宗教与世俗的应对策略

IF 1.4 0 RELIGION Journal of Empirical Theology Pub Date : 2021-10-28 DOI:10.1163/15709256-12341422
Ulrich Riegel, Alexander Unser
{"title":"宗教与世俗的应对策略","authors":"Ulrich Riegel, Alexander Unser","doi":"10.1163/15709256-12341422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn times of disaster, religion is said to be a powerful resource of meaning-focused coping. If offers motifs, symbols, and stories to reappraise situations and thereby ascribe meaning to them. Aside from religion, in modern times secular resources are feasible for meaning making during disaster as well. Empirical instruments that assess both religious and secular types of meaning-focused coping, however, are not available. Relevant instruments focus exclusively on either religious or secular coping. This paper addresses this desideratum by supplementing the RCOPE-scales of reappraisal with relevant scales of secular reappraisal. Three scales – Trust in Science, Consequences of Lifestyle, and Reappraisal of Science’s Power – have been constructed and tested on a sample of university students and staff members coping with the Corona pandemic. CFA shows a satisfactory fit for the supplementing instrument when Trust in Science is removed from the analysis. Correlation analysis with scales of religiosity (Centrality of Religiosity and Post-Critical Belief) indicates a good external validity of the new instrument. In consequence, the two supplements of Consequences of Lifestyle and Reappraisal of Science’s Power facilitate assessment of secular meaning-focused coping aside with relevant religious coping, while the Trust in Science Reappraisal scale needs further development.","PeriodicalId":42786,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Theology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religious and Secular Coping Strategies of Reappraisal\",\"authors\":\"Ulrich Riegel, Alexander Unser\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15709256-12341422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn times of disaster, religion is said to be a powerful resource of meaning-focused coping. If offers motifs, symbols, and stories to reappraise situations and thereby ascribe meaning to them. Aside from religion, in modern times secular resources are feasible for meaning making during disaster as well. Empirical instruments that assess both religious and secular types of meaning-focused coping, however, are not available. Relevant instruments focus exclusively on either religious or secular coping. This paper addresses this desideratum by supplementing the RCOPE-scales of reappraisal with relevant scales of secular reappraisal. Three scales – Trust in Science, Consequences of Lifestyle, and Reappraisal of Science’s Power – have been constructed and tested on a sample of university students and staff members coping with the Corona pandemic. CFA shows a satisfactory fit for the supplementing instrument when Trust in Science is removed from the analysis. Correlation analysis with scales of religiosity (Centrality of Religiosity and Post-Critical Belief) indicates a good external validity of the new instrument. In consequence, the two supplements of Consequences of Lifestyle and Reappraisal of Science’s Power facilitate assessment of secular meaning-focused coping aside with relevant religious coping, while the Trust in Science Reappraisal scale needs further development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Theology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-12341422\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-12341422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在灾难时期,宗教被认为是以意义为中心应对的强大资源。If提供了主题、符号和故事来重新评估情况,从而赋予它们意义。除了宗教,在现代,世俗资源也可以在灾难期间产生意义。然而,目前还没有评估宗教和世俗类型的以意义为中心的应对方式的实证工具。相关文书专门侧重于宗教或世俗应对。本文通过用长期重新评价的相关量表补充RCOPE重新评价量表来解决这一需求。构建了三个量表——对科学的信任、生活方式的后果和对科学力量的重新评价——并在应对新冠疫情的大学生和工作人员样本中进行了测试。当从分析中删除对科学的信任时,CFA显示出对补充工具的令人满意的适合性。与宗教信仰量表(宗教信仰中心度和后批判信仰)的相关性分析表明,新工具具有良好的外部有效性。因此,《生活方式的后果》和《科学力量的重新评估》这两个补充有助于评估除相关宗教应对外的世俗意义应对,而《科学信任重新评估量表》需要进一步发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Religious and Secular Coping Strategies of Reappraisal
In times of disaster, religion is said to be a powerful resource of meaning-focused coping. If offers motifs, symbols, and stories to reappraise situations and thereby ascribe meaning to them. Aside from religion, in modern times secular resources are feasible for meaning making during disaster as well. Empirical instruments that assess both religious and secular types of meaning-focused coping, however, are not available. Relevant instruments focus exclusively on either religious or secular coping. This paper addresses this desideratum by supplementing the RCOPE-scales of reappraisal with relevant scales of secular reappraisal. Three scales – Trust in Science, Consequences of Lifestyle, and Reappraisal of Science’s Power – have been constructed and tested on a sample of university students and staff members coping with the Corona pandemic. CFA shows a satisfactory fit for the supplementing instrument when Trust in Science is removed from the analysis. Correlation analysis with scales of religiosity (Centrality of Religiosity and Post-Critical Belief) indicates a good external validity of the new instrument. In consequence, the two supplements of Consequences of Lifestyle and Reappraisal of Science’s Power facilitate assessment of secular meaning-focused coping aside with relevant religious coping, while the Trust in Science Reappraisal scale needs further development.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
The Effect of the Members’ Religious Activity and the Church’s Clergy on Church Growth by the Example of Estonian Protestant Churches Chaplains Forming a Meaningful Relationship with Older People With Dementia – Insights to Pastoral Care in Nursing Home Settings Reformatorian Youth in the Netherlands: Religiosity and Personality Traits Confirmation – a Space for Human and Divine Action. Traditional Ritual in the Process of Changes in Secular Czechia Purpose in Life: a Comparison between Communities of the Non-religious and the Religious
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1