Next Article in Journal
New and Old Religious Minorities in International Law
Previous Article in Journal
Music, History, and Culture in Sephardi Jewish Prayer Chanting
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/rel12090701
religions-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Does Religious Commitment Affect Satisfaction with Life during the COVID-19 Pandemic? Examining Depression, Anxiety, and Stress as Mediators

by
Orhan Koçak
Department of Social Work, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul University—Cerrahpaşa, 34452 Istanbul, Turkey
Religions 2021, 12(9), 701; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090701
Submission received: 22 July 2021 / Revised: 19 August 2021 / Accepted: 24 August 2021 / Published: 30 August 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The effect of religiosity on individuals is seen more in stressful situations. Religion strengthens people in coping with the issues given rise by COVID-19 due to its contributions, such as reducing death fear and giving hope. The impact of religious commitment on COVID-19 fear, psychological consequences, and satisfaction with life levels in the COVID-19 period is investigated. To measure this impact of religious commitment, a cross-sectional study was designed with 2810 adults in Turkey. For this purpose, religious commitment, COVID-19 fear, DASS-21, and satisfaction with life scales were used. Mediation and moderation analyses were conducted to test the formed hypotheses. First, the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life with depression, anxiety, and stress was tested. Then, the moderating impact of COVID-19 fear in terms of the effect of religious commitment on satisfaction with life was analyzed. Finally, the role of depression’s mediation and COVID-19 fear’s moderation in terms of the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life was found. It was found that satisfaction with life decreased more in those with high COVID-19 fear than those with low COVID-19 fear; additionally, religious commitment increased satisfaction with life by reducing depression.

1. Introduction

Religion has been one of the main elements of life in Turkish society, as in many societies throughout history. Religious and spiritual ties exist in most of Turkish society today. Although the precise percentage of Muslims is not known, it is estimated to be 98% in Turkey. In Turkey, 89% of the people consider religion to be important in their life, which is the highest rate in Europe (Pew 2020). Among them, the rate of those who fast during Ramadan is 65%, those who prefer religious and official marriage 74%, and those who define themselves as religious are around 51%. However, the percentage of those who define themselves as non-believers or atheists is around 2–3%, and this is increasing gradually in Turkey (Kenton 2019). Religion is still active in resolving conflicts between different groups (Jacoby et al. 2019), providing spiritual therapy for the treatment of addiction and mental illness, ensuring individual and social peace (Esat et al. 2021; Eskin et al. 2020), and providing necessary hygiene for individuals in Turkey (Euronews 2020; Uğurlu et al. 2020).
Religious beliefs can contribute to order in a world of constant problems and tensions. Religions have always embraced forgiveness, which can help reduce problems (Carone and Barone 2001). Individuals with religiosity can cope with solitude, exclusion, mental illness, physical diseases, immune deficiencies, and many psychological and social problems (Hart and Koenig 2020). Religious commitment has been related to better psychological consequences when dealing with difficult situations such as pandemics. Prevention of infection caused by COVID-19 and measures such as lockdowns, quarantines, restricted mobility, and physical distance are factors that create depression, anxiety, and stress in society (Roychowdhury 2020).
According to the literature, religious commitment has a positive impact on satisfaction with life (Lim and Putnam 2010; Roberto et al. 2020; Yonker et al. 2012). The distinction between personal desires and the individual’s current situation is demonstrated by life satisfaction. In this view, the greater the gap between personal desires and current circumstances, the worse the quality of life (Karataş and Tagay 2021; Koçak et al. 2021a). Religion can help to bridge the gap between expectations and reality. Furthermore, religious people are happier because they have a sense of belonging and believe that they will benefit from the world’s problems in the afterlife (Bergan and McConatha 2001; Ellison et al. 1989). In this way, religious commitment explains why people are content with their lives.
The effects of pandemics on religious people’s behavior differ according to individual characteristics, such as sex, age, and marriage status (Çapcıoğlu 2020). During the pandemic, religious activities were affected as a result of quarantines. In this period, the reflections of individual religious orientations to prayer, worship, and perform other spiritual practices tended to be very positive. Additionally, as the COVID-19 virus spread rapidly, the closure of churches and mosques brought up alternatives to religious practices among Muslims and Christians (Al-Astewani 2020; Sulkowski and Ignatowski 2020). Some religious activities moved to online mediums as an alternative gathering setting to churches and mosques (Aji et al. 2020).
This study’s theory was based on making it easier for believers to cope with distress by regulating their mental and emotional states, as demonstrated in many empirical studies (Pargament 1997; Pargament et al. 1988; Pargament and Raiya 2007; Yıldırım et al. 2021). According to this theory, religion is an essential element in dealing with the feeling of insecurity that arises in troubling situations (Lim and Putnam 2010). That is why many coping mechanisms include the use of religion in reducing stress. In our study, there is one research question. This question is, “How does religious commitment impact an individual’s satisfaction with life during the pandemic?” The research tried to understand how religious commitment affects satisfaction with life during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the mediating role of psychological consequences such as stress, anxiety, and depression in terms of the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life was investigated. Moreover, the moderation impact of COVID-19 fear in terms of the influence of religious commitment on satisfaction with life was examined. Religious commitment and COVID-19 fear were associated with psychological outcomes and satisfaction with life. Furthermore, it was found that depression was mediated, and COVID-19 fear had a moderation role in the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Religiosity as Coping Strategy

Religion has the potential to regulate an individual’s life by being effective in people’s daily lives as well as their future decisions. Furthermore, it improves the ability to cope with the difficulties encountered, thanks to the meaning of life, increased sense of hope for the future, and expectation of reward. Coping refers to a person’s deliberate efforts to alleviate problems (Sang Ahm Lee et al. 2019). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, socio-economic issues such as staying at home for a long time, being under the pressure of unemployment, and the inability of young people to go to school have led to serious psychological problems (Koçak et al. 2021b). Such problems trigger physical and psychological issues. Religion gives a crucial meaning to an individual’s life and increases self-confidence (Aten et al. 2019; Lucchetti et al. 2020). Religiosity increases the resilience of individuals by adding meaning to their lives (Fradelos et al. 2018; Pirutinsky et al. 2020), strengthening their spirituality and self-esteem levels (Kane et al. 2021; Schieman et al. 2017), increasing their hopes for the future (Dyson et al. 1997; Koenig 2012), emphasizing the importance of family and social environments (Muruthi et al. 2020), and improving quality of life (Felicilda-Reynaldo et al. 2019), especially in times of distress. Therefore, the theory of this study is that religion has a positive effect on individuals coping with problems.
Pargament developed the religious coping approach (Pargament 1997) based on Lazarus and Folkman’s coping and stress theory (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). When individuals face stress in their lives, they use factors such as religion, spirituality, values, and culture as coping mechanisms (Ellison et al. 1989; Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Pargament 1997). According to Pargament (1997), religious coping techniques mediate the links between a person’s common religious tendency and the consequences of critical life events. In the case of a stressful event, generic faiths must be transformed into specific means of coping. These particular coping strategies seem to have the greatest immediate effects on an individual’s health during difficult circumstances (Pargament 1997). Different religious coping methods provide tailored responses to life’s complex stressors. Various strategies have been developed over time to measure religious coping. Firstly, there was interest in how often individuals pray and join religious communities (Bade and Cook 2008; Bänziger 2007; Bänziger et al. 2008). Secondly, some religious attitudes were included in general coping strategies (Pargament et al. 2011). Thirdly, Pargament et al. developed three ways people use religion to cope with stress (Pargament et al. 1988). Collaborative religious coping, which is active problem-solving in connection with God, has been linked to improved health and well-being (Harrison et al. 2009; Koenig and Larson 2001; Pargament et al. 1998, 2004). The deferring religious coping approach, which is being passive and waiting for God to intervene, on the other hand, demonstrated mixed health correlations (Bickel et al. 1998; Pargament et al. 2004) and had a negative moderating impact between stressors and satisfaction with life and positive effect (Fabricatore et al. 2009). The self-directing strategy is that God will provide the abilities needed for proper coping and that the person can consciously employ those abilities to overcome the issue (Pargament et al. 2004).
Religiosity or religious involvement is effective in improving health. Religiosity strengthens people’s coping by providing spiritual, mental, and emotional satisfaction (Roberto et al. 2020). Additionally, the future hopes of those with spirituality become more optimistic (Ano and Vasconcelles 2005). Religion is thought to have benefits in two main groups in troubled situations. Religiosity provides psychological support by offering hope and consensus for humanity (Van Ness and Larson 2002), bringing people together, and providing a basis for them to feel more comfortable (Molteni et al. 2021).
Religiosity encourages people’s well-being and health (Counted et al. 2020; Pargament and Raiya 2007) through mobility and sociability (Jung 2014). It encourages rich people to give financial and physical support to the poor in challenging times (Modell and Kardia 2020). Religiosity and spirituality can facilitate the purpose and meaning of life (Karataş and Tagay 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey was undertaken in Italy. As a result, it was understood that those who reported that their families were infected with COVID-19 also reported high religiosity by attending religious meetings and praying (Molteni et al. 2021). Studies have shown improvements in spiritual and religious coping to lower anxiety, depression, and stress (Amadi et al. 2016; Li and Shun 2016). Additionally, religious coping provokes cognitive capacities, adjustment to the disease, happiness, and quality of living (Joshanloo and Weijers 2016). Massarwi et al. (2019) found that the more religiosity in adolescents, the lower the criminal activity, and that religiosity had a moderation effect between risk factors and aggression.
The reaction of religious people in troubled times may vary according to societies and religions. Islam rewards the struggle with difficulties and adversity (Jacobsen 2021; Koçak 2021; Musharraf 2017). It is thought that every difficulty overcome leads the individual to a better religious and human personality and rank in Islam (Ali 2009; Hanefar et al. 2016; Raduan et al. 2018; Shadid 2007). In addition, since Islam emphasizes both mental and physical cleanliness, fewer mental and infectious diseases and hygiene problems are seen in Islamic societies (Ahmad and Ahad 2020; Berzengi et al. 2017; Francis et al. 2019; Z. H. Khan et al. 2012). For example, the individual’s ability to always ask God’s forgiveness without the need for any intermediary facilitates the spiritual purification of the individual (Hanefar et al. 2016). Moreover, Islam considers the importance of personal hygiene and emphasizes its maintenance (Bhat and Qureshi 2013). Performing ablution with water five times a day for worship leads to the cleansing of the body and soul (Bajirova 2017). Finally, recommendations on washing hands before and after meals and after using the toilet provide both body relaxation and hygiene by ensuring cleanliness (Allegranzi et al. 2009; Assad et al. 2013). Japanese culture and religious rules regarding hygiene have become social rules. That is why wearing masks, washing hands, and observing hygiene are perceived as a cultural norm (Botti et al. 2017). For Muslims, taking ablutions for praying five times a day and the frequent washing of hands as a religious duty have contributed to the compliance with hygiene rules during the COVID-19 pandemic (Ahmad and Ahad 2020). In Detroit, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim citizens played an essential role in combating the pandemic. Members of the three major religious beliefs helped reduce problems caused by COVID-19 by spreading moral views on allocations and providing social support (Modell and Kardia 2020).
A study on the Orthodox Jewish Community in America found that increased stress during the COVID-19 period caused weight gain in individuals. However, in those with high religiosity, weight gain was less apparent than those with low religiosity (Pirutinsky et al. 2021). Among Black students in America, religious belief and psychological well-being were moderately positively correlated (Blaine and Crocker 1995). Research in Poland found that students’ religiosity played a role in motivation to combat COVID-19 (Domaradzki and Walkowiak 2021). A study in Colombia and South Africa found that those with high levels of hope also have increased well-being (irrespective of religious coping). The Columbia data observed that those with high positive religious coping tended to improve well-being even if their hope was low (Counted et al. 2020). In many studies, it was found that religiosity has a negative effect on risky habits such as substance usage and sexual behavior and a positive effect on self-esteem, disease, psychological health, volunteering, and well-being (Ano and Vasconcelles 2005; Walker et al. 2007).

2.2. The Religiosity Effect on Depression, Anxiety, and Stress

Religiosity can lead to an increase in hope and a decrease in depressive symptoms (Zacher and Rudolph 2021). Religion was correlated with improved well-being. Additionally, religiosity has been associated with reduced death fear and psychological distress (Arslan 2021). Additionally, it can contribute to recovery and protection against addictive or suicidal behaviors. Positive and negative religious coping styles correlate with psychological consequences (Ano and Vasconcelles 2005). A meta-analysis study conducted on 66,273 people found that religiosity had a negative effect on risk behavior and depression and a positive impact on well-being (Yonker et al. 2012). Davis et al. (2003) found that the higher the spiritual and religious orientation in men, the lower the anxiety. Young people showed that periodic religious experiences, compassion, and spirituality were related to less depression (Desrosiers and Miller 2007).
Religiosity strengthens hopes and psychological resistance to problems (Koenig 2020). Therefore, religiosity will increase the ability to cope with problems. A survey done by Lucchetti et al. (2020) in Brazil during COVID-19 showed that religion and spirituality gained importance in the pandemic, which was positively related to psychological outcomes. Personal spiritual activities have been related to less anxiety. In S. Arabia, religious coping positively impacted caregivers’ psychological well-being and quality of life (Alquwez and Alshahrani 2020). Studies have shown religion has a beneficial impact on quality of life (Zacher and Rudolph 2021), reduces people’s fear of death (Cohen et al. 2005), and teaches that individuals experiencing difficulties will receive a reward in the hereafter (Ahmad and Ahad 2020). In this sense, the levels of psychological consequences were expected to be lower in those who were religious in the face of their difficulties than those who were not religious (Cohen et al. 2005). The correlation and direct effect hypotheses below were formed in line with the literature review.
H1a. 
Religious commitment is negatively associated with COVID-19 fear.
H1b. 
Religious commitment has a negative effect on anxiety.
H1c. 
Religious commitment has a negative effect on stress.
H1d. 
Religious commitment has a negative effect on depression.

2.3. The Correlations between Religiosity, COVID-19 Fear, Psychological Consequences, and Satisfaction with Life

Satisfaction with life demonstrates the distinction between personal desires and the individual’s present situation. In this sense, the larger the difference between personal desires and the person’s present situation, the lower the quality of life (Karataş and Tagay 2021). Religion can decrease the difference between expectation and the current state. Religious people are happier because they feel a sense of belonging and think they will benefit from the troubles seen in the world in the hereafter. In this sense, religious commitment makes sense of satisfaction with life (Ellison et al. 1989; Lim and Putnam 2010). Those studies found generally positive relationships between religiosity and quality of life (Roberto et al. 2020; Yonker et al. 2012).
Religious behaviors vary according to different religions, societies, traditions, and perceptions. Therefore, these differences affect the impact of religion on satisfaction with life differently. One study showed that religious affiliation was strongly linked to life satisfaction (Bergan and McConatha 2001). Joshanloo and Weijers (2016) found that religiosity can mitigate income inequality’s negative effect on satisfaction with life. A study in Turkey proved that religion had a positive impact on satisfaction with life. The findings showed that religiosity’s ideological and consequential dimensions have non-linear relationships with satisfaction with life (Yeniaras and Akarsu 2016). However, according to a survey performed on 5312 individuals in the Netherlands, Muslims had poorer life satisfaction than non-religious people due to their low and disadvantaged social status. It was observed that a sense of belonging had a positive function in the quality of life of Catholics compared to non-spiritual people (Ten Kate et al. 2017). A study between Catholics and Protestants found that intrinsic religiosity increases belief in the afterlife and improves satisfaction with life (Cohen et al. 2005). In line with the literature’s information, the following hypothesis was formed.
H1e. 
Religious commitment has a positive effect on satisfaction with life.
Among 200 retired individuals, it was discovered that spiritual coping had a partial mediation function in the connection between religiosity and quality of life (Ayten and Yıldız 2016). Conversely, some studies show that religious commitment increases distress, but the purpose of living increases quality of life, gratitude, and relationships with people and reduces distress (Green and Elliott 2010; Perera and Frazier 2012). Religiosity was found to improve psychological resilience and reduce depression, anxiety, and stress levels, thus positively affecting life quality and satisfaction with life (Lim and Putnam 2010; Zhang et al. 2020). Studies found that psychological outcomes reduce satisfaction with life. The research done by Zheng et al. (2019) found that perceived stress reduces satisfaction with life. The COVID-19 anxiety was inversely related to the quality of life. Furthermore, COVID-19 anxiety was shown to negatively raise psychological consequences and reduce quality of life (Satici et al. 2020). In line with the related literature review, the following hypotheses were formed.
H2a. 
The Fear of COVID-19 increases stress, depression, and anxiety.
H2b. 
There is a negative correlation between the fear of COVID-19 and satisfaction with life.
H2c. 
Depression has a negative effect on satisfaction with life.
H2d. 
Anxiety has a negative effect on satisfaction with life.
H2e. 
Stress has a negative effect on satisfaction with life.
Due to infections and sudden deaths, individuals have felt rising COVID-19 fear. This fear has reduced reasoning and generated low-level quality of living (Koçak et al. 2021b). It was seen that the resilience and quality of life decreased because of high COVID-19 fear (Karataş and Tagay 2021). A study measuring students’ depression and anxiety levels in nine different countries determined that Turkish students’ levels were the highest (Ochnik et al. 2021). A study reported that COVID-19 fear was highly correlated with mental health problems, sleep disorders, and quality of life, which are negatively correlated to mental health (Duong 2021). Many studies in the literature have shown that COVID-19 anxiety reduces life satisfaction by raising psychological outcomes (Ahorsu et al. 2020; Satici et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the possible contributions of religion have been discussed in different aspects (Ribeiro et al. 2020; Yendell et al. 2021). Some studies have found either no or limited correlation between religious coping and COVID-19 fear (Prazeres et al. 2020). Additionally, conspiracy theories and general misinformation based on religious beliefs have had a negative impact on the COVID-19 process (Barua et al. 2020). It has been seen that religious coping has essential contributions to the psychological and physical problems caused by COVID-19 during the pandemic period (Counted et al. 2020; Rababa et al. 2021). In a study of nursing students in the USA, religious support was related to 2-fold lower risk of depression (Kim et al. 2021). A study found that positive religious coping alleviates the psychological problems of Christians and Muslims, especially during the COVID-19 period (Thomas and Barbato 2020). According to the literature, the mediation and moderation effect hypotheses below were formed in line with the literature’s information.
H3a. 
Depression has a mediating effect in terms of the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life.
H3b. 
Stress has a mediating effect in terms of the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life.
H3c. 
Anxiety has a mediating effect in terms of the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life.
H3d. 
COVID-19 fear has a moderating effect in terms of the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life.
In Figure 1, the conceptual diagram of the research model is depicted in accordance with the hypotheses formed. The diagram shows religious commitment’s direct effect on psychological outcomes and life satisfaction. Additionally, the mediation impact of psychological outcomes on life satisfaction is also illustrated. In Figure 1, the mediation impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life through psychological outcomes is depicted. The moderation effect of COVID-19 fear in the relationship between religious commitment and satisfaction with life is demonstrated. The demographic data were used as control variables in the model.

3. Method

3.1. The Design, Procedure, and Participants of Study

This survey was carried to find the correlation among independent and dependent variables and the change in target factors in Turkish society. Convenience sample methodology and the cross-sectional survey method were used to examine the population. Cross-sectional data were used to measure variables at a certain moment in time. This study was designed to evaluate the results after determining the relationships and effects rather than generalizing them.
The study’s participants were from various areas and towns throughout Turkey. Due to the COVID-19 measures, only an online survey was done; 2810 individuals were reached. Surveys were conducted by reaching the participants in different cities using the snowball method. The number increased with the support of university students. Therefore, the number of women and singles was higher than other groups. The survey was conducted between 5 February 2021 and 30 March 2021, when COVID-19 cases were high. During this period, education in schools was carried out online. The service sector was operating by takeaway and delivery only. There were restrictions on visiting places of worship, and there was a curfew on evenings and weekends.
Before answering the questionnaire, respondents were told about the survey’s methodology and objectives. Additionally, the approval of the participants was obtained before they were asked to respond. The participants remained anonymous. In order to allow the participants to respond just once, a technical setup was developed. Participants could answer whenever they wanted and quit at any time they wished. Data privacy was provided. The research was employed in compliance with Helsinki Declaration standards, and legal authorization was acquired from Turkey’s Ministry of Health on 11 January 2021.

3.2. Analyses of the Data

After gathering data via an internet survey software, the data was transferred to MS Excel for editing before being integrated into IBM SPSS 25. Descriptive analysis was used to examine the percentages, means, and standard deviations of the demographics. To ensure factor structure, factor analysis was conducted on all the variables. Religious commitment and COVID-19 fear were independent factors for multiple linear regression, satisfaction with life was the dependent variable, and depression, anxiety, and stress were mediator variables. PROCESS-Macro Plug-in Model 5 was used to test the mediation and moderation hypotheses together (Hayes and Rockwood 2020). A simple slope test was conducted for two-way interactions to be able to graph the moderation results. The criterion of significance chosen was α > 95%.

3.3. Measures

3.3.1. Individual Information Questions

A form with personal questions was used. The form requested information such as sex, age, marriage, educational background, revenue, and career. Gender, marriage, education, and vocation were all asked categorically, while the others were left open-ended. To comprehend the emotions of different groups, three dichotomous variables were generated for the occupation status question. Employees—others (coded 1–0, respectively), students—others (coded 1–0, respectively), and unemployed—others (coded 1–0, respectively) were reevaluated.

3.3.2. Religious Commitment Scale Short Form (RCI)

The adaption research of the RCI-10, a shortened version of the religious commitment scale designed by Worthington et al. (2003), into the Turkish language has been done by Akin et al. (2015). It has 2 sub-dimensions: individual (items = 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8) and interpersonal (items = 2, 6, 9, 10). The scale is also used in one dimension, and evaluation can be made according to the total score. In the analysis, the GFI was the expected value (x2 = 109.33, SD = 26, RMSEA = 0.093, GFI = 0.94 and SRMR = 0.053). The loadings were between 0.43 and 0.78. The Cronbach alpha value was calculated as 0.84 for the individual subscale, 0.65 for the interpersonal subscale, and 0.85 for the whole measure. In this study, the religious commitment scale was used in one dimension. The one-dimensional Cronbach alpha value was 0.951.

3.3.3. COVID-19 Fear Scale (FCV-19S)

The adaptation, validity, and reliability of the COVID-19 Fear Scale, produced by Ahorsu et al. (2020), were assessed and applied to Turkish society by Bakioğlu et al. (2020). All items of the measure, consisting of 7 questions, scored positively. There are no items on the scale that are of opposite direction. All questions are scored between 1–5 (1—strongly disagree, 5—strongly agree) using a 5-point Likert type scale. Scores between 7 and 35 were taken from the scale. Getting a high COVID-19 fear score shows that the level of fear is high. The Turkish version demonstrated good reliability and validity. In the adaptation analysis, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency was 0.88. In this study, the Cronbach alpha value was 0.873.

3.3.4. DASS-21 Scale

The scale’s brief version (DASS-21) was created by Henry and Crawford (2005) by picking 21 items from the 42 items in the initial measure created by Lovibond and Lovibond (1995). The brief form was modified by Yılmaz et al. (2017) into the Turkish language, with adequate values. The measure has 3 sub-scales and 21 items that evaluate stress, depression, and anxiety. The measure has a Likert-type scale with the following codes: 0 = not relevant for me, 1 = somewhat relevant for me, 2 = mostly relevant for me, and 3 = completely relevant for me. By the findings of the adaption analysis, the items’ loadings were between 0.41 and 0.81. The reliability coefficients of the data were between 0.755 and 0.822. In this study, the Cronbach alpha value was 0.939 for DASS-21 and 0.914, 0.850, and 0.873 for depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively.

3.3.5. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

Satisfaction with life measure was produced by Diener et al. (1985), and the adaptation, validity, and reliability to Turkish society were carried out by Dağlı and Baysal (2016). The measure has 5 questions under a single factor structure. The Cronbach alpha value of the measure was 0.88, and the reliability between the two tests was 0.97. The factor analysis results revealed that the satisfaction with life scale shows a one-dimensional composition, as in the initial scale, with 5 items. In the current study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.843.

4. Analysis Results

4.1. Descriptive Analyses

As shown in Table 1, 1715 participants were female (61%), and 1095 were male (39%). The average value of the age variable was 30.34 ± 13.38. It was understood that 1848 participants were single (65.8%), and 962 were married (34.2%). When their educational status was evaluated, 6 of them had no education (0.2%), 72 were primary school graduates (2.6%), 67 were secondary school graduates (2.4%), 339 were high school graduates (12.1%), 1963 were university graduates (69.9%), and 363 had a master or Ph.D. degree (12.9%). The mean value of the income level variable was 4450.93 ± 2288.81. When the occupation status was evaluated, 214 of the participants were unemployed (7.6%), 1350 were students (48%), 172 were retired (6.1%), 166 were housewives (5.9%), 345 were private sector workers (12.3%), 418 were public sector workers (14.9%), and 145 were business owners (5.2%).

4.2. Correlation Analyses

According to Table 2, women had higher FCV-19, depression, anxiety, and stress (r = 0.25, r = 0.16, r = 0.17, r = 0.23, p < 0.01, respectively) and had lower religious commitment and SWL (r = −0.16, r = −0.09, p < 0.01, respectively) than men. With increasing age, lower FCV-19, depression, anxiety, and stress (r = −0.19, r = −0.30, r = −0.19, r = −0.29, p < 0.01, respectively) and higher religious commitment and SWL (r = 0.26, r = 0.24, p < 0.01, respectively) were observed. There was higher FCV-19, depression, anxiety, and stress (r = −0.16, r = −0.28, r = −0.17, r = −0.26, p < 0.01, respectively) in singles than in married persons, and lower religious commitment and SWL (r = 0.31, r = 0.25, p < 0.01, respectively) were found. It was seen that as education increased, anxiety and religious commitment decreased (r = −0.05, r = −0.08, p < 0.05, 0.01, respectively). The unemployed had more depression and lower religious commitment and SWL (r = 0.07, r = −0.12, r = −0.14, p < 0.01, respectively). Students had higher FCV-19, depression, anxiety, and stress (r = 0.15, r = 0.26, r = 0.16, r = 0.25, p < 0.01, respectively), and lower religious commitment and SWL (r = −0.19, r = −0.17, p < 0.01, respectively) than other groups. It was found that working people had lower FCV-19, depression, anxiety, and stress (r = −0.16, r = −0.22, r = −0.13, r = −0.21, p < 0.01, respectively), and higher religious commitment and SWL (r = 0.16, r = 0.17, p < 0.01, respectively) than other groups.
FCV-19 was positively highly associated with depression, anxiety, and stress (r = 0.35, r = 0.52, r = 0.36, p < 0.01, respectively), whereas it was negatively associated with religious commitment and SWL (r = −0.11, r = −0.15, p < 0.01, respectively). Depression was positively and highly related with anxiety and stress (r = 0.55, r = 0.73, p < 0.01, respectively) and negatively related with religious commitment and SWL (r = −0.18, r = −0.40, p < 0.01). Anxiety had highly positive relationships with stress (r = 0.56, p < 0.01, respectively), whereas it had negative relationships with religious commitment and SWL (r = −0.10, r = −0.20, p < 0.01). Stress was negatively correlated with religious commitment and SWL (r = −0.11, r = −0.31, p < 0.01). Religious commitment was positively highly related with SWL (r = 0.32, p < 0.01). According to the results, H1a and H2b hypotheses were accepted.

4.3. Regression Analysis

Table 3 shows multiple regression analysis, which was performed to test the hypotheses of H1b, H1c, H1d, and H2a. Psychological outcomes were used as outcome variables, as shown in Table 3. Depression (Step 1, F = 76.59, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.198), anxiety (Step 2, F = 121.89, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.282), and stress (Step 3, F = 74.07, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.192) were tested with three different steps. In Step 1, it was observed that depression decreases as age increases, and depression was more common in men, singles, unemployed people, and students. It was found that COVID-19 fear had a positive effect and religious commitment had a negative effect on depression (B = 0.26, p < 0.001; B = −0.05, p < 0.001, respectively). In Step 2, it was understood that anxiety decreases as education increases, and income positively affects anxiety. Moreover, the positive effect of COVID-19 fear on anxiety (B = 0.29, p < 0.001) was determined. In Step 3, it was seen that stress decreases in males, the elderly, married persons, and the highly educated and increases in students. Additionally, the effect of COVID-19 fear on stress was positive (B = 0.26, p < 0.001). According to the results, hypotheses H1b and H1c were rejected, H1d and H2a were accepted.
Table 4 shows the direct effect outputs for testing the H1e, H2c, H2d, and H2e hypotheses. The effects were analyzed using three different steps. In Step 4 (F = 70.04, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.184), it was seen that women, the elderly, married persons, the educated, and high-income people had higher satisfaction with life, and unemployed people had lower satisfaction with life. It was discovered that COVID-19 fear had negative effects on satisfaction with life, whereas religious commitment had positive effects (B = −0.16, p < 0.001; B = 0.37, p < 0.001, respectively). In Step 5 (F = 71.87, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.220), it was observed that women, the elderly, married persons, and high-income people had higher satisfaction with life, and unemployed people had lower satisfaction with life. It was understood that the effect of depression on satisfaction with life is negative (B = −0.66, p < 0.001). In Step 6 (F = 81.93, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.276), women and high-income people had higher satisfaction with life, whereas unemployed persons and students had lower satisfaction. Additionally, the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life was highly positive, whereas depression, stress, and interaction (Rel. X FCV-19) variables were negative. According to the results, hypotheses H1e, H2c, and H2e were accepted, and H2d was rejected.

4.4. Indirect (Mediation) Analysis

To test the mediation hypotheses (H3a, H3b, H3c) of depression, anxiety, and stress in terms of the effect of religious commitment on life satisfaction, direct effect analyses were performed, as shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Later, indirect (Mediation) and conditional direct effect (Moderation with COVID-19 Fear) analyses were performed simultaneously using SPSS PROCESS-Macro Step 5. In Table 3, regression analysis was performed for the effect of religious commitment on depression, anxiety, and stress, and a significant result was obtained only with depression (Step 1, B = −0.05, p < 0.001). Then, regression analysis was performed for the effects of depression, anxiety, and stress on satisfaction with life, as shown in Table 4. First, in Step 5, only depression (B = −0.66, p < 0.001) and, in Step 6, depression and stress were found to have a significant negative effect (B = −0.60, p < 0.001; B = −0.11, p < 0.025).
The independent religious commitment variable continued its effect on the satisfaction with life dependent variable through only the depression variable, as seen in Table 5. There was a mediating relationship in terms of the impact of religious commitment on satisfaction with life via depression (g = 0.0390, SE = 0.0093, 95% CI: 0.0219, 0.0585). However, anxiety and stress variables were not significant as mediators. According to the results, hypothesis H3a was accepted, and H3b and H3c were rejected.

4.5. Moderation Analysis

The interaction of COVID-19 fear and religious commitment had a significant effect on satisfaction with life, as shown in Figure 2. Following the direct effect analysis in Step 6 and Table 4, the moderation effect occurred as B = −0.16 and p < 0.001. According to these values, the impact of the COVID-19 fear and religious commitment interaction on satisfaction with life was statistically significant. According to the graph in Figure 2, as the religious commitments of those with low COVID-19 fear rise, their satisfaction with life increases. However, as the religious commitments of those with high COVID-19 fear rise, their life satisfaction does not increase as much as those with low COVID-19 fear. According to the results, hypothesis H3d was accepted.

4.6. Results of the Research Model and Hypotheses

As a result of the direct, mediation, and moderation tests within the conceptual research frame shown in Figure 1, the results of the tests are illustrated in Figure 3 below. The effect values and significance levels between both factors are shown in the arrow line in between. In addition, indirect effect (mediation) values are displayed at the corners of Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3, only a mediating effect on depression and a significant moderation effect of COVID-19 fear were detected.
The research conceptual model’s direct, indirect, and moderation analyses were tested by creating different hypotheses. The results of the tests are shown in Figure 3. Moreover, Table 6 shows the results obtained as a result of the analysis of the hypotheses. Consequently, nine hypotheses were accepted, and five were rejected. The hypotheses are explained in more detail in the discussion section.

5. Discussion

The findings are divided into five main categories. The first category is the relationships between religiosity commitment and the fear of COVID-19, stress, depression, and anxiety; second, the correlations between religious commitment and satisfaction with life; third, the relationships between the fear of COVID-19, psychological outcomes, and satisfaction with life; fourth, the linkages between depression, anxiety and stress, and satisfaction with life. Finally, the mediation effect of depression, anxiety, and stress and the moderation effect of COVID-19 fear on the relationship between religious commitment and satisfaction with life were evaluated. Among the hypotheses determined in the study, the H1a, H1d, H1e, H2a, H2b, H2c, H2e, H3a, and H3d hypotheses were accepted, and the H1b, H1c, H2d, H3b, and H3c hypotheses were rejected.
The study discovered a negative correlation between religious commitment and psychological outcomes and COVID-19 fear. Religious commitment was found to reduce COVID-19 fear, depression, anxiety, and stress. Since humans are bio–psycho–social–spiritual beings, these differences act as a mechanism to support each other in difficult times (Carey and Hodgson 2018; Fawcett 1993). Therefore, religion has a calming and unifying role in difficult times. Moreover, religion is an essential element for individuals’ physical and mental health. Religion makes it easier to overcome difficult situations by strengthening the ability to cope. In this sense, the findings in the study show that religious commitment reduces negative psychological states such as stress, depression, anxiety, and COVID-19 fear, which coincide with the literature. The rehabilitation effect of religion should be considered in therapeutic processes to reduce the negative consequences of psychological symptoms, especially in Turkish society, where religion is important (Walpole et al. 2013). Studies have found that coping with religion is influential in troubled times (Aten et al. 2019; Molteni et al. 2021; Ribeiro et al. 2020).
Secondly, a moderate positive correlation was discovered between religious commitment and satisfaction with life. Moreover, the increase in religious commitment was observed to increase satisfaction with life positively. Religious commitment increases individuals’ satisfaction by adding meaning to the lives of individuals and contributing to the balance and peace between their inner and outer worlds. Religion contributes to the health of the individuals positively and then to satisfaction with life in two respects. The first is that it makes the individual experience positive emotions resulting from religious life and keeps the individual away from negative emotions. Another is that prohibiting the use of harmful substances to health, such as alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, and unhealthy behaviors, such as adultery, gambling, violence, and hatred, contributes positively to health (Karslı 2019). Turkish society generally values their religion and traditions in life. Therefore, religious commitment is an important predictor in determining satisfaction with life in Turkish society (Ayten 2013). It is in line with the current literature, where the consensus is that religious commitment positively affects satisfaction with life (Ayten and Yıldız 2016; Lim and Putnam 2010).
Third, moderate positive correlations between fear of COVID-19 and psychological outcomes were observed. Increased COVID-19 fear was found to improve individuals’ psychological outcomes, such as anxiety, stress, and depression. Uncertainties in an environment of fear and stress, fake news, and conspiracy theories lead to negative psychological consequences. In this sense, the pandemic is one of the critical stressors that alarms people. The spread of curfews and quarantines, the closure of many workplaces, schools, entertainment and cultural places, and the increase in the number of deaths in addition to infected people have led to a fear of COVID-19 in individuals. It is expected that the physical and psychological problems arising from COVID-19 fear will have a more significant impact on disadvantaged groups (Mesa Vieira et al. 2020). High levels of COVID-19 fear can lead to negative psychological consequences in the individual and major medical illnesses by weakening and collapsing the immune system over time (Liu et al. 2020). In the study, it was discovered the COVID-19 anxiety can increase depression, anxiety, and stress levels and, consequently, decrease the satisfaction with life of individuals, which is similar to the results of the current literature (Ahorsu et al. 2020; Koçak et al. 2021b; Satici et al. 2020).
Fourthly, negative effects were discovered between depression, anxiety, stress, and life satisfaction. Increasing depression had a significant negative influence on life satisfaction, whereas stress had a minor negative impact. Anxiety, on the other hand, was found to have no effect on life satisfaction. The study’s findings are consistent with some of the current research. While some research found that depression, anxiety, and stress had a negative impact on life satisfaction, others found that only one or two of them had a negative impact (Jovanovi et al. 2020; Kumar et al. 2020; Satici et al. 2020). Because the current study was done one year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was understood that subjects’ depression rose (particularly among students and the unemployed) and suppressed their existing anxiety. It was discovered that the challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic period exacerbated the depression of the disadvantaged, such as the youth, elderly, and unemployed, and decreased their satisfaction with life (Yezli and Khan 2020).
Finally, the mediating effect of depression, anxiety, and stress on the correlation between religious commitment and life satisfaction and the moderating effect of COVID-19 fear were examined in the study. Only depression mediated the impact of religious commitment on life satisfaction. Because of these connections, research that gradually integrated religion into psychotherapy was discovered in the literature. Some research in the literature discovered that religious engagement reduced depression and boosted life satisfaction (Abdi et al. 2019; Roh et al. 2015). In some, religious commitment was found to reduce depression or increase satisfaction with life without using any mediating variable (Meer and Mir 2014; Miller et al. 1997). A study done in Jordan found that depression had a mediating role in the relationships between religious commitment and satisfaction with life (Alaedein-Zawawi 2015). In a survey carried by Reutter and Bigatti (2014), there was a negative relationship between religious commitment and depression and a negative correlation between depression and life satisfaction.
The moderator role of COVID-19 fear was seen in the effect of religious commitment on satisfaction with life. According to the values, the impact of COVID-19 fear and religious commitment interaction on satisfaction with life was significant. As the religious commitments of those with low COVID-19 fear rise, their satisfaction with life increases. However, as the religious commitments of those with high COVID-19 fear rise, their life satisfaction does not increase as much as those with low COVID-19 fear. In any case, it was seen that the increase in religious commitment increases satisfaction with life. However, it was found that religious commitment had a more significant effect on satisfaction with life in those with a low level of COVID-19 fear. In the literature, depending on the level of the fear of COVID-19, it was seen that either individuals’ tendencies or concerns will increase in many issues such as employability, job insecurity, satisfaction with life, family relations, financial burden, alcohol and substance use, and death anxiety (Baker et al. 2020; Burlacu et al. 2021; Khan et al. 2021; Lee 2020).
The research question generated for the study is the following: How does religious commitment impact an individual’s satisfaction with life during a pandemic? Throughout human history, religion has been an indispensable element of human life. Religion is influential in people’s decisions that affect their future as well as their routines. In every era, religion has been a value that has the potential to direct human behavior, a cause of conflicts, and one of the phenomena that are applied to solve people’s problems. It improves the ability to cope with the difficulties encountered, thanks to the purpose of life, a strong sense of hope, and the expectation of compensation for struggling with challenges. The impact of religious commitment, an important coping mechanism, on satisfaction with life when there are serious problems due to quarantines and workplace and school closures due to COVID-19 was evaluated. The study found that age was negatively associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and COVID-19 fear and positively related to religious commitment and satisfaction with life. In other words, it is understood that young people had more psychological problems and less religious commitment and satisfaction with life during the COVID-19 period. The inability of young people to go to school during the pandemic and the uncertainty of their career processes may have negatively affected their psychology. In the study, a positive correlation between satisfaction with life and religious commitment was determined. Since Turkish society is generally committed to religious values, satisfaction with life increases as religious commitment increases. However, a negative relationship was found between depression, anxiety, and stress factors, used as mediating variables, and religious commitment. In addition, a negative correlation was found between COVID-19 fear and religious commitment. Therefore, religious commitment, which is a coping strategy, increases satisfaction with life levels by reducing the psychological problems of individuals. Additionally, it has also been found that the positive effect of religious commitment on satisfaction with life is lower in those with high COVID-19 fear.

6. Limitations

The research was in the COVID-19 period, which makes the study different and original. However, the fact that the investigation is in the COVID-19 period also means that the results of this study cannot be generalized. Additionally, performing the research just on the internet limited the understanding of the actual attitudes of the individuals. During the COVID-19 period, the overreactions of students, older people, and the unemployed may have caused a bias in the research. In addition, the study’s higher rates of singles, women, and university graduates relative to other groups may give rise to a bias in the results. Another problem is the study’s cross-sectional nature and the fact that it was only performed with Muslims. As a result of these factors, the current findings in the study cannot be extended. Therefore, additional studies with various people and methods must be conducted in the future.

7. Some Conclusions and Implications for the Future

It was found that in the COVID-19 period, religious commitment increased individuals’ satisfaction with life levels by reducing their depression. Additionally, it was understood that religious commitment had a more significant effect on satisfaction with life in those with a low level of COVID-19 fear. Religions effectively prevent and reduce criminal behavior while promoting values by strengthening the family structure, relative relationships, and solidarity. Accordingly, those with religious commitment can cope with problems caused by COVID-19 more easily. Therefore, it will be possible to strengthen families and society by protecting individuals’ spirituality, religious values, and culture. For this purpose, policymakers should integrate religious education, with theory and practice, into educational processes. From a holistic point of view, efforts should be made to raise the awareness of families, educational institutions, and communities. Moreover, the contribution of religion should be taken into consideration in therapy and treatment processes.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with Helsinki Declaration criteria, and legal permission was obtained on 11 January 2021 from the Ministry of Health in Turkey.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdi, Alireza, Askar Soufinia, Milad Borji, and Asma Tarjoman. 2019. The Effect of Religion Intervention on Life Satisfaction and Depression in Elderly with Heart Failure. Journal of Religion and Health 58: 823–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ahmad, Zohaib, and Arzoo Ahad. 2020. COVID-19: A Study of Islamic and Scientific Perspectives. Scientific Perspectives, Theology and Science 19: 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahorsu, Daniel Kwasi, Chung-Ying Lin, Vida Imani, Mohsen Saffari, Mark D. Griffiths, and Amir H. Pakpour. 2020. The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and Initial Validation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Aji, Hendy Mustiko, Albari Albari, Muchsin Muthohar, Sumadi Sumadi, Murwanto Sigit, Istyakara Muslichah, and Anas Hidayat. 2020. Investigating the determinants of online infaq intention during the COVID-19 pandemic: An insight from Indonesia. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research 12: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Akin, Ahmet, Yunus Altundağ, and Mehmet Turan. 2015. Dini Bağlılık Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 4: 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alaedein-Zawawi, Jehad. 2015. Religious Commitment and Psychological Well-Being: Forgiveness as a Mediator. European Scientific Journal 11: 117–41. [Google Scholar]
  7. Al-Astewani, Amin. 2020. To Open or Close? COVID-19, Mosques and the Role of Religious Authority within the British Muslim Community: A Socio-Legal Analysis. Religions 12: 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ali, Abbas J. 2009. Levels of existence and motivation in Islam. Journal of Management History 15: 50–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Allegranzi, Benedetta, Ziad A. Memish, Liam Donaldson, and Didier Pittet. 2009. Religion and culture: Potential undercurrents influencing hand hygiene promotion in health care. American Journal of Infection Control 37: 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alquwez, Nahed, and Abdulrahman M. Alshahrani. 2020. Influence of Spiritual Coping and Social Support on the Mental Health and Quality of Life of the Saudi Informal Caregivers of Patients with Stroke. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 787–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Amadi, Kennedy U., Richard Uwakwe, Appolos C. Ndukuba, Paul C. Odinka, Monday N. Igwe, Nicodemus K. Obayi, and Mark S. Ezeme. 2016. Relationship between religiosity, religious coping and socio-demographic variables among out-patients with depression or diabetes mellitus in Enugu, Nigeria. African Health Sciences 16: 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Ano, Gene G., and Erin B. Vasconcelles. 2005. Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61: 461–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Arslan, Gökmen. 2021. Psychological Maltreatment and Spiritual Wellbeing in Turkish College Young Adults: Exploring the Mediating Effect of College Belonging and Social Support. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 709–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Assad, Salman, Asfandyar Khan Niazi, and Shuja Assad. 2013. Health and Islam. Journal of Mid-Life Health 4: 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Aten, Jamie D., Wendy R. Smith, Edward B. Davis, Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Joshua N. Hook, Don E. Davis, Laura Shannonhouse, Cirleen DeBlaere, Jenn Ranter, Kari O’Grady, and et al. 2019. The Psychological Study of Religion and Spirituality in a Disaster Context: A Systematic Review. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 11: 597–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ayten, Ali, and Refik Yıldız. 2016. Dindarlık, Hayat Memnuniyeti İlişkisinde Dini Başa Çıkmanın Rolü Nedir? Emekliler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Dinbilimleri Akademik Araştırma Dergisi 16: 281–308. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ayten, Ali. 2013. Din ve Sağlık: Bireysel Dindarlık, Sağlık Davranışları ve Hayat Memnuniyeti İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Dinbilimleri Akademik Araştırma Dergisi 13: 7–31. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bade, Mary K., and Stephen W. Cook. 2008. Functions of Christian Prayer in the Coping Process. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47: 123–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bajirova, Mira. 2017. Hygiene and Health in Quran and Science. EC Gynaecology SPI 1: 44–55. [Google Scholar]
  20. Baker, Joseph O., Gerardo Martí, Ruth Braunstein, Andrew L. Whitehead, and Grace Yukich. 2020. Religion in the Age of Social Distancing: How COVID-19 Presents New Directions for Research. Sociology of Religion 81: 357–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bakioğlu, Fuad, Ozan Korkmaz, and Hülya Ercan. 2020. Fear of COVID-19 and Positivity: Mediating Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 4: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bänziger, Sarah. 2007. Still Praying Strong. An Empirical Study of the Praying Practices in a Secular Society. Available online: https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/56672 (accessed on 25 April 2021).
  23. Bänziger, Sarah, Marinus van Uden, and Jacques Janssen. 2008. Praying and coping: The relation between varieties of praying and religious coping styles. Mental Health, Religion and Culture 11: 101–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Barua, Zapan, Sajib Barua, Salma Aktar, Najma Kabir, and Mingze Li. 2020. Effects of misinformation on COVID-19 individual responses and recommendations for resilience of disastrous consequences of misinformation. Progress in Disaster Science 8: 100119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bergan, Anne, and Jasmin Tahmeseb McConatha. 2001. Religiosity and life satisfaction. Activities, Adaptation and Aging 24: 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Berzengi, Azi, Latef Berzenji, Aladdin Kadim, Falah Mustafa, and Laura Jobson. 2017. Role of Islamic appraisals, trauma-related appraisals, and religious coping in the posttraumatic adjustment of Muslim trauma survivors. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 9: 189–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bhat, Ali Muhammad, and Aijaz Ahmad Qureshi. 2013. Significance of Personal Hygiene from Islamic Perspective. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS 10: 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bickel, Carl O., Joseph W. Ciarrocchi, Nancy Jo Sheers, Barry K. Estadt, Douglas A. Powell, and Kenneth I. Pargament. 1998. Perceived stress, religious coping styles, and depressive affect. PsycNET. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 17: 33–42. [Google Scholar]
  29. Blaine, Bruce, and Jennifer Crocker. 1995. Religiousness, Race, and Psychological Well-Being: Exploring Social Psychological Mediators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 1031–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Botti, Federica, Pierluigi Consorti, Rossella Bottoni, Fabio Franceschi, Maria Luisa, Adelaide Madera, Mario Ferrante, Simone Baldetti, Chiara Lapi, Fabio Balsamo, and et al. 2017. DiReSoM Diritto e Religione nelle Società Multiculturali-Law and Religion in Multicultural Societies. Available online: www.diresom.net (accessed on 16 April 2021).
  31. Burlacu, Alexandru, Ionut Mavrichi, Radu Crisan-Dabija, Daniel Jugrin, Smaranda Buju, Bogdan Artene, and Adrian Covic. 2021. “Celebrating old age”: An obsolete expression during the COVID-19 pandemic? Medical, social, psychological, and religious consequences of home isolation and loneliness among the elderly. Archives of Medical Science 17: 285–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Çapcıoğlu, İhsan. 2020. Pandemi, Post-Pandemi ve Yeni Dindarlık Modelleri. TRTAkademi. Available online: https://trtakademi.net/koronavirus-kategori/pandemi-post-pandemi-ve-yeni-dindarlik-modelleri/ (accessed on 10 April 2021).
  33. Carey, Lindsay B., and Timothy J. Hodgson. 2018. Chaplaincy, Spiritual Care and Moral Injury: Considerations Regarding Screening and Treatment. Frontiers in Psychiatry 9: 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Carone, Dominic A., and David F. Barone. 2001. A social cognitive perspective on religious beliefs: Their functions and impact on coping and psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review 21: 989–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cohen, Adam B., John D. Pierce Jr., Jacqueline Chambers, Rachel Meade, Benjamin J. Gorvine, and Harold G. Koenig. 2005. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, belief in the afterlife, death anxiety, and life satisfaction in young Catholics and Protestants. Journal of Research in Personality 39: 307–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Counted, Victor, Kenneth I. Pargament, Andrea Ortega Bechara, Shaun Joynt, and Richard G. Cowden. 2020. Hope and well-being in vulnerable contexts during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does religious coping matter? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dağlı, Abidin, and Nigah Baysal. 2016. Yaşam Doyumu Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 15: 1250–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Davis, Timothy L., Barbara A. Kerr, and Sharon E. Robinson Kurpius. 2003. Meaning, Purpose, and Religiosity in At-Risk Youth: The Relationship between Anxiety and Spirituality. Journal of Psychology and Theology 31: 356–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Desrosiers, Alethea, and Lisa Miller. 2007. Relational spirituality and depression in adolescent girls. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63: 1021–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Diener, E., Robert A. Emmons, Randy J. Larsen, and Sharon Griffin. 1985. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 49: 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Domaradzki, Jan, and Dariusz Walkowiak. 2021. Does Religion Influence the Motivations of Future Healthcare Professionals to Volunteer During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland? An Exploratory Study. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 1507–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Duong, Cong Doanh. 2021. The impact of fear and anxiety of COVID-19 on life satisfaction: Psychological distress and sleep disturbance as mediators. Personality and Individual Differences 178: 110869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dyson, Jane, Mark Cobb, and Dawn Forman. 1997. The meaning of spirituality: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26: 1183–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ellison, Christopher G., David A. Gay, and Thomas A. Glass. 1989. Does Religious Commitment Contribute to Individual Life Satisfaction? Social Forces 68: 100–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Esat, Gulden, Susan Day, and Bradley H. Smith. 2021. Religiosity and happiness of Turkish speaking Muslims: Does country happiness make a difference? Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Eskin, Mehmet, Nazlı Baydar, Mayssah El-Nayal, Nargis Asad, Isa Multazam Noor, Mohsen Rezaeian, Ahmed M. Abdel-Khalek, Fadia Al Buhairan, Hacer Harlak, Motasem Hamdan, and et al. 2020. Associations of religiosity, attitudes towards suicide and religious coping with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in 11 muslim countries. Social Science & Medicine 265: 113390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Euronews. 2020. Araştırma: Tuvaletten Sonra el Yıkamanın Düşük Olduğu Ülkelerde Koronavirüs Oranı daha Yüksek. Euronews. Available online: https://tr.euronews.com/2020/04/04/tuvaletten-sonra-el-yikamanin-dusuk-oldugu-ulkelerde-koronavirus-oran-daha-yuksek (accessed on 20 April 2021).
  48. Fabricatore, Anthony N., Paul J. Handal, Doris M. Rubio, and Frank H. Gilner. 2009. Stress, Religion, and Mental Health: Religious Coping in Mediating and Moderating Roles. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 21: 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fawcett, Jacqueline. 1993. From a Plethora of Paradigms to Parsimony in Worldviews. Nursing Science Quarterly 6: 56–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Felicilda-Reynaldo, Rhea Faye D., Jonas Preposi Cruz, Ionna V. Papathanasiou, John C. Helen Shaji, Simon M. Kamau, Kathryn A. Adams, and Glenn Ford D. Valdez. 2019. Quality of Life and the Predictive Roles of Religiosity and Spiritual Coping Among Nursing Students: A Multi-country Study. Journal of Religion and Health 58: 1573–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Fradelos, Evangelos C., Dimitra Latsou, Dimitroula Mitsi, Konstantinos Tsaras, Dimitra Lekka, Maria Lavdaniti, Foteini Tzavella, and Ioanna V. Papathanasiou. 2018. Assessment of the relation between religiosity, mental health, and psychological resilience in breast cancer patients. Contemporary Oncology 22: 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Francis, Benedict, Jesjeet Singh Gill, Ng Yit Han, Chiara Francine Petrus, Fatin Liyana Azhar, Zuraida Ahmad Sabki, Mas Ayu Said, Koh Ong Hui, Ng Chong Guan, and Ahmad Hatim Sulaiman. 2019. Religious Coping, Religiosity, Depression and Anxiety among Medical Students in a Multi-Religious Setting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Green, Morgan, and Marta Elliott. 2010. Religion, Health, and Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Religion and Health 49: 149–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hanefar, Shamsiah Banu, Che Zarrina Sa’ari, and Saedah Siraj. 2016. A Synthesis of Spiritual Intelligence Themes from Islamic and Western Philosophical Perspectives. Journal of Religion and Health 55: 2069–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Harrison, Myleme O., Harold G. Koenig, Judith C. Hays, Anedi G. Eme-Akwari, and Kenneth I. Pargament. 2009. The epidemiology of religious coping: A review of recent literature. International Review of Psychiatry 13: 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hart, Curtis W., and Harold G. Koenig. 2020. Religion and Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Religion and Health 59: 1141–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hayes, Andrew F., and Nicholas J. Rockwood. 2020. Conditional Process Analysis: Concepts, Computation, and Advances in the Modeling of the Contingencies of Mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist 64: 19–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Henry, Julie D., and John R. Crawford. 2005. The short-form version of the Depression anxiety stress scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 44: 227–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Jacobsen, Christine M. 2021. God will reward you: Muslim practices of caring for precarious migrants in the context of secular suspicion. Contemporary Islam 15: 153–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jacoby, Tim, Roger Mac Ginty, and Bülent Şenay. 2019. Islam, the state and Turkey’s Syrian refugees: The vaiz of bursa. Journal of Refugee Studies 32: 237–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Joshanloo, Mohsen, and Dan Weijers. 2016. Religiosity Moderates the Relationship between Income Inequality and Life Satisfaction across the Globe. Social Indicators Research 128: 731–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jovanovi, Veljko, Milica Lazić, and Vesna Gavrilov-Jerković. 2020. Measuring life satisfaction among psychiatric patients: Measurement invariance and validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 27: 378–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jung, Jong Hyun. 2014. Religious Attendance, Stress, and Happiness in South Korea: Do Gender and Religious Affiliation Matter? Social Indicators Research 118: 1125–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kane, Davis K., G. E. K. Allen, M. Ming, T. B. Smith, A. P. Jackson, D. Griner, E. Cutrer-Párraga, and P. S. Richards. 2021. Forgiveness and gratitude as mediators between religious commitment and well-Being among Latter-day Saint Polynesian Americans. Mental Health, Religion and Culture 24: 195–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Karataş, Zeynep, and Özlem Tagay. 2021. The relationships between resilience of the adults affected by the covid pandemic in turkey and COVID-19 fear, meaning in life, life satisfaction, intolerance of uncertainty and hope. Personality and Individual Differences 172: 110592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Karslı, Necmi. 2019. Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ve Dindarlık İlişkisi: Trabzon İlahiyat Örneği. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 15: 173–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kenton, Peter. 2019. Turks Examine Their Muslim Devotion After Poll Says Faith Could Be Waning. Available online: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/692025584/turks-examine-their-muslim-devotion-after-poll-says-faith-could-be-waning (accessed on 11 April 2021).
  68. Khan, Kanwal Iqbal, Amna Niazi, Adeel Nasir, Mujahid Hussain, and Maryam Iqbal Khan. 2021. The Effect of COVID-19 on the Hospitality Industry: The Implication for Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation 7: 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Khan, Ziasma Haneef, Paul J. Watson, and Zhuo Chen. 2012. Islamic Religious Coping, Perceived Stress, and Mental Well-being in Pakistanis. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 34: 137–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kim, Son Chae, Christine Sloan, Anna Montejano, and Carlota Quiban. 2021. Impacts of Coping Mechanisms on Nursing Students’ Mental Health during COVID-19 Lockdown: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Nursing Reports 11: 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Koçak, Orhan. 2021. How Does the Sense of Closeness to God Affect Attitudes toward Refugees in Turkey? Multiculturalism and Social Contact as Mediators and National Belonging as Moderator. Religions 12: 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Koçak, Orhan, Emine İlme, and Mustafa Z. Younis. 2021a. Mediating Role of Satisfaction with Life in the Effect of Self-Esteem and Education on Social Media Addiction in Turkey. Sustainability 13: 9097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Koçak, Orhan, Ömer Erdem Koçak, and Mustafa Z. Younis. 2021b. The psychological consequences of COVID-19 fear and the moderator effects of individuals’ underlying illness and witnessing infected friends and family. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Koenig, Harold G. 2012. Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications. ISRN Psychiatry 2012: 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Koenig, Harold G. 2020. Ways of Protecting Religious Older Adults from the Consequences of COVID-19. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 28: 776–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Koenig, Harold G., and David B. Larson. 2001. Religion and mental health: Evidence for an association. International Review of Psychiatry 13: 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kumar, Neha, Parul Kumar, Sandeep Grover, and Tara Shankar. 2020. An Association between Mental Health & Life Satisfaction During COVID-19: A Study on College Students. SSRN Electronic Journal. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lazarus, Richard, and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY, USA: Springer Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  79. Lee, Sang Ahm, Eun-Ju Choi, and Han Uk Ryu. 2019. Negative, but not positive, religious coping strategies are associated with psychological distress, independent of religiosity, in Korean adults with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior 90: 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lee, Sherman A. 2020. Coronavirus Anxiety Scale: A brief mental health screener for COVID-19 related anxiety. Death Studies 44: 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Li, Chia-Chien, and Shiow-Ching Shun. 2016. Understanding self care coping styles in patients with chronic heart failure: A systematic review. In European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc., vol. 15, pp. 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lim, Chaeyoon, and Robert D. Putnam. 2010. Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction. American Sociological Association 75: 914–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Liu, Q., G. Zhao, B. Ji, Y. Liu, J. Zhang, Q. Mou, and T. Shi. 2020. Analysis of the influence of the psychology changes of fear induced by the COVID-19 epidemic on the body. World Journal of Acupuncture 17: 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lovibond, Peter F., and Sydney H. Lovibond. 1995. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy 33: 335–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lucchetti, Giancarlo, Leonardo Garcia Góes, Stefani Garbulio Amaral, Gabriela Terzian Ganadjian, Isabelle Andrade, Paulo Othávio de Araújo Almeida, Victor Mendes do Carmo, and Maria Elisa Gonzalez Manso. 2020. Spirituality, religiosity and the mental health consequences of social isolation during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Massarwi, Adeem Ahmad, Mona Khoury-Kassabri, and Rana Eseed. 2019. The Correlation Between Delinquent Peers and Perpetration of Serious Physical Violence: Religiosity as a Protective Factor. Child Indicators Research 12: 2051–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Meer, Shaista, and Ghazala Mir. 2014. Muslims and depression: The role of religious beliefs in therapy. Journal of Integrative Psychology and Therapeutics 2: 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Miller, Lisa, Virginia Warner, Priya Wickramaratne, and Myrna Weissman. 1997. Religiosity and depression: Ten-year follow-up of depressed mothers and offspring. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 36: 1416–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Modell, Stephen M., and Sharon L. R. Kardia. 2020. Religion as a Health Promoter During the 2019/2020 COVID Outbreak: View from Detroit Introduction: A Vacated Detroit. Journal of Religion and Health 59: 2243–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Molteni, Francesco, Riccardo Ladini, Ferruccio Biolcati, Antonio M. Chiesi, Giulia Maria Dotti Sani, Simona Guglielmi, Marco Maraffi, Andrea Pedrazzani, Paolo Segatti, and Cristiano Vezzoni. 2021. Searching for comfort in religion: Insecurity and religious behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. European Societies 23: 704–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Muruthi, Bertranna A., Savannah S. Young, Jessica Chou, Emily Janes, and Maliha Ibrahim. 2020. “We Pray as a Family”: The Role of Religion for Resettled Karen Refugees. Journal of Family Issues 41: 1723–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Musharraf, Muhammad Nabeel. 2017. ‘To Him We Belong and To Him We Return’-Why Does God Test Us? Australian Journal of Humanities and Islamic Studies Research (AJHISR), 35–48. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320988739 (accessed on 10 May 2021).
  93. Ochnik, Dominika, Aleksandra M. Rogowska, Cezary Kuśnierz, Monika Jakubiak, Astrid Schütz, Marco J. Held, Ana Arzenšek, Joy Benatov, Rony Berger, Elena V. Korchagina, and et al. 2021. A Comparison of Depression and Anxiety among University Students in Nine Countries during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Clinical Medicine 10: 2882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Pargament, Kenneth I., and Hisham Abu Raiya. 2007. A Decade of Research on the Psychology of Religion and Coping: Things we assumed and lessons we learned. Psyke & Logos 28: 25. [Google Scholar]
  95. Pargament, Kenneth I., Bruce W. Smith, Harold G. Koenig, and Lisa Perez. 1998. Patterns of Positive and Negative Religious Coping with Major Life Stressors. Society for the Scientific Study of Religion 37: 710–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Pargament, Kenneth I., Harold G. Koenig, Nalini Tarakeshwar, and June Hahn. 2004. Religious Coping Methods as Predictors of Psychological, Physical and Spiritual Outcomes among Medically Ill Elderly Patients: A Two-year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Health Psychology 9: 713–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Pargament, Kenneth. 1997. The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  98. Pargament, Kenneth, Joseph Kennell, William Hathaway, Nanacy Grevengoed, Jon Newman, and Wendy Jones. 1988. Wiley Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Religion and the Problem-Solving Process: Three Styles of Coping. Source Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 27: 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pargament, Kenneth, Margaret Feuille, and Donna Burdzy. 2011. The Brief RCOPE: Current Psychometric Status of a Short Measure of Religious Coping. Religions 2: 51–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Perera, Sulani, and Patricia Frazier. 2012. Changes in Religiosity and Spirituality following Potentially Traumatic Events. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 26: 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Pew, Research. 2020. Majorities in Emerging Economies Connect Belief in God and Morality. Pew Research Center. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/07/20/the-global-god-divide/pg_2020-07-20_global-religion_0-01/ (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  102. Pirutinsky, Steven, Aaron D. Cherniak, and David H. Rosmarin. 2020. COVID-19, Mental Health, and Religious Coping Among American Orthodox Jews. Journal of Religion and Health 59: 2288–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Pirutinsky, Steven, Aaron D. Cherniak, and David H. Rosmarin. 2021. COVID-19, Religious Coping, and Weight Change in the Orthodox Jewish Community. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 646–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Prazeres, Filipe, Lígia Passos, José Augusto Simões, Pedro Simões, Carlos Martins, and Andreia Teixeira. 2020. COVID-19-Related Fear and Anxiety: Spiritual-Religious Coping in Healthcare Workers in Portugal. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Rababa, Mohammad, Audai A. Hayajneh, and Wegdan Bani-Iss. 2021. Association of Death Anxiety with Spiritual Well-Being and Religious Coping in Older Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Raduan, Nor Jannah Nasution, Najwa Hanim Mat Rosly, Zul Azlin Razali, Muhammad Al Siddiq, and Mohd Razali Salleh. 2018. Grief & Personal Growth: Reflection from Quran, Hadith and Modern Medicine. IIUM Medical Journal Malaysia 17: 243–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Reutter, Kirby K., and Silvia M. Bigatti. 2014. Religiosity and Spirituality as Resiliency Resources: Moderation, Mediation, or Moderated Mediation? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 53: 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Ribeiro, Marcus Renato Castro, Rodolfo Furlan Damiano, Ricardo Marujo, Fabio Nasri, and Giancarlo Lucchetti. 2020. The role of spirituality in the COVID-19 pandemic: A spiritual hotline project. Journal of Public Health 42: 855–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Roberto, Anka, Alicia Sellon, Sabrina T. Cherry, Josalin Hunter-Jones, and Heidi Winslow. 2020. Impact of spirituality on resilience and coping during the COVID-19 crisis: A mixed-method approach investigating the impact on women. Health Care for Women International 41: 1313–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Roh, Soonhee, Youseung Kim, Kyoung Hag Lee, Yeon-Shim Lee, Catherine E. Burnette, and Michael J. Lawler. 2015. Religion, Social Support, and Life Satisfaction Among American Indian Older Adults. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought 34: 414–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Roychowdhury, D. 2020. 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease, Crisis, and Isolation. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Satici, Begum, Emine Gocet-Tekin, M. Engin Deniz, and Seydi Ahmet Satici. 2020. Adaptation of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Its Association with Psychological Distress and Life Satisfaction in Turkey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Schieman, Scott, Alex Bierman, Laura Upenieks, and Christopher G. Ellison. 2017. Love Thy Self? How Belief in a Supportive God Shapes Self-Esteem. Review of Religious Research 59: 293–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Shadid, A. 2007. Islamic Perspective in Stress ManagementHealth and Wellness for Muslims. Healthymuslim. Available online: https://healthymuslim.wordpress.com/2007/05/16/islamic-perspective-in-stress-management/ (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  115. Sulkowski, Lukasz, and Grzegorz Ignatowski. 2020. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Organization of Religious Behaviour in Different Christian Denominations in Poland. Religions 11: 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ten Kate, Josje, Willem de Koster, and Jeroen van der Waal. 2017. The Effect of Religiosity on Life Satisfaction in a Secularized Context: Assessing the Relevance of Believing and Belonging. Review of Religious Research 59: 135–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Thomas, Justin, and Mariapaola Barbato. 2020. Positive Religious Coping and Mental Health among Christians and Muslims in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Religions 11: 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Uğurlu, Y., H. Durgun, E. Nemutlu, and O. Kurd. 2020. COVID-19 salgını sırasında Türk toplumunun sosyal el yıkama bilgi ve tutumunun değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Contemporary Medicine 10: 617–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Van Ness, Peter H., and David B. Larson. 2002. Religion, senescence, and mental health: The end of life is not the end of hope. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 10: 386–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Vieira, Cristina Mesa, Oscar H. Franco, Carlos Gómez Restrepo, and Thomas Abel. 2020. COVID-19: The forgotten priorities of the pandemic. Maturitas 136: 38–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Walker, Carmella, Michael G. Ainette, Thomas A. Wills, and Don Mendoza. 2007. Religiosity and substance use: Test of an indirect-effect model in early and middle adolescence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 21: 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Walpole, Sarah Catherine, Dean McMillan, Allan House, David Cottrell, and Ghazala Mir. 2013. Interventions for treating depression in Muslim Patients: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders 145: 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Worthington, Everett L., Nathaniel G. Wade, Terry L. Hight, Jennifer S. Ripley, Michael E. McCullough, Jack W. Berry, Michelle M. Schmitt, James T. Berry, Kevin H. Bursley, and Lynn O’Connor. 2003. The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology 50: 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Yendell, Alexander, Oliver Hidalgo, and Carolin Hillenbrand. 2021. The Role of Religious Actors in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A theory-based empirical analysis with policy recommendations for action. Stuttgart: Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Yeniaras, Volkan, and Tugra Nazli Akarsu. 2016. Religiosity and Life Satisfaction: A Multi-dimensional Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 18: 1815–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Yezli, Saber, and Anas Khan. 2020. COVID-19 social distancing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Bold measures in the face of political, economic, social and religious challenges. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 37: 101692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Yıldırım, Murat, Muhammed Kızılgeçit, İsmail Seçer, Fuat Karabulut, Yasemin Angın, Abdullah Dağcı, Muhammed Enes Vural, Nurun Nisa Bayram, and Murat Çinici. 2021. Meaning in Life, Religious Coping, and Loneliness During the Coronavirus Health Crisis in Turkey. Journal of Religion and Health 2: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Yılmaz, Ö., H. Boz, and A. Arslan. 2017. Depreyon Anksiyete Stres Ölçeğinin (DASS 21) Türkçe Kısa Formunun Geçerlilik-Güvenilirlik Çalışması. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 2: 78–91. [Google Scholar]
  129. Yonker, Julie E., Chelsea A. Schnabelrauch, and Laura G. DeHaan. 2012. The relationship between spirituality and religiosity on psychological outcomes in adolescents and emerging adults: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Adolescence 35: 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Zacher, Hannes, and Cort W. Rudolph. 2021. Individual differences and changes in subjective wellbeing during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist 76: 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Zhang, S. X., Y. Wang, A. Rauch, and F. Wei. 2020. Unprecedented disruptions of lives and work—A survey of the health, distress and life satisfaction of working adults in China one month into the COVID-19 outbreak. Psychiatry Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zheng, Yueli, Zongkui Zhou, Qingqi Liu, Xiujuan Yang, and Cuiying Fan. 2019. Perceived Stress and Life Satisfaction: A Multiple Mediation Model of Self-control and Rumination. Journal of Child and Family Studies 28: 3091–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Religions 12 00701 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
Religions 12 00701 g001
Religions 12 00701 g002 550
Figure 2. COVID-19 fear and religious commitment interaction effect on satisfaction with life.
Figure 2. COVID-19 fear and religious commitment interaction effect on satisfaction with life.
Religions 12 00701 g002
Religions 12 00701 g003 550
Figure 3. The proposed research model’s findings; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. The proposed research model’s findings; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Religions 12 00701 g003
Table
Table 1. Frequency analysis.
Table 1. Frequency analysis.
f%MSd.
Gender
Female 171561
Male109539
Age 30.3413.39
Marital Status
Single184865.8
Married96234.2
Education Level
No graduation60.2
Elementary722.6
Middle School672.4
High School33912.1
University196369.9
Master or Ph.D.36312.9
Income Level 4450.932288.81
Occupation
Unemployed2147.6
Student135048
Retired1726.1
Housewife1665.9
Private Sector Worker34512.3
Public Sector Worker41814.9
Business Owner1455.2
Total2810100%
Table
Table 2. Means, standard deviation, and correlations.
Table 2. Means, standard deviation, and correlations.
N.ItemsMnSd.123456789101112
1Gender (1–2)1.60.491
2Age3013.39−0.42 **1
3Marital status (1–2)1.30.48−0.39 **0.75 **1
4Education4.90.77−0.06 **−0.11 **−0.14 **1
5UNE. (0–1) 0.080.270.08 **−0.06 **−0.08 **0.05 **1
6Students0.480.500.34 **−0.69 **−0.66 **0.08 **−0.28 **1
7Working0.320.47−0.40 **0.41 **0.46 **0.10 **−0.20 **−0.66 **1
8FCV-192.50.840.25 **−0.19 **−0.16 **−0.040.04 *0.15 **−0.16 **1
9Depression0.580.710.16 **−0.30 **−0.28 **0.010.07 **0.26 **−0.22 **0.35 **1
10Anxiety0.340.490.17 **−0.19 **−0.17 **−0.05 *0.030.16 **−0.13 **0.52 **0.55 **1
11Stress0.760.710.23 **−0.29 **−0.26 **−0.020.030.25 **−0.21 **0.36 **0.73 **0.56 **1
12Rel. Com.3.21−0.16 **0.26 **0.31 **−0.08 **−0.12 **−0.19 **0.16 **−0.11 **−0.18 **−0.10 **−0.11 **1
13SWL4.31.38−0.09 **0.24 **0.25 **0.03−0.14 **−0.17 **0.17 **−0.15 **−0.40 **−0.20 **−0.31 **0.32 **
Notes. For gender, 1 = m, 2 = f. For marital status, 1 = s, 2 = m. UNE. = unemployed, 0–1 = no–yes. FCV-19 = COVID-19 fear. Rel. Com. = religion commitment. SWL = satisfaction with life. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Multiple linear regressions.
Table 3. Multiple linear regressions.
ItemsStep 1: Dep.Step 2: Anx.Step 3: Str.
BSEpBSEPBSEp
(Constant)0.480.14<0.001−0.190.090.0310.360.140.009
Gender (1–2)−0.070.030.0220.010.020.7040.070.030.010
Age−0.010.00<0.0010.000.000.126−0.010.00<0.001
Marital status (1–2)−0.100.040.024−0.050.030.065−0.090.040.033
Education−0.030.020.124−0.040.010.001−0.030.020.046
Income0.020.010.2280.030.010.0010.010.010.696
UNE. (0–1) 0.210.05<0.0010.030.030.3870.090.050.104
Students0.190.04<0.0010.040.030.1140.130.040.001
FCV-190.260.02<0.0010.290.01<0.0010.260.02<0.001
Rel. Com.−0.050.01<0.0010.000.010.5870.000.010.824
F 76.59 121.89 74.07
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
R2 0.198 0.282 0.192
For gender, 1 = m, 2 = f. For marital status, 1 = s, 2 = m. Dep = depression. Anx = anxiety. Str = stress. UNE. = unemployed, 0–1 = no–yes. FCV-19 = COVID-19 fear. Rel. Com. = religious commitment.
Table
Table 4. Main effects on satisfaction with life.
Table 4. Main effects on satisfaction with life.
VariableStep 4:SWLStep 5: SWLStep 6: SWL
BSEpBSEPBSEp
(Constant)1.720.27<0.0013.060.25<0.0011.370.32<0.001
Gender (1–2)0.240.06<0.0010.180.050.0010.210.05<0.001
Age0.010.000.0030.010.000.0210.000.000.117
Marital status (1–2)0.170.080.0400.280.08<0.0010.100.080.213
Education0.080.030.0090.060.030.0530.060.030.069
Income0.220.03<0.0010.200.02<0.0010.220.02<0.001
UNE. (0–1) −0.500.10<0.001−0.490.10<0.001−0.370.10<0.001
Students−0.060.080.4460.060.080.4490.060.080.435
FCV-19−0.160.03<0.001−0.020.030.5400.000.030.902
Rel. Com.0.370.03<0.001 0.580.08<0.001
Depression −0.660.05<0.001−0.600.05<0.001
Anxiety 0.100.060.1280.080.060.209
Stress −0.070.050.184−0.110.050.025
Rel. X FCV-19 −0.160.05<0.001
F 70.04 71.87 81.93
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
R2 0.184 0.220 0.276
For gender, 1 = m, 2 = f. For marital status, 1 = s, 2 = m. UNE. = unemployed, 0–1 = no–yes. FCV-19 = COVID-19 fear. Rel. Com. = religious commitment. SWL = satisfaction with life. Rel. X FCV-19 = religion commitment X COVID-19 fear.
Table
Table 5. Conditional direct and indirect effects of religious commitment on satisfaction with life.
Table 5. Conditional direct and indirect effects of religious commitment on satisfaction with life.
Conditional Direct Effect of Religious Commitment on Satisfaction with LifeUnstandardizedSELLCIULCI
LowCOVID-19 Fear−0.83860.38380.03040.32430.4434Sign.
AverageCOVID-19 Fear0.00000.32900.02350.28290.3751Sign.
HighCOVID-19 Fear0.83860.27420.03260.21020.3381Sign.
Indirect Effects of Religious Commitment on Satisfaction with Life
Independent Mediator DependentUnstandardized
Rel. Com.>Depression>SWL0.03900.00930.02190.0585Sign.
Rel. Com.>Anxiety>SWL−0.00140.0015−0.00460.0012N.S.
Rel. Com.>Stress>SWL0.00160.0019−0.00160.0061N.S.
Rel. Com. = religious commitment, SWL = satisfaction with life
Table
Table 6. Summary of hypotheses testing results.
Table 6. Summary of hypotheses testing results.
No.RelationshipProposed RelationshipSupport
H1aReligious Commitment–COVID-19 FearNegativeYes
H1bReligious Commitment–AnxietyNegativeNo
H1cReligious Commitment–StressNegativeNo
H1dReligious Commitment–DepressionNegativeYes
H1eReligious Commitment–Satisfaction with LifePositiveYes
H2aCOVID-19 Fear–Stress, Depression, AnxietyPositiveYes
H2bCOVID-19 Fear–Satisfaction with LifeNegativeYes
H2cDepression–Satisfaction with LifeNegativeYes
H2dAnxiety–Satisfaction with LifeNegativeNo
H2eStress–Satisfaction with LifeNegativeYes
H3aReligious Commitment–Satisfaction with LifeMediated by DepressionYes
H3bReligious Commitment–Satisfaction with LifeMediated by StressNo
H3cReligious Commitment–Satisfaction with LifeMediated by AnxietyNo
H3dReligious Commitment–Satisfaction with LifeModerated by COVID-19 FearYes
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Koçak, O. How Does Religious Commitment Affect Satisfaction with Life during the COVID-19 Pandemic? Examining Depression, Anxiety, and Stress as Mediators. Religions 2021, 12, 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090701

AMA Style

Koçak O. How Does Religious Commitment Affect Satisfaction with Life during the COVID-19 Pandemic? Examining Depression, Anxiety, and Stress as Mediators. Religions. 2021; 12(9):701. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090701

Chicago/Turabian Style

Koçak, Orhan. 2021. "How Does Religious Commitment Affect Satisfaction with Life during the COVID-19 Pandemic? Examining Depression, Anxiety, and Stress as Mediators" Religions 12, no. 9: 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090701

APA Style

Koçak, O. (2021). How Does Religious Commitment Affect Satisfaction with Life during the COVID-19 Pandemic? Examining Depression, Anxiety, and Stress as Mediators. Religions, 12(9), 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090701

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop