Preference for Religious Coping Strategies and Passive versus Active Coping Styles among Seniors Exhibiting Aggressive Behaviors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- The presence of stress-generating factors specific to seniors,
- Characteristics of the process of coping with stress, and
- A discussion of positive religious coping strategies.
1.1. The Presence of Stress-Generating Factors Specific to Seniors
1.2. A Discussion of Positive Religious Coping Strategies
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Procedure
- The first stage of the selection consisted in using the criterion of the administrative division of Poland into provinces. Out of the 16 existing provinces 2 were drawn. In the second stage, 18 communities were randomly selected from the administrative division of the 2 provinces (6 out of 65 urban communities, 6 out of 47 urban-rural communities and 6 out of 174 rural communities).
- In the third stage, telephone directories that contained telephone numbers of people residing in the selected municipalities were used. Every fifth telephone number was dialed. In this way, more than 3000 people aged 60 or older were contacted and invited to participate in the survey.
- Interviewers met directly with 700 randomly selected seniors who were informed of the purpose of the survey. Interviewers accompanied the respondents while filling in the questionnaires. A total of 350 people were surveyed. The results of 11 respondents were rejected by the statistical program. The socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1.
2.2. Measurements
Coping Inventory (MINI-COPE)
2.3. Aggression Syndrome Psychological Inventory (IPSA II)
2.4. Statistical Methods
3. Results
3.1. Passive Coping Strategies as Risk Factors for Aggressive Seniors
- There are statistically significant positive correlations between the avoidance coping strategy of drug use and the 12 categories of aggressiveness: (1) intensified aggression syndrome (r = 0.387; p < 0.000), (2) displaced aggression (r = 0.366; p < 0.000), (3) retaliation tendencies (r = 0.321; p < 0.000), (4) physical aggression towards the environment (r = 0.293; p < 0.000), (5) reactive aggression (r = 0.292; p < 0.000), (6) instrumental aggression (r = 0.286; p < 0.000), (7) indirect aggression (r = 0.277; p < 0.000), (8) aggression control disorders (r = 0.269; p < 0.000), (9) unconscious aggressive tendencies (r = 0.248; p < 0.006), (10) hostility towards the environment (r = 0.247; p < 0.000), (11) self-destructive tendencies (r = 0.244; p < 0.000), and (12) self-hostility (r = 0.182; p < 0.001);
- There are statistically significant positive correlations between the avoidance coping strategy of stopping activities and the 12 categories of aggressiveness: (1) self-hostility (r = 0.253; p < 0.000), (2) intensified aggression syndrome (r = 0.239; p < 0.000), (3) hostility towards the environment (r = 0.228; p < 0.000), (4) self-destructive tendencies (r = 0.213; p < 0.000), (5) instrumental aggression (r = 0.209; p < 0.000), (6) indirect aggression (r = 0.199; p < 0.000), (7) aggression control disorders (r = 0.173; p < 0.002), (8) unconscious aggressive tendencies (r = 0.162; p < 0.003), (9) physical aggression towards the environment (r = 0.160; p < 0.004), (10) retaliation tendencies (r = 0.154; p < 0.005), (11) reactive aggression (r = 0.152; p < 0.006), and (12) displaced aggression (r = 0.134; p < 0.015);
- There are statistically significant positive correlations between the emotional coping strategy in the form of denial and 11 categories of aggressiveness: (1) intensified aggression syndrome (r = 0.227; p < 0.000), (2) hostility towards the environment (r = 0.213; p < 0.000), (3) aggression control disorders (r = 0.201; p < 0.000), (4) retaliation tendencies (r = 0.178; p < 0.001), (5) reactive aggression (r = 0.162; p < 0.003), (6) self-hostility (r = 0.155; p < 0.005), (7) indirect aggression (r = 0.148; p < 0.007), (8) physical aggression towards the environment (r = 0.147; p < 0.008), (9) unconscious aggressive tendencies (r = 0.146; p < 0.008), (10) self-destructive tendencies (r = 0.116; p < 0.035), and (11) displaced aggression (r = 0.114; p < 0.039);
- There are statistically significant positive correlations between one’s emotional coping strategy in the form of discharge and 11 categories of aggressiveness: (1) intensified aggression syndrome (r = 0.265; p < 0.000), (2) reactive aggression (r = 0.254; p < 0.000), (3) retaliation tendencies (r = 0.239; p < 0.000), (4) aggression control disorders (r = 0.213; p < 0.000), (5) hostility towards the environment (r = 0.194; p < 0.000), (6) indirect aggression (r = 0.192; p < 0.000), (7) unconscious aggressive tendencies (r = 0.181; p < 0.001), (8) self-hostility (r = 0.169; p < 0.002), (9) displaced aggression (r = 0.147; p < 0.008), (10) self-destructive tendencies (r = 0.140; p < 0.011), and (11) physical aggression towards the environment (r = 0.126; p < 0.022);
- There are statistically significant positive correlations between the emotional coping strategy in the form of self-blame and three categories of aggressiveness: (1) self-hostility (r = 0.199; p < 0.000), (2) self-destructive tendencies (r = 0.180; p < 0.001), and (3) reactive aggression (r = 0.124; p < 0.025).
3.2. Active Coping Strategies as Factors Protecting against Aggressive Behavior in Seniors
- Statistically significant negative correlations exist between an active coping strategy in the form of seeking emotional support and seven manifestations of aggressiveness: (1) retaliation tendencies (r = −0.153; p < 0.005), (2) instrumental aggression (r = −0.150; p < 0.006), (3) intensified aggression syndrome (r = −0.148; p < 0.007), (4) indirect aggression (r = −0.147; p < 0.008), (5) reactive aggression (r = −0.142; p < 0.010), (6) physical aggression towards the environment (r = −0.141; p < 0.011), and (7) aggression control disorders (r = −0.132; p < 0.017);
- Statistically significant negative correlations exist between an active coping strategy in the form of turning to religion/religious coping and six manifestations of aggressiveness: (1) retaliation tendencies (r = −0.191; p < 0.000), (2) intensified aggression syndrome (r = −0.159; p < 0.004), (3) unconscious aggressive tendencies (r = −0.151; p < 0.006), (4) reactive aggression (r = −0.139; p < 0.012), (5) indirect aggression (r = −0.122; p < 0.027), and (6) aggression control disorders (r = −0.112; p < 0.044);
- Statistically significant negative correlations exist between an active coping strategy in the form of planning and four manifestations of aggressiveness: (1) physical aggression towards the environment (r = −0.174; p < 0.002), (2) aggression control disorders (r = 0.153; p < 0.006), (3) self-hostility (r = −0.150; p < 0.007), and (4) self-destructive tendencies (r = −0.128; p < 0.021);
- Statistically significant negative correlations exist between an active coping strategy in the form of positive reevaluation and three types of aggressiveness: (1) aggression control disorders (r = −0.174; p < 0.002), (2) self-destructive tendencies (r = −0.158; p < 0.004), and (3) physical aggression towards the environment (r = −0.127; p < 0.021);
- Statistically significant negative correlations exist between the task coping strategy in the form of active coping and two types of aggressiveness: (1) self-hostility (r = −0.185; p < 0.001), and (2) physical aggression towards the environment (r = −0.142; p < 0.010);
- Statistically significant negative correlations exist between an active remedial strategy in the form of seeking instrumental support and two types of aggressiveness: (1) self-destructive tendencies (r = −0.146; p < 0.008), and (2) self-hostility (r = −0.142; p < 0.010).
- Decreasing physical aggression towards the environment significantly coexists with an increase in four protective factors: seeking emotional support, planning, positive reevaluation, and active coping;
- Lowering aggression control disorders is significantly associated with an increase in four protective factors: seeking emotional support, turning to religion/religious coping, planning, and positive reevaluation;
- Reducing self-destructive tendencies significantly correlates with an increase in the intensity of three protective factors: planning, positive reevaluation, and seeking instrumental support;
- A decrease in self-hostility is significantly accompanied by an increase in three protective factors: planning, active coping and seeking instrumental support;
- Decreasing retaliation tendencies is significantly associated with an increase in two protective factors: seeking emotional support and turning to religion/religious coping;
- A lowered general intensity of the aggressiveness syndrome is significantly related to an increase in the levels of two protective factors: seeking emotional support and turning to religion/religious coping;
- Reduced indirect aggression significantly coexists with an increase in the intensity of two protective factors: seeking emotional support and turning to religion/religious coping;
- Decreased reactive aggression is significantly accompanied by an increase in the level of two protective factors: seeking emotional support and turning to religion/religious coping;
- Decreasing the intensity of unconscious aggressive tendencies is significantly accompanied by an increase in the level of one protective factor: turning to religion/religious coping;
- Reduced instrumental aggression is significantly associated with an increase in the intensity of one protective factor: seeking emotional support.
3.3. Characteristics of the Religious Strategy/Religious Coping as a Factor Protecting against Aggressive Behavior in Seniors
- A lower intensity of various manifestations of aggression (the general intensity of the aggression syndrome);
- Reduced aggressive behavior as performing intended revenge, seeking opportunities to retaliate for experienced failures and/or interpreting aggressive actions as necessary reactions in interpersonal contacts (retaliation tendencies);
- A lower intensity of the tendency to manifest seemingly non-aggressive behavior, a form of conflict-free and unpunished aggressiveness (unconscious aggressive tendencies);
- A decrease in difficulties in controlling manifestations of self-aggressiveness, controlling impulsiveness, explosiveness, choosing less harmful and socially accepted forms of aggression (aggression control disorders);
- A lower level of impulsiveness, which is reflected in less frequent behaviors characterized by a strong emotional hue with the simultaneous lack of a rational attitude towards the situation (reactive aggression);
- A reduced tendency to change various types of direct attacks to indirect attacks, meaning to attack other people by ridiculing, gossiping, and complaining about them, ridiculing other people’s views, unfair treatment, excessive criticism, and using threats (indirect aggression).
3.4. Predictors of Overall Aggression Severity among Seniors
- Three passive strategies—psychoactive substance use (Beta = 0.303; p < 0.000), discharge (Beta = 0.127; p < 0.03), and withdrawal (Beta = 0.138; p < 0.018);
- Three active strategies—active coping (Beta = −0.207; p < 0.002), seeking emotional support (Beta = −0.154; p < 0.03), and turning to religion/positive religious coping strategy (Beta = −0.109; p < 0.041).
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Passive stress coping strategies, such as using psychoactive substances, stopping activities, denial, discharge, and self-blame, are risk factors for aggressive behavior in the senior population. Due to the correlational nature of the associations obtained, one cannot conclude the existence of causal relationships, but only the co-occurrence of the risk factors tested with the preference for manifestations of aggressiveness.
- Active stress coping strategies (seeking emotional support, seeking instrumental support, planning, positive reevaluation, and active coping) constitute factors protecting against the occurrence of aggressive behavior in the group of seniors. The correlation analysis between the preference for active coping strategies and the intensity of aggressive behavior justifies the conclusions about the co-occurrence of the tested variables. However, it does not provide a basis for treating the results obtained in terms of causal relationships.
- A positive religious stress coping strategy in the senior group is a factor that protects against the following forms of aggression: (1) the general intensity of the aggression syndrome, (2) a retaliation tendency, (3) unconscious aggressive tendencies, (4) aggression control disorders, (5) reactive aggression, and (6) indirect aggression. The presented relationships were obtained by conducting a correlation analysis. Therefore, the existence of causal relationships cannot be inferred, but only the co-occurrence of a positive religious strategy of coping with stress with the intensity of the mentioned manifestations of aggressiveness.
- A positive religious coping strategy is one of six significant predictors of overall aggression severity among seniors. The preference for three passive coping strategies (substance use, discharge, and/or withdrawal) contributes to the increase in aggressive behavior, while the prevalence of three active coping strategies (active coping, seeking emotional support, and turning to religion/positive religious coping strategy) contributes to the decrease.
- The obtained research results justify two practical implications in terms of searching to provide adequate support for a group of seniors in stressful situations, e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic (Yu et al. 2020). The first step is for specialists to stimulate the elderly to abandon passive coping strategies in favor of active ways of coping with stress in difficult life situations. The second implication relates to strengthening positive religious stress coping strategies among the senior population, because this way of coping with perceived mental tension: (a) inhibits the onset of adaptation disorders; (b) generates positive effects of the perceived stress; and (c) in situations of traumatic events (e.g., catastrophes), is more often used by the elderly as compared to younger age groups (Cofini et al. 2015; Baral 2019).
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Aghababaei, Naser, Agata Błachnio, and Masoume Aminikhoo. 2018. The relations of gratitude to religiosity, well-being and personality. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 21: 408–17. [Google Scholar]
- Ahles, Joshua J., Amy H. Mezulis, and Melissa R. Hudson. 2016. Religious Coping as a Moderator of the Relationship between Stress and Depressive Symptoms. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 8: 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ano, Gene G., and Erin Vasconcelles. 2005. Religious Coping and Psychological Adjustment to Stress: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology 4: 461–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Areba, Eunice M., Laura Duckett, Cheryl Robertson, and Kay Savik. 2018. Religious Coping, Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety, andWell-Being Among Somali College Students. Journal of Religion and Health 57: 94–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baltes, Paul B., Hayne W. Reese, and P. Lipsitt Lewis. 1980. Life-Span Developmental Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 1: 65–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baral, Ishwari. 2019. Post traumatic stress disorder and coping strategies among adult survivors of earthquake, Nepal. BMC Psychiatry 19: 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baron, Robert, and Deborah Richardson. 1994. Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
- Bradshaw, Matt, and Blake Victor Kent. 2018. Prayer, Attachment to God, and Changes in PsychologicalWell-Being in Later Life. Journal of Aging and Health 30: 667–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burker, Eileen J., Donna M. Evon, Jan A. Sedway, and Egan Tomasz. 2005. Religious and non-religious coping in lung transplant candidates: Does adding God to the picture tell us more? Journal of Behavioral Medicine 28: 513–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Büssing, Arndt, Daniela Rodrigues Recchia, and Klaus Baumann. 2015. Reliance on God’s Help Scale as a measure of religious trust—A summary of findings. Religions 6: 1358–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chow, Soon Ken, Benedict Francis, Yit Han, Ng Najmi, Naim Hooi, Chin Beh, Mohammad Aizuddin, Azizah Ariffin, Mohd Hafyzuddin, Md Yusuf, and et al. 2021. Religious Coping, Depression and Anxiety among Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Malaysian Perspective. Healthcare 9: 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cofini, Vincenza, Anna Carbonelli, Maria Cecilia, Nancy Binkin, and Ferdinando di Orio. 2015. Post traumatic stress disorder and coping in a sample of adult survivors of the Italian earthquake. Psychiatry Research 229: 353–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Daly, Ella J., Madhukar H. Trivedi, Stephen R. Wisniewski, Andrew A. Nierenberg, Bradley N. Gaynes, Diane Warden, David W. Morris, James F. Luther, Amy Farabaugh, Ian Cook, and et al. 2010. Health-related quality of life in depression: A STAR*D report. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 22: 43–55. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- de Michelis, Joanna. 2017. Wykonywanie tymczasowego aresztowania i kary pozbawienia wolności wobec osób w wieku senioralnym; Warszawa: Biuro Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, pp. 1–38. Available online: https://www.rpo.gov.pl/sites/default/files (accessed on 1 March 2021).
- Dolcos, Florin, Hohl Kelly, Hu Yifan, and Dolcos Sanda. 2021. Religiosity and Resilience: Cognitive Reappraisal and Coping Self-Efficacy Mediate the Link between Religious Coping and Well-Being. Journal of Religion and Health. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowson, Martin, and Maureen Miner. 2015. Interacting religious orientations and personal well-being among Australian Church leaders. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 18: 72–84. [Google Scholar]
- Ellison, Christopher G., Qijuan Fang, Kevin J. Flannelly, and Rebecca A. Steckler. 2013. Hope, Meaning, and Growth Following the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks. Spiritual Struggles and Mental Health: Exploring the Moderating Effects of Religious Identity 23: 214–29. [Google Scholar]
- Enkvist, Asa, Henrik Ekström, and Sölve Elmståhl. 2013. Associations between cognitive abilities and life satisfaction in the oldest-old. Results from the longitudinal population study Good Aging in Skåne. Clinical Interventions in Aging 8: 845–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fatima, Shameem, Suera Sharif, and Iffat Khalid. 2018. How Does Religiosity Enhance Psychological Well-Being? Roles of Self-Effcacy and Perceived Social Support. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 10: 119–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feder, Adriana, Samoon Ahmad, Elisa Lee, Julia Morgan, Ritika Singh, Bruce Smith, Steven Southwick, and Dennis Charney. 2013. Coping and PTSD symptoms in Pakistani earthquake survivors: Purpose in life, religious coping and social support. Journal of Affective Disorders 147: 156–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fidecki, Wiesław, Mariusz Wysokiński, Irena Wrońska, Lilla Walas, and Zofia Sienkiewicz. 2011. Life quality of elderly people from rural environment provided with long-term care. Problemy Higieny i Epidemiologii 92: 221–25. [Google Scholar]
- Fraley, Chris R., and Brent W. Roberts. 2005. Patterns of continuity: A dynamic model for conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological constructs across the life course. Psychological Review 112: 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16: 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- García-Alandete, Joaquín, and Gloria Bernabé Valero. 2013. Religious orientation and psychological well-being among Spanish undergraduates. Accíon Psicológica 10: 133–48. [Google Scholar]
- Gaś, Zbigniew. 1987. Zrewidowana wersja Inwentarza Psychologicznego Syndromu Agresji—IPSA II. Przegląd Psychologiczny 30: 1003–15. [Google Scholar]
- Gerber, Monica M., Adriel Boals, and Darnell Schuettler. 2011. The Unique Contributions of Positive and Negative Religious Coping to Posttraumatic Growth and PTSD. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2011 American Psychological Association 3: 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghandour, Lillian A., Elie G. Karam, and Wadih E. Maalouf. 2009. Lifetime alcohol use, abuse and dependence among university students in Lebanon: Exploring the role of religiosity in different religious faiths. Addiction 104: 940–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hackney, Charles, and Glenn Sanders. 2003. Religiosity and mental health: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42: 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, Myleme O., Harold G. Koenig, Judith C. Hays, Anedi G. Eme-Akwari, and Kenneth I. Pargament. 2001. The Epidemiology of Religious Coping: A Review of Recent Literature. International Review of Psychiatry 13: 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haslam, S. Alexander, Jolanda Jetten, Tom Postmes, and Catherine Haslam. 2009. Social Identity, Health and Well-Being: An Emerging Agenda for Applied Psychology. Applied Psychology: An. International Review 58: 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heidari, Fatemeh G., Saeid Pahlavanzadeh, Mortaza S. Ghadam, Mahlegha Dehghan, and Roohollah Ider. 2016. The relationship between religiosity and depression among medical students. Asian Journal of Nursing Education and Research 6: 414–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heszen-Niejodek, Irena. 1997. Styl radzenia sobie ze stresem: Fakty i kontrowersje. Czasopismo Psychologiczne 1: 7–22. [Google Scholar]
- Juczyński, Zygfryd, and Nina Ogińska-Bulik. 2009. Narzędzia Pomiaru Stresu i Radzenia Sobie ze Stresem. Warsaw: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych. [Google Scholar]
- Kalfoss, Mary, and Liv Halvorsrud. 2009. Important Issues to Quality of Life Among Norwegian Older Adults: An Exploratory Study. The Open Nursing Journal 3: 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koenig, Harold G. 2001. Religion and medicine IV: Religion, physical health, and clinical implications. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 31: 321–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Krahe, Barbara. 2005. Agresja. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne. [Google Scholar]
- Krok, Dariusz. 2014. The Religious Meaning System and Subjective Well-Being. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 36: 253–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazarus, Richard. 1986. Paradygmat stresu i radzenia sobie. Nowiny Psychologiczne 3–4: 2–39. [Google Scholar]
- Lazarus, Richard, and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Minsun, Arthur M. Nezu, and Christine Maguth Nezu. 2014. Positive and negative religious coping, depressive symptoms, and quality of life in people with HIV. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 37: 921–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lemée, Colin, Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi, and Oscar Navarro. 2019. Impact of Place Identity, Self-Efficacy and Anxiety State on the Relationship Between Coastal Flooding Risk Perception and the Willingness to Cope. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Dongling, Liyan Fu, Zhang Jing, and Changying Chen. 2016. Post-traumatic stress disorder and it’s predictors among Tibetan adolescents 3 years after the high-altitude earthquake in China. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 30: 593–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lupo, Kritchmann M., and Rael D. Strous. 2011. Religiosity, anxiety and depression among Israeli medical students. Israel Medical Association Journal 13: 613–18. [Google Scholar]
- McCullough, Michael, and Brian Willoughby. 2009. Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin 135: 69–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nairn, Raymond C., and Thomas V. Merluzzi. 2003. The role of religious coping in adjustment to cancer. Psychooncology 12: 428–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niewiadomska, Iwona. 2002. Radzenie sobie ze stresem przez nieletnich [Coping with stress by the juvenile]. Roczniki Psychologiczne 5: 145–59. [Google Scholar]
- Niewiadomska, Iwona. 2007. Osobowościowe uwarunkowania skuteczności kary pozbawienia wolności. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. [Google Scholar]
- Niewiadomska, Iwona, and Joanna Chwaszcz. 2010. Jak skutecznie zapobiegać karierze przestępczej? Lublin: Drukarnia TEKST. [Google Scholar]
- Niewiadomska, Iwona, Jurek Krzysztof, Joanna Chwaszcz, Patrycja Wośko, and Magdalena Korżyńska-Piętas. 2021. Personal Resources and Spiritual Change among Participants’ Hostilities in Ukraine: The Mediating Role of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Turn to Religion. Religions 12: 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pargament, Kenneth I. 1997. The Psychology of Religion and Coping. New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
- Pargament, Kenneth I., Harold G. Koenig, and Lisa M. Perez. 2000. The many methods of religious coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology 56: 519–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pargament, Kenneth I., Nalini Tarakeshwar, Christopher G. Ellison, and Keith M. Wulff. 2001. Religious Coping among the Religious: The Relationships between Religious Coping and Well-Being in a National Sample of Presbyterian Clergy, Elders, and Members. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40: 497–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Crystal L. 2013. Religion and Meaning. In Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2nd ed. Edited by Raymond F. Paloutzian and Crystal L. Park. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 295–314. [Google Scholar]
- Pervin, Lawrence, and Oliver John. 2002. Osobowość. Teoria i badania. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. [Google Scholar]
- Pirutinsky, Steve, 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] [PubMed]
- Poprawa, Ryszard. 1998. Zarys psychologicznej koncepcji używania alkoholu jako sposobu radzenia sobie ze stresem. Przegląd Psychologiczny 3–4: 61–69. [Google Scholar]
- Poulin, John, Rong Deng, Travis Sky Ingersoll, Heather Witt, and Melanie Swain. 2012. Perceived family and friend support and the psychological well-being of American and Chinese elderly persons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 27: 305–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryff, Carol, Elliot Friedman, Jennifer Morozink, and Vera Tsenkova. 2012. Psychological resilience in adulthood and later life: Implications for health. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics 32: 73–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, Paulo Roberto, José Roberto Frota Gomes Capote, José Renan Miranda Cavalcante Filho, Ticianne Pinto Ferreira, José Nilson Gadelha Dos Santos Filho, and Stênio Da Silva Oliveira. 2017. Religious Coping Methods Predict Depression and Quality of Life among End-Stage Renal Disease Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Nephrology 18: 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siemieniecki, Bronisław, Wisniewska-Nogaj Lidia, and Wioletta Kwiatkowska. 2020. Agresja—zjawisko, skutki, zapobieganie. Perspektywa pedagogiki kognitywistycznej, psychoprofilaktyki oraz edukacji moralnej. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, Timothy B., Justin Poll, and Michael E. McCullough. 2003. Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main E_ect and the Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events. Psychological Bulletin 29: 614–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stein, Catherine H., Kristen M. Abraham, Erin E. Bonar, Christine E. McAuliffe, Wendy R. Fogo, David A. Faigin, Hisham Abu Raiya, and Danielle N. Potokar. 2009. Making Meaning from Personal Loss: Religious, Benefit Finding, and Goal-Oriented Attributions. Journal of Loss and Trauma 14: 83–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stenhagen, Magnus, Henrik Ekström, Eva Nordell, and Sölve Elmståhl. 2014. Accidental falls, health-related quality of life and life satisfaction: A prospective study of the general elderly population. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 58: 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stewart, Tara, Judith Chipperfield, Joelle Ruthig, and Jutta Heckhausen. 2013. Downward social comparison and subjective well-being in late life: The moderating role of perceived control. Aging & Mental Health 17: 375–85. [Google Scholar]
- Strelau, Jan, Bogdan Zawadzki, Włodzimierz Oniszczenko, Adam Sobolewski, and Piotr Pawłowski. 2004. Temperament i style radzenia sobie ze stresem jako moderatory zespołu stresu pourazowego w następstwie przeżytej katastrofy. In Osobowość a Ekstremalny Stres. Edited by Jan Strelau. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, pp. 48–64. [Google Scholar]
- Taheri-Kharameh, Zahra, Hadi Zamanian, Ali Montazeri, Azadeh Asgarian, and Roya Esbiri. 2016. Negative Religious Coping, Positive Religious Coping, and Quality of Life Among Hemodialysis Patients. Nephro-Urology Monthly 8: e38009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tang, Catherine. 2006. Positive and negative postdisaster psychological adjustment among adult survivors of the southeast Asian earthquake–tsunami. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 61: 699–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Terelak, Jan. 2001. Psychologia Stresu. Bydgoszcz: Oficyna Wydawnicza Branta. [Google Scholar]
- Tran, Christy T., Eric Kuhn, Robyn D. Walser, and Kent D. Drescher. 2012. The Relationship between Religiosity, PTSD, and Depressive Symptoms in Veterans in PTSD Residential Treatment. Journal of Psychology & Theology 40: 313–22. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Hua, Mingli Li, Zhixiong Li, Weiyi Xiang, Yiwen Yuan, Yaya Liu, Zhe Li, and Zhenzhen Xiong. 2020. Coping style, social support and psychological distress in the general Chinese population in the early stages of the COVID-19 epidemic. BMC Psychiatry 20: 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzycka, Beata, and Małgorzata M. Puchalska-Wasyl. 2020. Can religious and spiritual struggle enhance well-being? Exploring the mediating effects of internal dialogues. Journal of Religion and Health 59: 1897–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zarzycka, Beata, and Pawel Zietek. 2019. Spiritual growth or decline and meaning-making as mediators of anxiety and satisfaction with life during religious struggle. Journal of Religion and Health 58: 1072–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zwingmann, Christian. 2005. Assessment of spirituality/religiosity in the context of health-related quality of life. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie 55: 241–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwingmann, Christian, Markus Wirtz, Claudia Muller, Jurgen Korber, and Sebastian Murken. 2006. Positive and Negative Religious Coping in German Breast Cancer Patients. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 29: 533–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Descriptive Criterion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Women: n = 211; 64.1% | Men: n = 118 | ||||
Age | M = 67.31; ME(s) = 7.24 (Min. 60; Max. 90 Years Old) | |||||
Marital status | Formal relationship: n = 201; 61.1% | Informal relationship: n = 8; 2.4% | Widowhood: n = 74; 22.5% | Separation: n = 4; 1.2% | Divorce: n = 21; 6.4% | Unmarried: n = 21; 6.4% |
Education | Higher education: n = 102; 31.0% | Secondary education: n = 123; 37.4% | Primary/vocational education: n = 104; 31.6% | |||
Place of residence | Big cities (over 100 thousand): n = 122; 37.2% | Average cities (20–100 thousand): n = 43; 13.1% | Small cities (less than 20 thousand): n = 31; 9.4% | Village: n = 132; 40.2% | ||
Religiosity level | High: n = 205; 62.5% | Medium: n = 57; 17.5% | Low: n = 66; 20% |
Items | Mean (M) | Mediana (Me) | Standard Deviation (SD) | Minimum (Min.) | Maximum (Max.) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
mini1 | 1.81 | 2.00 | 0.850 | 0 | 3 |
mini2 | 2.13 | 2.00 | 0.682 | 0 | 3 |
mini3 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 0.808 | 0 | 3 |
mini4 | 0.45 | 0.00 | 0.804 | 0 | 3 |
mini5 | 1.64 | 2.00 | 0.842 | 0 | 3 |
mini6 | 1.07 | 1.00 | 0.802 | 0 | 3 |
mini7 | 2.09 | 2.00 | 0.674 | 0 | 3 |
mini8 | 1.25 | 1.00 | 0.867 | 0 | 3 |
mini9 | 1.37 | 1.00 | 0.878 | 0 | 3 |
mini10 | 1.74 | 2.00 | 0.866 | 0 | 3 |
mini11 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.769 | 0 | 3 |
mini12 | 1.70 | 2.00 | 0.745 | 0 | 3 |
mini13 | 1.43 | 1.00 | 0.878 | 0 | 3 |
mini14 | 1.84 | 2.00 | 0.785 | 0 | 3 |
mini15 | 1.74 | 2.00 | 0.769 | 0 | 3 |
mini16 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.838 | 0 | 3 |
mini17 | 1.77 | 2.00 | 0.790 | 0 | 3 |
mini18 | 1.24 | 1.00 | 0.870 | 0 | 3 |
mini19 | 1.52 | 2.00 | 0.849 | 0 | 3 |
mini20 | 1.70 | 2.00 | 0.803 | 0 | 3 |
mini21 | 1.22 | 1.00 | 0.878 | 0 | 3 |
mini22 | 1.71 | 2.00 | 1.023 | 0 | 3 |
mini23 | 1.77 | 2.00 | 0.775 | 0 | 3 |
mini24 | 1.98 | 2.00 | 0.719 | 0 | 3 |
mini25 | 2.05 | 2.00 | 0.728 | 0 | 3 |
mini26 | 1.34 | 1.00 | 0.864 | 0 | 3 |
mini27 | 1.70 | 2.00 | 0.990 | 0 | 3 |
mini28 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 0.654 | 0 | 3 |
Scales | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Active coping | 1 | |||||||||||||
2. Planning | 0.617 ** | 1 | ||||||||||||
3. Positive revalidation | 0.396 ** | 0.472 ** | 1 | |||||||||||
4. Acceptance | 0.270 ** | 0.372 ** | 0.362 ** | 1 | ||||||||||
5. Sense of humor | 0.062 | 0.149 ** | 0.367 ** | 0.176 ** | 1 | |||||||||
6. Turn to religion/religious coping | 0.106 * | 0.127 ** | 0.066 | 0.149 ** | −0.008 | 1 | ||||||||
7. Seeking emotional support | 0.359 ** | 0.451 ** | 0.400 ** | 0.287 ** | 0.137 ** | 0.271 ** | 1 | |||||||
8. Seeking instrumental support | 0.308 ** | 0.353 ** | 0.357 ** | 0.250 ** | 0.147 ** | 0.299 ** | 0.717 ** | 1 | ||||||
9. Taking care of someone else | 0.101 * | 0.084 | 0.231 ** | 0.228 ** | 0.229 ** | 0.092 | 0.169 ** | 0.159 ** | 1 | |||||
10. Denial | −0.124 * | −0.203 ** | 0.025 | 0.013 | 0.171 ** | 0.047 | −0.070 | 0.028 | 0.240 ** | 1 | ||||
11. Discharge | 0.062 | 0.075 | 0.212 ** | 0.236 ** | 0.245 ** | 0.070 | 0.206 ** | 0.296 ** | 0.227 ** | 0.369 ** | 1 | |||
12. Use of psychoactive substances | −0.121 * | −0.123 * | −0.126 ** | −0.175 ** | 0.101 * | −0.218 ** | −0.100 * | −0.106 * | −0.072 | 0.189 ** | 0.221 ** | 1 | ||
13. Cessation of activities | −0.227 ** | −0.119 * | 0.061 | 0.158 ** | 0.173 ** | 0.030 | −0.066 | −0.036 | 0.165 ** | 0.350 ** | 0.307 ** | 0.146 ** | 1 | |
14. Self-blaming | −0.016 | 0.112 * | 0.141 ** | 0.141 ** | 0.145 ** | 0.165 ** | 0.017 | 0.104 * | 0.190 ** | 0.294 ** | 0.363 ** | 0.185 ** | 0.356 ** | 1 |
Cronbach’s α | 0.69 | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.48 | 0.85 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.47 | 0.61 | 0.33 | 0.94 | 0.52 | 0.68 |
Items | Mean (M) | Mediana (Me) | Standard Deviation (SD) | Minimum (Min.) | Maximum (Max.) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
IPSA_01 | 0.61 | 0.00 | 0.924 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_02 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.807 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_03 | 0.72 | 0.00 | 0.962 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_04 | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.992 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_05 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.719 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_06 | 0.77 | 0.00 | 0.974 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_07 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.602 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_08 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.701 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_09 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.467 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_10 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 0.828 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_11 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.500 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_12 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.725 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_13 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.788 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_14 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.873 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_15 | 0.52 | 0.00 | 0.877 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_16 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.719 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_17 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.443 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_18 | 0.53 | 0.00 | 0.883 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_19 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.418 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_20 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.594 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_21 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.773 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_22 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.418 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_23 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.742 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_24 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.783 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_25 | 0.43 | 0.00 | 0.820 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_26 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.719 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_27 | 0.61 | 0.00 | 0.924 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_28 | 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.758 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_29 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.550 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_30 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.783 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_31 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.245 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_32 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.707 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_33 | 0.43 | 0.00 | 0.824 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_34 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.811 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_35 | 0.83 | 0.00 | 0.987 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_36 | 0.57 | 0.00 | 0.905 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_37 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.655 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_38 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.479 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_39 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.467 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_40 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.431 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_41 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.647 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_42 | 1.94 | 2.00 | 0.344 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_43 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.344 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_44 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 0.531 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_45 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.404 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_46 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.870 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_47 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.585 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_48 | 0.55 | 0.00 | 0.896 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_49 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.647 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_50 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.479 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_51 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.511 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_52 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.418 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_53 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.725 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_54 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.390 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_55 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.404 | 0 | 2 |
IPSA_56 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.625 | 0 | 2 |
Scales | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Retaliation tendency | 1 | |||||||||||
2. Self-destructive tendencies | 0.343 ** | 1 | ||||||||||
3. Aggression control | 0.495 ** | 0.410 ** | 1 | |||||||||
4. Disorders displaced aggression | 0.671 ** | 0.376 ** | 0.580 ** | 1 | ||||||||
5. Unconscious aggressive tendencies | 0.580 ** | 0.273 ** | 0.457 ** | 0.449 ** | 1 | |||||||
6. Indirect aggression | 0.803 ** | 0.402 ** | 0.467 ** | 0.631 ** | 0.550 ** | 1 | ||||||
7. Instrumental aggression | 0.591 ** | 0.614 ** | 0.413 ** | 0.591 ** | 0.474 ** | 0.623 ** | 1 | |||||
8. Self-hostility | 0.414 ** | 0.370 ** | 0.385 ** | 0.423 ** | 0.339 ** | 0.492 ** | 0.444 ** | 1 | ||||
9. Physical aggression towards the environment | 0.574 ** | 0.389 ** | 0.481 ** | 0.676 ** | 0.358 ** | 0.583 ** | 0.533 ** | 0.543 ** | 1 | |||
10. Hostility towards the environment | 0.689 ** | 0.325 ** | 0.404 ** | 0.546 ** | 0.418 ** | 0.546 ** | 0.462 ** | 0.629 ** | 0.497 ** | 1 | ||
11. Reactive aggression | 0.713 ** | 0.391 ** | 0.707 ** | 0.576 ** | 0.529 ** | 0.596 ** | 0.520 ** | 0.394 ** | 0.449 ** | 0.539 ** | 1 | |
General level of aggression | 0.893 ** | 0.537 ** | 0.715 ** | 0.799 ** | 0.683 ** | 0.824 ** | 0.727 ** | 0.602 ** | 0.684 ** | 0.723 ** | 0.810 ** | 1 |
Cronbach’s α | 0.87 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.66 | 0.51 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.90 |
Denial | Discharge | Psychoactive Substance Use | Stopping Activities | Self-Blame | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Manifestations of aggressive behavior: | |||||
Retaliation tendencies | 0.178 *** | 0.239 *** | 0.321 *** | 0.154 ** | 0.011 |
Self-destructive tendencies | 0.116 * | 0.140 * | 0.244 *** | 0.213 *** | 0.180 *** |
Aggression control disorders | 0.201 *** | 0.213 *** | 0.269 *** | 0.173 ** | 0.079 |
Aggression displaced | 0.114 * | 0.147 ** | 0.366 *** | 0.134 * | 0.034 |
Unconscious aggressive tendencies | 0.146 ** | 0.181 *** | 0.248 *** | 0.162 ** | 0.056 |
Indirect aggression | 0.148 ** | 0.192 *** | 0.277 *** | 0.199 *** | 0.022 |
Instrumental aggression | 0.075 | 0.098 | 0.286 *** | 0.209 *** | 0.038 |
Self-hostility | 0.155 ** | 0.169 ** | 0.182 *** | 0.253 *** | 0.199 *** |
Physical aggression towards the environment | 0.147 ** | 0.126 * | 0.293 *** | 0.160 ** | 0.051 |
Hostility towards the environment | 0.213 *** | 0.194 *** | 0.247 *** | 0.228 *** | 0.020 |
Reactive aggression | 0.162 ** | 0.254 *** | 0.292 *** | 0.152 ** | 0.124 * |
Intensified aggression syndrome | 0.227 *** | 0.265 *** | 0.387 *** | 0.239 *** | 0.100 |
Active Coping | Planning | Positive Reevaluation | Acceptance | Sense of Humor | Turning to Religion/Religious Coping | Seeking Emotional Support | Seeking Instrumental Support | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Manifestations of aggressive behavior: | ||||||||
Retaliation tendencies | 0.017 | 0.005 | 0.032 | 0.064 | 0.064 | −0.191 *** | −0.153 ** | −0.056 |
Self-destructive tendencies | −0.095 | −0.128 * | −0.158 ** | −0.040 | −0.081 | −0.077 | −0.118 | −0.146 ** |
Aggression control disorders | −0.093 | −0.153 ** | −0.174 ** | −0.079 | 0.018 | −0.112 * | −0.132 * | −0.020 |
Aggression displaced | −0.043 | −0.077 | −0.051 | 0.029 | 0.059 | −0.083 | −0.096 | −0.010 |
Unconscious aggressive tendencies | −0.075 | −0.047 | −0.005 | 0.038 | 0.054 | −0.151 ** | −0.021 | −0.028 |
Indirect aggression | −0.015 | −0.035 | −0.004 | 0.041 | 0.054 | −0.122 * | −0.147 ** | −0.041 |
Instrumental aggression | −0.073 | −0.029 | 0.003 | −0.005 | −0.001 | −0.083 | −0.150 ** | −0.142 ** |
Self-hostility | −0.185 *** | −0.150 ** | −0.045 | 0.028 | 0.062 | 0.033 | −0.098 | −0.051 |
Physical aggression towards the environment | −0.142 ** | −0.174 ** | −0.127 * | −0.065 | −0.025 | −0.099 | −0.141 ** | −0.089 |
Hostility towards the environment | −0.063 | −0.057 | −0.019 | 0.050 | 0.084 | −0.079 | −0.104 | −0.053 |
Reactive aggression | 0.010 | −0.001 | −0.038 | 0.012 | 0.060 | −0.139 * | −0.142 ** | −0.041 |
Intensified aggression syndrome | −0.065 | −0.077 | −0.046 | 0.026 | 0.065 | −0.159 ** | −0.148 ** | −0.063 |
B | SE | Beta | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Stable) | 21.557 | 3.988 | 5.406 | 0.000 | |
Denial | −0.221 | 0.640 | −0.021 | −0.346 | - |
Discharge | 1.469 | 0.676 | 0.127 | 2.174 | 0.030 |
Psychoactive substance use | 3.038 | 0.545 | 0.303 | 5.571 | 0.000 |
Withdrawal | 1.565 | 0.661 | 0.138 | 2.369 | 0.018 |
Self-blame | −0.551 | 0.563 | −0.055 | −0.977 | - |
Active coping strategy | −2.650 | 0.854 | −0.207 | −3.103 | 0.002 |
Planning | 0.977 | 0.781 | 0.085 | 1.252 | - |
Positive reevaluation | 0.037 | 0.700 | 0.003 | 0.053 | - |
Acceptance | 0.143 | 0.705 | 0.011 | 0.203 | - |
Sense of humor | −0.180 | 0.674 | −0.015 | −0.267 | - |
Turning to religion/positive religious coping strategy | −0.891 | 0.435 | −0.109 | −2.047 | 0.041 |
Seeking emotional support | −1.704 | 0.782 | −0.154 | −2.179 | 0.030 |
Seeking instrumental support | 0.740 | 0.742 | 0.070 | 0.996 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Niewiadomska, I.; Szot, L. Preference for Religious Coping Strategies and Passive versus Active Coping Styles among Seniors Exhibiting Aggressive Behaviors. Religions 2021, 12, 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070553
Niewiadomska I, Szot L. Preference for Religious Coping Strategies and Passive versus Active Coping Styles among Seniors Exhibiting Aggressive Behaviors. Religions. 2021; 12(7):553. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070553
Chicago/Turabian StyleNiewiadomska, Iwona, and Leon Szot. 2021. "Preference for Religious Coping Strategies and Passive versus Active Coping Styles among Seniors Exhibiting Aggressive Behaviors" Religions 12, no. 7: 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070553
APA StyleNiewiadomska, I., & Szot, L. (2021). Preference for Religious Coping Strategies and Passive versus Active Coping Styles among Seniors Exhibiting Aggressive Behaviors. Religions, 12(7), 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070553