Ready to Meet God? Faithfulness and the Death of a Loved One

Abstract

Religiosity often predicts better adjustment after the death of a loved one, but findings vary. One source of variability could be the perceived faithfulness of the deceased. In study 1, more religious college students found the death of a hypothetical faithful person to be less sad than the death of a hypothetical unfaithful person, whereas less religious college students did not. In study 2, MTurk participants and highly religious Christians reported that the death of a faithful loved one was less difficult than the death of an unfaithful loved one, but the difference was greater for the highly religious Christians.

Keywords

religiosity bereavement coping

Imagine that Joe is relaxing at home on a Saturday afternoon. The phone rings and he answers. He learns that his wife Jaclyn has been in a serious car accident and has been airlifted to the hospital. Joe, filled with worry and fear, rushes to the hospital and learns that Jaclyn is in surgery. An hour later, the surgeon slowly walks into the waiting room and says, “I’m very sorry. We did everything we could, but her injuries were too severe. She passed away about 10 minutes ago.”

Most people will eventually lose someone close to them—an aging parent, a spouse, a good friend, or, perhaps most tragic of all, a child. As one might expect, such a loss can lead to many negative psychological, physical, and behavioral outcomes, including reduced psychological well-being, lower general health and vitality, and impaired social functioning (Boyden et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2019; Pohlkamp et al., 2019). A variety of factors have been found to predict the type or magnitude of negative outcomes, including the time since death (McCarthy et al., 2010), the manner of death (Currier et al., 2013), closeness to the deceased (Eckerd et al., 2016), the degree of social support (Dopp & Cain, 2012), and, most relevant to the current studies, the religiosity of those who have lost a loved one (Howell et al., 2015).

Religiosity Is Often Associated With Better Bereavement Outcomes

Considerable research has explored the role of religiosity and spirituality in bereaved individuals. Much of this research suggests that religiosity and spirituality are protective with regard to the negative consequences of bereavement. For example, in a well-known study of parents attempting to cope with the loss of a child to sudden infant death syndrome, McIntosh et al. (1993) found that both religious importance and religious participation were indirectly (through coping mechanisms) related to greater well-being and less distress. Similarly, Murphy et al. (2003) found that parents who engaged in religious coping were better able to find meaning in the death of their child, and meaning in turn predicted lower levels of psychological distress. In addition, Rogers et al. (2008) found that bereaved parents with greater religious participation had lower marital distress. And, in their review of 15 studies, Michael and Cooper (2013) concluded that religiousness is typically positively associated with post-traumatic growth.

Moreover, such effects are not limited to Western cultures. For example, Cheung et al. (2017) found that nurses in Hong Kong had lower levels of depression following bereavement if they were religious, especially if they identified as Christian or Catholic. And, as described in a qualitative study by Mohamed Hussin et al. (2018), bereaved Muslim parents in Malaysia indicated that they found their religion helpful in coping with their loss. Reviewers of the literature on religiosity/spirituality and bereavement have concluded that religiosity is often associated with more favorable outcomes (Becker et al., 2007; Hai et al., 2018; Wortmann & Park, 2008).

But Research Findings Vary

However, as these same reviewers have pointed out, research displays variability in the relationship between religiousness and bereavement outcomes. One important factor is the way that one engages with religion in times of distress. Positive religious coping (e.g., seeking forgiveness, connection, and spiritual support; Pargament et al., 1998) often leads to more favorable psychological outcomes. In contrast, negative religious coping (e.g., viewing negative events as a punishment from God, feeling abandoned by God; Pargament et al., 1998) is associated with depression, grief, and other types of psychological distress (Ano & Vasconcelles, 2005; Cowchock et al., 2010; Pargament et al., 1998).

People’s view of God and of their relationship with God is important as well. In developing their Attitudes Toward God scale, Wood et al. (2010) found that a positive view of God was associated with religiousness and positive religious coping, but a negative view of God was associated with depression, lower satisfaction with life, and negative religious coping. Specifically with regard to adjustment to bereavement, Exline et al. (2011, study 4) found that religiosity predicted more positive emotion and less negative emotion toward God; positive emotion in turn predicted less distress, but negative emotion predicted more distress. Similarly, in their research on attachment to God, Kelley and Chan (2012) found that secure attachment predicted lower depression and grief in bereaved individuals, as well as greater meaning, stress-related growth, and positive religious coping.

A third factor that predicts the association between religiousness and psychological adjustment following bereavement is the manner in which religiosity is operationalized. For example, Wortmann and Park (2008), in their review of 73 studies, concluded that most measures of religiosity, including general religiousness, religious service attendance, and spirituality predicted better adjustment, but religious affiliation was substantially unrelated to adjustment. As these authors noted, this is understandable given that affiliation does not indicate the frequency of religious engagement or a person’s religious motivation. In a recent study that also illustrates the importance of religious engagement in coping with bereavement, Stelzer et al. (2020) found that the combination of personal and communal religiousness predicted positive religious coping and reduced negative religious coping, but personal religiousness apart from communal religiousness predicted negative religious coping. It seems religiousness is most likely to predict better outcomes following bereavement when people are engaged in their faith and their faith community.

Purpose of the Current Research

Might there be a type of bereavement in which engaged religious people experience greater distress than do those who are less religious? The current work sought to explore an additional possible contributor to the variability of findings with regard to religiosity and bereavement—the perceived faithfulness of the deceased. It is important to acknowledge at the outset that this topic is explored from a Christian viewpoint with regard to faithfulness and afterlife beliefs. Similar results might be expected for other religious views that also hold that faithfulness to God is one factor that predicts one’s destination after death, but results might differ for religious views that do not include these elements.

As described earlier, the loss of a loved one predicts a variety of negative emotional and physical outcomes and research suggests that religiosity can reduce these negative effects. We can well understand how the hope of being reunited with a loved one in heaven could lessen the sadness of bereavement. However, what if one’s faith leads one to conclude that a loved one is bound for hell and lost forever? In such a case, we would expect religious people to exhibit greater distress (see also Exline, 2003). Thus, the faithfulness of the deceased should make a substantial difference in the reactions of those who are highly religious (at least with regard to religions that teach about heaven and hell or similar concepts), but might make relatively little difference in the reactions of those who are less religious.

Two studies explored the role of the faithfulness of the deceased in the reactions of more religious and less religious participants. Study 1 used hypothetical scenarios to manipulate the faithfulness of a deceased person. Study 2 asked participants about actual instances of loss and how the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of deceased loved ones affected the difficulty of their loss. These 2 studies investigated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The difference between ratings for a deceased person perceived to be faithful and a deceased person not perceived to be faithful will be greater for more religious participants than for less religious participants.

Hypothesis 2: More religious participants will find the death of a person perceived to be faithful to be less sad/easier to cope with than will less religious participants.

Hypothesis 3: More religious participants will find the death of a person not perceived to be faithful to be more sad/more difficult to cope with than will less religious participants.
Study 1 also manipulated the religiousness of the deceased’s family. This yielded a fourth hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4: Participants will indicate that the perceived faithfulness of the deceased will have a greater impact on the sadness of a religious family than a non-religious family.

Study 1

Method

This study was approved (approval #547) by the Northern Kentucky University Institutional Review Board office.

Participants

One hundred and fifty-four college students (131 women, 18 men, 5 missing, M[age] = 20.00) participated in a study entitled Events and judgments. These participants earned credit toward a psychology course.

Measures and Procedure

Within a large online survey, participants answered a variety of questions (many pertaining to other studies), including the number of religious services they attended in a typical month. Participants also read four very brief vignettes that described hypothetical elderly women (e.g., Mrs. Baker, Mrs. Miller) much loved by their families. Two vignettes stated that “She is very religious and has been faithful to God all her life,” but two vignettes stated that “She isn’t religious and has never had much interest in God.” Cross-cutting this manipulation of the elderly woman’s religiosity, the family was said to be very religious or non-religious. Participants rated how sad they found each scenario and how sad they thought the hypothetical family would be, both on 5-point scales anchored with the phrases Not sad at all (1) and Extremely sad (5).

Results

How Sad Do You Find This Scenario?

Participants were divided into two groups based on service attendance; participants who reported attending religious services zero times in a typical month were designated the less religious group (n = 71) and those who reported attending religious services one or more times in a typical month (M = 5.01, SD = 11.40) were designated the more religious group (n = 78). A 2(Deceased: Religious, Non-Religious) X 2(Family: Religious, Non-Religious) X 2(Participant Group: More Religious, Less Religious) ANOVA revealed that vignettes were judged to be more sad when the deceased family member was non-religious (M = 3.61, SD = 1.68) than religious (M = 3.45, SD = 1.76), F(1, 140) = 6.75, p = .010, h_p² = .046. This effect was qualified by an interaction between the religiosity of the deceased and participant religiosity; although this interaction fell just short of significance, F(1, 140) = 3.90, p = .050, h_p² = .027, post hoc tests (Bonferroni) indicated that religious participants found the vignettes to be significantly more sad when the deceased family member was non-religious (M = 3.86, SD = 1.42) than religious (M = 3.58, SD = 1.60), t(140) = −3.33, p = .007, but non-religious participants did not (Ms = 3.36, SD = 1.85 and 3.32, SD = 1.91, respectively), t(140) = −0.43, p = 1.00. This provided support for hypothesis 1. However, more religious participants did not find the death of a faithful loved one to be less sad than did less religious participants, t(169) = −1.33, p = 1.00, or the death of an unfaithful loved one to be more sad than did less religious participants, t(169) = -2.54, p = .071, so hypotheses 2 and 3 were not supported. In addition, more religious participants found the vignettes to be more sad in general (M = 3.86, SD = 2.14) compared to less religious participants (M = 3.34, SD = 2.66), F(1, 140) = 4.15, p = .044, h_p² = .029.

How Sad Do You Think Her Family Would Be?

As noted earlier, participants also judged how sad the hypothetical family would be. An analogous ANOVA revealed that the hypothetical family was judged to be more sad when the deceased family member was non-religious (M = 4.56, SD = 1.17) than religious (M = 4.43, SD = 1.35), F(1, 141) = 10.55, p = .001, h_p² = .070. This effect was qualified by a significant interaction, F(1, 141) = 15.04, p = .001, h_p² = .096, such that the hypothetical religious family was judged to be more sad when the deceased had been non-religious (M = 4.63, SD = 0.81) rather than religious (M = 4.36, SD = 1.02), t(274) = −4.99, p = .001, but the religiosity of the deceased made no difference when the family was non-religious (Ms = 4.50, SD = 0.85 and 4.50, SD = 0.89, respectively), t(274) = 0.03, p = 1.00. This provided support for hypothesis 4.

Study 1 used hypothetical scenarios to manipulate the religiosity of a family and a deceased loved one with a college student sample. Consistent with hypothesis 1, the religiosity of a deceased loved one had a greater effect on the judgments of more religious participants than less religious participants. However, contrary to hypotheses 2 and 3, more religious participants did not find the death of a faithful loved one to be less sad, and the death of an unfaithful loved one to be more sad, than did less religious participants. One possible reason for the failure of hypotheses 2 and 3 was that, unlike most previous work on bereavement, study 1 explored hypothetical scenarios. Study 2 sought to extend the findings of study 1 by comparing a sample of highly religious people with a sample of adults recruited from MTurk and asking how they were affected when actual loved ones perceived to be faithful or not faithful had passed away.

Study 2

Method

This study was approved (approval #673) by the Northern Kentucky University Institutional Review Board office.

Participants

Seventy-six participants recruited from Amazon’s MTurk (31 women, 44 men, 1 missing, M[age] = 38.8) and 36 members of the church of Christ (18 women, 18 men, M[age] = 47.0) participated in a study entitled Religiosity and Psychology Survey. The MTurk participants received $0.25 for their participation.

Measures and Procedure

Within an online survey, participants indicated how religious they were on a 9-point scale, anchored with the phrases Not at all religious (1) and Very religious (9), and reported the number of religious services they attended in a typical month. Participants were also asked two questions about people they cared about who had passed away. One question asked about someone who shared their religious view; the other asked about someone who did not share their religious view. Participants were asked, “How did the fact that the person (shared/did not share) your religious view make his/her passing more difficult or easier?” Participants responded on 9-point scales anchored with the phrases The fact that the person (shared/did not share) my religious view made his/her passing much more difficult for me (1) and The fact that the person (shared/did not share) my religious view made his/her passing much easier for me (9). (Participants were free to skip each question if they had not experienced that type of loss. Of the 76 MTurk participants, 60 responded to the question about someone who shared their religious view and 63 responded to the question about someone who did not share their religious view. Of the 36 church of Christ participants, 33 responded to the question about someone who shared their religious view and 30 responded to the question about someone who did not share their religious view.)

Results

Participant Religious Differences

As expected, the church of Christ participants reported much higher religiosity (M = 8.36, SD = 1.15) than did the MTurk participants (M = 4.51, SD = 2.98), F(1, 108) = 55.7, p = .001, h_p² = .340, and more frequent monthly service attendance (M = 10.08, SD = 2.74) than did the MTurk participants (M = 4.26, SD = 12.44), F(1, 106) = 7.66, p = .007, h_p² = .067.

Religiosity and Reactions to the Death of a Close Other

A 2(Religious View of Deceased: Shared, Not Shared) X 2(Participant Group: church of Christ, MTurk) ANOVA revealed an effect of the religious view of the deceased; participants indicated that the passing of a close other was much easier when the deceased shared their religious view (M = 7.14, SD = 2.07) than when the deceased did not share their religious view (M = 4.31, SD = 2.46), F(1, 87) = 139.40, p = .001, h_p² = .616. However, a significant interaction, F(1, 87) = 69.80, p = .001, h_p² = .445, indicated that this difference was much greater among the church of Christ participants than among the MTurk participants, providing support for hypothesis 1. Consistent with much of the previous work on religiosity and adjustment to bereavement, the church of Christ participants found it easier to cope with the death of a close other (M = 8.78, SD = 0.73) than the MTurk participants did (M = 6.25, SD = 2.07) when the deceased shared their religious view, t(173.2) = 5.89, p = .001, providing support for hypothesis 2. However, unlike much of the previous work on religiosity and adjustment to bereavement, but consistent with hypothesis 3, the church of Christ participants found it more difficult to cope with the death of a close other (M = 2.45, SD = 2.01) than the MTurk participants did (M = 5.17, SD = 2.13) when the deceased did not share their religious view, t(173.2) = −6.33, p = .001.

General Discussion

Summary of Findings

In study 1, religious college students found the death of a hypothetical loved one more sad when the loved one was non-religious than religious, but non-religious college students found these events equally sad. Participants also judged that a religious family would be more sad when the deceased was non-religious than religious, but that a non-religious family would not. In study 2, highly religious church of Christ participants reported that they found the death of a close other easier to cope with than did MTurk participants when the deceased had shared their religious view. However, these church of Christ participants reported that they found the death of a close other more difficult to cope with than did MTurk participants when the deceased had not shared their religious view.

Do Religious People Cope Better with the Death of a Loved One?

As described in the introduction, the majority of studies have found that religious participants cope better with the death of a loved one, but there are also inconsistencies. The current results suggest that one additional source of this variability pertains to the perceived faithfulness of the deceased. When highly religious people lose someone close to them, the belief that they will one day be reunited in heaven is a very comforting thought that might make the loved one’s death easier to bear. In such a case, more religious people might cope better and display more favorable psychological and physical outcomes compared to less religious people. But, in contrast, the belief that a loved one is lost eternally is a tragic thought that would surely make the loved one’s death much more difficult to bear. In such a case, more religious people might cope less well and display less favorable psychological and physical outcomes compared to less religious people.

Implications for the Study of Religiosity and Bereavement

The current findings would seem to have at least two implications for the study of religiosity and spirituality with regard to bereavement. First, if the perceived faithfulness of the deceased is not considered, it might appear that religiousness has little or no effect on a variety of variables that pertain to distress, such as depression, grief, and physical health outcomes. Such a finding might occur not because religiousness is actually unimportant with regard to such outcomes, but, rather, because the loss of a loved one could lead to either much lower distress or much higher distress, depending on whether or not the deceased was perceived to be ready to meet God.

Second, the current findings suggest that the age (or mental capacity) of the deceased should influence the relationship between religiousness and distress. Presumably the vast majority of religious people hold that, if a baby or a young child passes away, that child is safe with God. In contrast, if an adult passes away, that adult might be perceived to be with God or banished. Thus, compared to less religious people, more religious people should display better adjustment following bereavement when the deceased is a child rather than an adult.

Application to Clinical Settings

The current findings would seem to also be relevant to clinical settings. If a therapist is helping a religious client to cope with the loss of a loved one, it might be very important for the therapist to be aware of the religious client’s views about the afterlife and the spiritual state of the deceased. In addition, it would seem that different therapeutic techniques might be called for when helping a client to cope with the loss of a loved one with whom they expect to be reunited compared to a loved one who they never expect to meet again.

Limitations and Future Directions

It is important to note a number of limitations in the current work, as well as possible future directions. First, the great majority of current participants probably had afterlife beliefs that at least approximated the teachings of Christianity. Participants of other faiths might display similar or dissimilar reactions, depending on whether their faith does (e.g., Islam) or does not (e.g., Buddhism) teach a good afterlife for the faithful and a bad afterlife for the unfaithful. Second, the current work assessed sadness (study 1) and the difficulty of the loved one’s death for oneself (study 2), but there are many other psychological, physical, and behavioral outcomes that could be explored. Third, the strength of the current effects might vary depending on other factors, such as whether or not one tried to persuade an unfaithful loved one to change. It would seem that guilt and other types of distress might be heightened for religious people if they had opportunities to try to influence a person perceived to be unfaithful, yet failed to make any attempt. Certainly, there is much more work to be done with regard to bereavement and the perceived faithfulness of a deceased loved one.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Allyson Graf, Sarah Krull, and several anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. I have no competing interests to report.

Author’s Note

These studies were approved (study 1 approval #547, study 2 approval #673) by the Northern Kentucky University Institutional Review Board.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Douglas S. Krull

Author Biography

Douglas S. Krull is a professor in the department of psychological science at Northern Kentucky University.

References

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.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/jclp.20049

Becker

Xander

C. J.

Blum

H. E.

Lutterbach

Momm

Gysels

Higginson

I. J.

(2007). Do religious or spiritual beliefs influence bereavement? A systematic review. Palliative Medicine, 21(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216307077327

Boyden

J. Y.

Kavanaugh

Issel

L. M.

Eldeirawi

Meert

K. L.

(2014). Experiences of African American parents following perinatal or pediatric death: A literature review. Death Studies, 38(6), 374–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2013.766656

Cheung

Lee

P. H.

Yip

(2017). The associations between religion, bereavement and depression among Hong Kong nurses. BMC Research Notes, 10(1), 242. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2588-7

Cowchock

F. S.

Lasker

J. N.

Toedter

L. J.

Skumanich

S. A.

Koenig

H. G.

(2010). Religious beliefs affect grieving after pregnancy loss. Journal of Religion and Health, 49(4), 485–497. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10943-009-9277-3

Currier

J. M.

Mallot

Martinez

T. E.

Sandy

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2013). Bereavement, religion, and posttraumatic growth: A matched control group investigation. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027708

Dopp

A. R.

Cain

A. C.

(2012). The role of peer relationships in parental bereavement during childhood and adolescence. Death Studies, 36(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2011.573175

Eckerd

L. M.

Barnett

J. E.

Jett-Dias

(2016). Grief following pet and human loss: Closeness is key. Death Studies, 40(5), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2016.1139014

Exline

J. J.

(2003). Belief in heaven and hell among Christians in the United States: Denominational differences and clinical implications. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying, 47(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.2190/21MG-UJ9M-X5UK-7U9K

10.

Exline

J. J.

Park

C. L.

Smyth

J. M.

Carey

M. P.

(2011). Anger toward god: Social-cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 129–148. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/a0021716

11.

Hai

A. H.

Currin-McCulloch

Franklin

Cole

A. H.

(2018). Spirituality/religiosity’s influence on college students’ adjustment to bereavement: A systematic review. Death Studies, 42(8), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2017.1390503

12.

Howell

K. H.

Shapiro

D. N.

Layne

C. M.

Kaplow

J. B.

(2015). Individual and psychosocial mechanisms of adaptive functioning in parentally bereaved children. Death Studies, 39(5), 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2014.951497

13.

Kelley

M. M.

Chan

K. T.

(2012). Assessing the role of attachment to god, meaning, and religious coping as mediators in the grief experience. Death Studies, 36(3), 199–227. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/07481187.2011.553317

14.

Liu

W.-M.

Forbat

Anderson

(2019). Death of a close friend: Short and long-term impacts on physical, psychological and social well-being. PLoS One, 14(4), e0214838.

15.

McCarthy

M. C.

Clarke

N. E.

Ting

C. L.

Conroy

Anderson

V. A.

Heath

J. A.

(2010). Prevalence and predictors of parental grief and depression after the death of a child from cancer. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 13(11), 1321–1326. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2010.0037

16.

McIntosh

D. N.

Silver

R. C.

Wortman

C. B.

(1993). Religion’s role in adjustment to a negative life event: Coping with the loss of a child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 812–821. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.812

17.

Michael

Cooper

(2013). Post-traumatic growth following bereavement: A systematic review of the literature. Counselling Psychology Review, 28, 18–33.

18.

Mohamed Hussin

N. A.

Guàrdia-Olmos

Aho

A. L.

(2018). The use of religion in coping with grief among bereaved Malay Muslim parents. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 21(4), 395–407. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/13674676.2018.1500531

19.

Murphy

S. A.

Johnson

L. C.

Lohan

(2003). Finding meaning in a child’s violent death: A five-year prospective analysis of parents’ personal narratives and empirical data. Death Studies, 27(5), 381–404. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/07481180302879

20.

Pargament

K. I.

Smith

B. W.

Koenig

H. G.

Perez

(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.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.2307/1388152

21.

Pohlkamp

Kreicbergs

Sveen

(2019). Bereaved mothers’ and fathers’ prolonged grief and psychological health 1 to 5 years after loss—A nationwide study. Psycho-Oncology, 28(7), 1530–1536. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5112

22.

Rogers

C. H.

Floyd

F. J.

Seltzer

M. M.

Greenberg

Hong

(2008). Long-term effects of the death of a child on parents’ adjustment in midlife. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(2), 203–211. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.203

23.

Stelzer

E.-M.

Palitsky

Hernandez

E. N.

Ramirez

E. G.

O’Connor

M.-F.

(2020). The role of personal and communal religiosity in the context of bereavement. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 48(1), 64–80. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1617523

24.

Wood

B. T.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Exline

J. J.

Yali

A. M.

Aten

J. D.

McMinn

M. R.

(2010). Development, refinement, and psychometric properties of the attitudes toward god scale (ATGS-9. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2(3), 148–167. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/a0018753

25.

Wortmann

J. H.

Park

C. L.

(2008). Religion and spirituality in adjustment following bereavement: An integrative review. Death Studies, 32(8), 703–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180802289507