119-z
Vieten, C., & Lukoff, D. (2022). Spiritual and religious competencies in psychology. American Psychologist, 77(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000821