Next Article in Journal
Intersections Between the Intercultural Education Ethos and the Integral Ecological Ethics for the Common Home
Previous Article in Journal
Maritime Links Between China, Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, and Buddhist Monasteries in India (c. 11th–12th Centuries) in the Light of Two Fragmentary Inscribed Strips of Copper from Muara Jambi
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/rel16060666
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Holding onto Hope in Times of Crisis: The Mediating Role of Hope in the Link Between Religious Motivation, Pandemic Burnout, and Future Anxiety Among Turkish Older Adults

by
Muhammet Enes Vural
1,*,
Harun Geçer
2,
Hızır Hacıkeleşoğlu
3 and
Murat Yıldırım
4,5
1
Department of Psychology of Religion, Faculty of Theology, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize 53100, Türkiye
2
Department of Religious Sciences, Faculty of Divinity, Niğde Ömer Halis Demir University, Niğde 51240, Türkiye
3
Department of Psychology of Religion, Faculty of Theology, Ordu University, Ordu 52200, Türkiye
4
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Letters, Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University, Ağrı 04100, Türkiye
5
Psychology Research Center, Khazar University, Baku AZ1000, Azerbaijan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2025, 16(6), 666; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060666
Submission received: 22 April 2025 / Revised: 20 May 2025 / Accepted: 21 May 2025 / Published: 23 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Grief Care: Religion and Spiritual Support in Times of Loss)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 pandemic has not only triggered a global health crisis but also profoundly disrupted the psychological well-being of older adults, leading to heightened levels of burnout, uncertainty, and anxiety about the future. During times of crisis, intrinsic religious motivation may offer a spiritual grounding that fosters hope, a critical internal resource in sustaining emotional balance. This study investigates the mediating role of hope in the relationship between intrinsic religious motivation, pandemic-related burnout, and future anxiety among Turkish older adults. A total of 427 participants (Mage = 66.98, SD = 7.23) were recruited using a cross-sectional design. Participants completed validated measures of intrinsic religiosity, dispositional hope, pandemic burnout, and future anxiety. Structural equation modeling revealed that intrinsic religious motivation positively predicted hope and negatively predicted both burnout and future anxiety. Moreover, hope significantly mediated the relationship between intrinsic religious motivation and both outcome variables. These findings suggest that religious meaning-making may enhance psychological resilience by promoting hope, thereby mitigating the mental health burden during large-scale crises. The study enhances understanding of culturally embedded support mechanisms and highlights the role of faith-based inner resources, such as intrinsic religious motivation and hope, in fostering resilience among older adults during uncertainty and crisis.

1. Introduction

The history of humankind is full of tragedy. Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, wars, and pandemics are all part of this tragedy. It is up to human beings to live through these painful experiences and somehow make sense of them. Whatever the explanation, it is undeniable that such traumatic events have a profound impact on the human condition. The COVID-19 pandemic, which broke out in early 2020, has gone beyond a mere medical threat, shattering the resilience of societies and the mental health of people. As of 20 January 2024, approximately 773 million cases have been reported worldwide. Seven million people have died from COVID-19, and 67% of the total population has received at least one dose of the vaccine (WHO 2024a). With 17,232,066 cases reported since the beginning of the pandemic, Türkiye ranks 11th among all countries in terms of the number of cases (COVID-19—Coronavirus Statistics—Worldometer 2024).
Although the pandemic is perceived as a direct threat to physical health, studies show that it also has a challenging impact on mental health (Lakhan et al. 2020). The potential threat of the pandemic to people can be considered in two ways: direct and indirect. The direct effect of the pandemic is the threat of the virus to human life through physical health. The indirect effect of the pandemic is the social and psychological environment into which the whole world has been drawn since the beginning of the pandemic, and the threat this environment poses to people’s mental health. The indirect impact of the pandemic is sometimes manifested through fear of contracting the virus, sometimes through witnessing news of deaths, or through the coercive effect of quarantine. The COVID-19 pandemic has had diverse impacts on the mental health of individuals, including an increase in loneliness (Yıldırım et al. 2021), stress (Turna et al. 2021), death anxiety (Menzies and Menzies 2020; Özgüç et al. 2024), depression (S. A. Lee et al. 2020), and post-traumatic stress disorder (Chamaa et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2020).
Burnout, first used by the American psychologist Herbert J. Freudenberger, has meanings such as physical, emotional, and mental fatigue and exhaustion, decreased personal success, and depersonalization of oneself and one’s environment, especially in situations of intense stress (Bianchi et al. 2015; VandenBos 2013). Concerning this concept, the term COVID-19 burnout refers to the physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion experienced by individuals as a result of dealing with the prolonged stress, uncertainty, and disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This burnout can manifest in various ways, including increased fatigue, irritability, difficulty concentrating, feelings of helplessness, anxiety, depression, and a decreased sense of accomplishment (Galanis et al. 2023; Yıldırım and Solmaz 2022). Recent research has shown that burnout is one of the prominent negative emotions associated with the indirect effects of the pandemic (Jalili et al. 2021; Rivas et al. 2021; Yıldırım and Solmaz 2022). In particular, if the distressing process is long and challenging enough to overwhelm the individual’s resources, it may lead to burnout syndrome in individuals (Bauer et al. 2006; Bianchi et al. 2015). Therefore, burnout can lead to various dysfunctions, affecting individuals personally as well as their functioning within broader social contexts. The longer-than-expected duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine procedures, exposure to social restrictions and the air of uncertainty about the future have all contributed to the positive correlations between burnout syndrome and depressive tendencies and anxiety that have emerged in research on the subject (Duarte et al. 2020; Oprisan et al. 2022). In this regard, burnout may encompass more than emotional fatigue, signifying a profound form of existential exhaustion or spiritual depletion in the face of prolonged adversity.
Future anxiety refers to persistent worry regarding potential adverse events in the future and is often associated with feelings of uncertainty and lack of control (Duplaga and Grysztar 2021). This anxiety affects the person’s attitudes, behaviors, and various cognitive processes and, in this way, can have a negative impact on the quality of life and daily functioning (Yıldırım et al. 2023). Zaleski (1996) pointed out that in extreme cases, a person’s anxiety about the future can be compounded by the belief that some catastrophe may befall them. Despite people’s desire for control and clarity in almost every moment of their lives, the uncertainty inherent in the pandemic has been a source of intense anxiety about the future throughout the pandemic. Governments and their agencies have had to make decisions and implement policies on education, health, business, quarantine, and restrictions that have had a significant impact on people’s lives in a short period. This has put people in a psychologically and emotionally difficult and disadvantageous position in terms of planning their daily lives and futures. Previous research has suggested that uncertainty may be associated with mental health problems (AlHadi et al. 2021; Karataş and Tagay 2021; Seco Ferreira et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2020).
The concept of intrinsic religious orientation was first introduced by Allport and Ross (1967) to describe a form of internalized religiosity in which faith is pursued as an end in itself, rather than as a means to external rewards. This foundational distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious motivation has been further refined by subsequent scholars. Gorsuch (1994) reframed intrinsic religiosity as “the motivation for experiencing and living one’s religious faith for the sake of the faith itself” (p. 317), emphasizing the internal and self-sustaining nature of such belief. Similarly, Hoge (1972) defined intrinsic religious orientation as a sincere and central life commitment wherein belief and behavior are closely aligned. In this framework, a high level of intrinsic motivation suggests that religious faith provides a deeply integrated and guiding force in one’s life, whereas a low level indicates that religion may be nominal, compartmentalized, or lacking internal coherence. Conversely, a high level of extrinsic motivation reflects the instrumental use of religion for social belonging, comfort, or personal gain, while a low level suggests a lack of such utilitarian engagement. In the Turkish Islamic context, Karaca (2001) argued that this internalized and purpose-oriented orientation resonates with Islamic values such as sincerity (ikhlas), submission, and heartfelt faith. Previous studies have found that extrinsic religious motivation is associated with lower mental health and meaning in life (Abeyta and Blake 2020; Park 2021), whereas intrinsic religious motivation (IRM) is positively associated with various mental health variables, especially well-being (Byrd et al. 2007; Maltby and Day 2004). However, in some situations, intrinsic religiosity alone may be insufficient for effective coping. During the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia, public and private religious practices were linked to lower stress and higher life satisfaction. Intrinsic religiosity showed no significant effect. These findings emphasize the significance of behavioral dimensions of religiosity in fostering psychological resilience (Ting et al. 2024). This becomes clearer when the considerable literature on the relationship between religion and mental health is viewed from a broader perspective (Abdel-Khalek et al. 2019; Bonelli and Koenig 2013; Koenig 2018).
One of the first concepts that comes to mind when considering the potential relationship between religion and mental health is religious coping (Pargament 1997). When examining the effects of religious coping strategies on mental health in Muslim samples, it appears that results largely mirror those found in studies conducted with non-Muslim participants. In brief, positive religious coping (PRC) strategies have been associated with lower levels of psychological distress, whereas negative religious coping (NRC) has been linked to heightened psychological problems (Javaid et al. 2024). However, it should be noted that in Muslim populations, the positive effects of PRC on mental health are not as pronounced as those of NRC. While various studies have consistently found NRC to be significantly related to symptoms of anxiety and depression, PRC appears to be associated with only certain positive mental health indicators (Abu-Raiya et al. 2011; Aflakseir and Coleman 2009) or has shown only limited protective effects against negative outcomes (Abdul Rashid et al. 2021; Abu-Raiya et al. 2019).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have also sought to answer the question of whether religiosity, spirituality and religious coping contribute to overcoming the negative psychological effects of the pandemic (Prazeres et al. 2020; Yildirim et al. 2021; Zarzycka et al. 2025). While findings vary across contexts, studies have generally reported that religiosity, spirituality, and the use of positive religious coping strategies are positively associated with favorable indicators of mental health (Batmaz and Meral 2022; Edara et al. 2021; Kızılgeçit and Yıldırım 2023; Ok et al. 2024; Thomas and Barbato 2020), whereas religiosity tends to be negatively associated with adverse psychological outcomes (Konaszewski et al. 2022; Mahamid and Bdier 2021; Mahmood et al. 2021). This pattern of inconsistency can also be observed in studies conducted in Türkiye during the COVID-19 pandemic across various samples. For instance, while PRC was negatively associated with depression and anxiety, the relationship was relatively weak (Bakır et al. 2021). Moreover, both PRC and NRC were found to be positively associated with death anxiety (Özer et al. 2023), while in some studies, they were negatively related as well (Karaca and Doğan 2021). PRC, however, has generally shown stronger correlations with positive indicators of mental health (Angın 2021). As Abu-Raiya and colleagues (Abu-Raiya et al. 2019) have also emphasized, these findings underscore the importance of investigating religious coping within culturally sensitive and context-specific research models.
Snyder (2002) conceptualizes hope as a cognitive–motivational construct involving an individual’s desire to achieve certain goals, along with the perceived capacity to identify viable pathways and the motivational drive (agency) to pursue them. According to this framework, hope comprises three core components: goals, pathway thinking, and agency thinking. Particularly in extraordinary crises, the life goals that motivate the individual or the pathways to achieve these goals can become blurred. Hence, hopelessness is sometimes accompanied by anxiety about the future. In the recent past, the COVID-19 pandemic was the time when the future anxiety, caused by the uncertainty that permeated almost every aspect of life, was felt most intensely. But hope is a powerful anchor in the face of such situations. In such overwhelming times, hope can function as more than a psychological construct—it becomes a religious/spiritually meaningful orientation toward the future. Several studies have shown that hope strengthens the psychological resilience of individuals in similar pandemics and crises (Snyder 2002). Specifically, a sense of hope helps people cope with stress more effectively by increasing their ability to cope with challenging situations (Gallagher and Lopez 2009) and increasing their resilience (Yıldırım and Güler 2021).
Undoubtedly, the aforementioned direct and indirect threats of the pandemic have made especially the elderly, who constitute the sample of this study, more vulnerable both physically and psychologically. This is because health authorities have defined people over the age of 60 as a “risk group” and stated that the virus may have more fatal consequences for them. While the likelihood of being exposed to certain diseases increases with age, the ability to cope with these diseases may be impaired. This situation made it difficult for the elderly, who were more exposed to quarantine measures and various restrictions from day one, to adapt to the process. In a study by Heid et al. (2021) with adults aged 64 and older, participants reported serious difficulties in social relationships, activity limitations, psychological health, financial health, global environment, death, and home care. Girdhar et al. (2020) emphasized the distressing effects of the pandemic, especially on the elderly, including psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as various fears (i.e., death or infection), insomnia, nightmares, and substance abuse.
The current study aims to examine the mediating role of hope in the relationship between intrinsic religious motivation and future anxiety and COVID-19 burnout among the elderly in Türkiye. This study does not merely aim to examine psychological relationships but also contributes to understanding how religious/spiritually grounded hope may function as a culturally embedded form of support in times of collective distress. Although studies examining the psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults are limited, especially within the Muslim context, this study is expected to contribute to the existing literature. The findings are believed to offer a deeper understanding of the pandemic’s impact and to raise awareness about the psychological well-being of older adults, who represented one of the most vulnerable groups during this global health crisis. It is also believed that the results will be useful for policymakers and experts working in the field in the face of similar situations or natural disasters in the coming years. The main hypotheses established are as follows:
H1a: 
Intrinsic religious motivation will have a positive effect on hope.
H1b: 
Intrinsic religious motivation will have a negative effect on COVID-19 burnout.
H1c: 
Intrinsic religious motivation will have a negative effect on future anxiety.
H2: 
Hope will have a negative effect on COVID-19 burnout.
H3: 
Hope will have a negative effect on future anxiety.
H4a: 
Hope will mediate the negative relationship between intrinsic religious motivation and COVID-19 burnout.
H4b: 
Hope will mediate the negative relationship between intrinsic religious motivation and future anxiety.

2. Method

2.1. Sample

The research sample consisted of 427 Turkish Muslims aged 55 years and older (n = 427). A non-probability convenience sampling method was employed, based on participants’ accessibility and willingness to participate. Of the participants, 196 (45.9%) were male, and 231 (54.1%) were female. The mean age of the sample was M = 66.98 (SD = 7.23), with the majority of participants aged between 55 and 74 years (83.6%). In addition, although most participants were married (74.7%), some were single (10.5%), divorced, or deceased (14.8%). Finally, the rates of having COVID-19 (56.2%) and having a chronic disease (56%) were also close (see Table 1).

2.2. Measures

The survey questionnaire included items on sociodemographic characteristics as well as questions regarding participants’ experiences related to quarantine and the COVID-19 process. The subsequent sections comprised measurement instruments corresponding to the study variables.

2.2.1. The COVID-19 Burnout Scale

In the study, the COVID-19 Burnout Scale developed by Yıldırım and Solmaz (2022) was used. The scale was adapted by Yıldırım and Solmaz (2022) by replacing the phrase “your work” with “COVID-19” in the 10-item short form originally developed by Malach-Pines (2005). A sample item is: “When you think about COVID-19 overall, how often do you feel helpless?” Each item is scored on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with a possible score ranging from 10 to 50. High scores indicate a burnout syndrome due to COVID-19. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was 0.76.

2.2.2. The Dispositional Hope Scale

To determine the participants’ attitudes toward hope, the Turkish version of the Dispositional Hope Scale developed by Snyder et al. (1991) was used. The Turkish adaptation study was conducted by Tarhan and Bacanlı (2015). The scale has two sub-dimensions: alternative pathways thinking and agentic thinking, each consisting of four items. Four items are filler items (e.g., “I can think of many ways to get out of a difficult situation” or “There are many ways to solve a problem”). Participants respond to each item using an 8-point Likert scale ranging from “definitely false” to “definitely true”. The minimum score is 8, and the maximum score is 64. Low scores indicate low hope, and high scores indicate high hope. Snyder et al. (1991) reported Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.74 and 0.84, respectively. In this study, the hope variable was analyzed at the general level, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.89.

2.2.3. The Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale

IRM scores were determined using the Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale. The scale, which was developed by Hoge (1972) and adapted into Turkish by Karaca (2001), is a 5-point Likert-type scale. It is scored between 0 (strongly disagree) and 4 (strongly agree) and consists of 10 items (e.g., “I strive to put my religion above all other worldly affairs”). The lowest possible score on the scale is 0, and the highest is 40. In the adaptation study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the IRM scale was reported as 0.84, and the test–retest correlation coefficient was 0.80, indicating temporal reliability. An exploratory factor analysis revealed a single-factor structure that accounted for 46% of the total variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.40 to 0.82. The scale includes items such as “Nothing is more important to me than worshipping God in the best possible way” and “I try my hardest to place my religion above all other worldly matters”, reflecting the internalization of religious belief as an end. The confirmatory factor analysis findings obtained in the present study indicate that the existing structure of the IRM Scale is supported within our older-adult sample. The resulting goodness-of-fit indices are as follows: ꭙ2/sd = 2.932; GFI = 0.956; CFI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.067; IFI = 0.958; NFI = 0.891; AGFI = 0.924. In addition, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in this study was 0.87.

2.2.4. The Future Anxiety

Participants’ levels of future anxiety were measured using a question containing four statements. The responses, ranging from being hopeful about the future and not feeling any anxiety to strong future anxiety, were assigned values between 0 (strongly disagree) and 3 (strongly agree). Accordingly, when the option indicating the most intense future anxiety was selected, this response was recoded to correspond to 3 (e.g., “I look to the future with hope and enthusiasm” or “The future seems blurry and uncertain to me”).

2.3. Procedure

In this cross-sectional survey design research, data were collected through structured questionnaires administered to older adults in the provinces of Ordu, Giresun, Trabzon, Rize, and Artvin, which are among the provinces in the Eastern Black Sea region of Türkiye. These provinces were selected due to the regional focus of the study and proximity to the researchers’ institutions. The data collection was conducted face-to-face by the researchers through direct visits to various districts, streets, cafes, shops, and villages where rural life predominates, during November and December 2021 and January and February 2022. For participants who faced difficulties reading the questionnaire due to advanced age or vision impairments, the researchers read the questions aloud, and responses were recorded based on participants’ verbal answers. Data were collected in accordance with ethical principles and the Helsinki Declaration of 1964. In addition, the study protocol was reviewed in detail and approved by the Ethics Committee of Gümüşhane University in its meeting on 7 January 2021 with the number E-95674917-108.99-71601.

2.4. Data Analysis

After excluding incomplete questionnaires, a final dataset of 427 participants was formed. Preliminary analyses, such as descriptive statistics, reliability, and correlation, were performed in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 24. The interaction between the main variables of the study was examined using structural equation modeling in the AMOS program. A latent variable mediation model was constructed. To determine the significance level of the mediation effect, a bootstrapping procedure with 5000 random resamples and a 95% confidence interval was applied. The following fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness of model fit: chi-square divided by degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF ≤ 3); Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI ≥ 0.90); Comparative Fit Index (CFI ≥ 0.90); Normed Fit Index (NFI ≥ 0.90); Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI ≥ 0.90); Incremental Fit Index (IFI ≥ 0.90); and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.05) (Byrne 2016; Hooper et al. 2008; Hu and Bentler 1999; Kline 2015; Tabachnick and Fidell 2013).

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

Before testing the main hypotheses of this study, descriptive analyses outlining the overall characteristics of the sample, as well as correlation analysis results examining the relationship between the research variables, are presented in Table 2.
First, according to the descriptive findings, the mean scores of IRM (M = 3.17 ± 0.60) and hope (M = 5.29 ± 1.17) of the sample are above average. Considering the tendencies of religiosity according to developmental stages, this average can be explained by the fact that the sample consists of older people. The means of COVID-19 burnout (M = 2.55 ± 0.90) and future anxiety (M = 1.47 ± 0.50) are at a moderate level. The skewness and kurtosis values, which indicate whether the data are normally distributed, are within acceptable ranges for each variable.
Correlation analyses showed that IRM was positively correlated with hope (r = 0.30, p < 0.001) and negatively and significantly correlated with COVID-19 burnout (r = −0.15, p < 0.001). In addition, hope has a negative and significant relationship with COVID-19 burnout (r = −0.24, p < 0.001) and future anxiety (r = −0.25, p < 0.001). The relationship between COVID-19 burnout and future anxiety is positive and significant (r = 0.31, p < 0.001).
t-test analyses were conducted to determine whether the participants differed in terms of COVID-19 burnout according to various conditions. Table 3 shows the t-test findings. The findings reveal that having a chronic disease and being in quarantine did not cause a difference in terms of COVID-19 burnout. However, it was determined that those who had COVID-19 disease had a higher mean COVID-19 burnout than those who did not (t = 2.92, p < 0.05), and those who lost a relative due to COVID-19 had a higher mean COVID-19 burnout than those who did not (t = 4.44, p < 0.05).

3.2. Test of Mediation Model

Analyses were conducted based on structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses developed for the main research model with mediating variables. The analyses were conducted through the AMOS program. Before testing the main model, the total effect of IRM, the independent variable of the study, on future anxiety and COVID-19 burnout was determined. The findings are presented in Figure 1.
The findings in Figure 1 show that the total effect of IRM on future anxiety (β = −0.142; p < 0.05) and COVID-19 burnout (β = −0.098, p < 0.05) is negative and significant. These results support hypotheses H1b and H1c.
Figure 2 and Table 4 show the main model of the study with mediating variables. Hope was included in the model as a mediating variable in the analyses conducted at the first level with latent variables. The direct effect of IRM on hope was found to be positive and significant (β = 0.35; p < 0.001). The explained variance is 13%. However, the effect of hope on COVID-19 burnout (β = −0.26; p < 0.001) and future anxiety (β = −0.26; p < 0.001) is negative and significant. The explained variances are 8% and 7%, respectively. When the effect of IRM on COVID-19 burnout (β = −0.046; p < 0.001) and future anxiety (β = −0.002; p < 0.001) is examined, it is seen that the direct effect is negative and still significant. The results provide empirical support for the study’s H1a, H2, and H3 hypotheses.
The model fit values in Table 5 indicate that the constructed structural model is acceptable and close to perfect (Hu and Bentler 1998; Kline 2015). In bootstrapping analyses conducted at 95% confidence intervals, the confidence interval values did not include zero, and the indirect effect of religiosity on COVID-19 burnout and future anxiety was significant (CI = −0.146, −0.041; −0.148, −0.046). As a result, the partial mediating role of the hope variable in this relationship is significant. According to these findings, the study hypotheses H4a and H4b are supported.

4. Discussion

This study aims to determine whether hope plays a role as a mediating variable in the effect of IRM levels of the elderly on COVID-19 burnout and future anxiety levels. As a result of the analysis, it was understood that intrinsic religious motivation provides hope and, thus, plays a role in reducing future anxiety, which is one of the psychological risks of the pandemic, and the burnout that develops due to the pandemic. In addition, those who were infected with the virus and the elderly who lost a relative due to the virus felt higher levels of COVID-19 burnout than the others.
The findings are largely consistent with theoretical and empirical knowledge on the subject. Studies conducted on various mental health variables during the pandemic have found that the pandemic has severely challenged people mentally. It is emphasized that the elderly, in particular, are more likely to experience distressing processes such as loneliness (Hwang et al. 2020; Van Tilburg et al. 2021), depression (Asgari Ghoncheh et al. 2021; Briggs et al. 2021; Yildirim et al. 2021), stress, and death anxiety (Rababa et al. 2021). In addition to these, studies on burnout syndrome and future anxiety during the pandemic have frequently emphasized the relationship between these two emotions and psychologically distressing processes. Lluch et al. (2022), in their literature review, found that the pandemic increased the sense of burnout, depersonalization, and compassion fatigue in individuals and that burnout was associated with several negative mental health indicators. In addition, burnout caused by uncertainty about the future was found to have negative physical and psychosocial effects (Roslan et al. 2021). However, by providing psychological flexibility and resilience, a positive attitude toward the future can buffer against these negative emotions (Chen et al. 2021). In their longitudinal study, Gallagher et al. (2021) found that higher hope was associated with higher well-being and emotional resilience, as well as lower anxiety and lower COVID-19-related stress.
The relationships between religiosity and hope, as well as between hope and mental health, have been subjects of research for many years. In his study examining the relationship between mental health and religion, Koenig (2018, pp. 52–54) categorizes the contributions of religious beliefs and behaviors to mental health under various headings. According to this categorization, one of the direct or indirect effects of religion on mental health is fostering a hopeful, optimistic, and positive perception of the world. Providing an optimistic outlook on the future, especially in challenging situations, is considered one of the primary functions of religions in offering a framework for meaning-making. Similarly, Pargament (1997) states that religion enhances individuals’ sense of hope as a source of meaning in stressful situations, thereby facilitating coping. Consistent with these theoretical perspectives, Paul Scherz (2018) identifies three religiously grounded responses to health-related challenges: entrusting worries to God as a source of peace, recognizing divine order in nature to foster security amidst uncertainty, and being mindful of social conditions such as environment or relationships that might pose health risks. These perspectives represent various expressions of faith-based hope. Particularly in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, the belief in a compassionate, loving, forgiving God who controls the world and events (Koenig 2018; Kroesbergen-Kamps 2024) indicates a strong connection between religiosity and hope in these societies.
In the context of Turkish Muslim culture, intrinsic religious motivation is significantly shaped by deeply embedded Islamic values such as sincerity (ikhlas), submission (taslimiyyah), and reliance on God (tawakkul). For Turkish Muslims, IRM represents a sincere and profound devotion to God characterized by trust and acceptance of divine wisdom and compassion. This internalized spirituality notably increases individuals’ hope, particularly during times of crisis or uncertainty (Baysal 2024). The belief in divine mercy and the conviction that life’s difficulties and adversities hold wisdom and purpose further reinforce hope. Thus, the religious belief that God wishes the best for His creatures, is compassionate and omniscient can nurture individuals’ hope, facilitating more positive expectations for the future and psychological resilience. Indeed, the finding of this study that religiosity reduces future anxiety and burnout through increased hope aligns closely with this culturally grounded theoretical framework. The higher levels of hope observed among elderly participants with strong intrinsic religious motivation reflect deep-rooted spiritual trust and optimism inherent in Turkish-Islamic cultural values.
Against burnout syndrome, which is characterized by feelings such as loss of emotional value, depersonalization, and emotional exhaustion (Bianchi et al. 2015), the protective role of hope and an optimistic perspective is clear. Because a qualified perception of hope can be a triggering force at the point of using one’s resources correctly by increasing one’s awareness. From a positive psychology perspective, hope has several functions. In this context, hope can provide motivation, resilience, self-efficacy, and a sense of meaning in life beyond providing the ability to cope with stress (Feldman and Snyder 2005). In addition, it is an important factor that positively affects emotional well-being and psychological well-being (Snyder and Lopez 2001). In a study conducted among university students in Brazil, optimism and hope were strongly associated with lower anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. While gratitude supported these positive constructs, it also showed a negative link to anxiety, possibly due to fear of losing what one is grateful for in times of crisis (Almansa et al. 2024). In support of these functions of hope, in this study, hope played a role as an important mediating factor in lower burnout feelings of older individuals with high religiosity.
Pandemic and disease-related processes experienced outside of the daily flow of life, such as quarantine and social and physical isolation, are factors that can disrupt a person’s adaptation to life and emotional balance. Our research results show that those who have been infected with the virus and the elderly who have lost a relative due to the virus feel more burnout and exhaustion; higher religiosity facilitates this adaptation process through hope and can prevent negative expectations for the future, anxiety, and feelings of burnout.

5. Implications and Limitations

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a global crisis unlike any other in history. It has transcended the boundaries of a purely medical emergency and deeply impacted societal resilience and psychological well-being. In the event of future pandemics, the findings of this study may inform efforts to safeguard the health and emotional well-being of the elderly. Given their developmental stage, it is natural for older adults to experience increased hopelessness, pessimism, burnout, and anxiety about the future. Moreover, nearly all developmental theories suggest that religiosity tends to increase with age (McCullough et al. 2000). Therefore, integrating religious and spiritual dimensions into crisis response strategies and healthcare policies may open valuable pathways toward psychological support and resilience. Furthermore, policymakers and practitioners are advised to avoid stigmatizing language such as “risk group” or “vulnerable population”, which may inadvertently contribute to social exclusion or psychological burden (Petretto and Pili 2020).
This study also has several strengths and limitations. One strength is the face-to-face data collection from an exclusively elderly sample, ensuring contextual validity. However, the cross-sectional nature of the design limits causal inferences. Future research would benefit from longitudinal approaches that examine temporal dynamics between intrinsic religious motivation, hope, burnout, and future anxiety. Another limitation is the exclusive use of the intrinsic religious motivation scale. Including extrinsic religious motivation in future work may offer a more comprehensive understanding of how varying forms of religiosity influence psychological outcomes. In addition, qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews could reveal how older adults experience hope through religiosity in more nuanced ways. A large portion of participants resided in rural areas where pandemic-related regulations were inconsistently enforced. Thus, a comparative study with elderly populations from urban settings could help identify contextual variation in coping and psychological outcomes. Moreover, as Daoust (2020) observed, older individuals may not always interpret or internalize public health directives as expected, due to generational norms and social context.
Lastly, future research could benefit from broader sociocultural and institutional perspectives. For example, Emmerich’s (2022) study on Turkish Islamic organizations in Germany demonstrates how religious leadership and institutional dynamics interacted during a large-scale crisis. Similarly, the systematic review by M. Lee et al. (2021) shows that religious communities played both supportive and risk-enhancing roles during the early phase of COVID-19. In addition, the WHO (2024b) report highlights the critical roles played by faith-based partners during the pandemic, particularly in hospital care, community education, and the prevention of transmission. Including such comparative insights can enrich our understanding of the broader contexts in which individual religious coping occurs and shed light on the diverse strategies that religious communities develop in the face of uncertainty and risk.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.E.V., H.G., H.H., and M.Y.; methodology, M.E.V. and M.Y.; software, M.E.V. and M.Y.; validation, M.E.V., H.G., H.H., and M.Y.; formal analysis, M.E.V. and M.Y.; investigation, M.E.V., H.G., and H.H.; resources, M.E.V.; data curation, M.E.V., H.G., and H.H.; writing—original draft, M.E.V. and M.Y.; writing—review and editing, M.E.V. and M.Y.; supervision, M.Y.; project administration, M.E.V., H.G., and H.H.; funding acquisition, M.E.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Development Foundation, grant number 02025004008401.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All study procedures involving human participants followed institutional and national research committee ethical standards, the 1964 Helsinki Declaration, and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval was also received from the Gümüşhane University Ethics Board (Reference: E-95674917-108.99-71601).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Data for this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abdel-Khalek, Ahmed M., Laura Nuño, Juana Gómez-Benito, and David Lester. 2019. The Relationship Between Religiosity and Anxiety: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Religion and Health 58: 1847–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Abdul Rashid, Mohd Hazreen, Nurul Azreen Hashim, Azlina Wati Nikmat, and Mariam Mohamad. 2021. Religiosity, Religious Coping and Psychological Distress among Muslim University Students in Malaysia. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 10: 150–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abeyta, Andrew A., and Elizabeth N. Blake. 2020. The Existential Implications of Individual Differences in Religious Defensive and Growth Orientations: Fundamentalism, Quest Religiosity, and Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religiosity. In The Science of Religion, Spirituality, and Existentialism. Edited by Kenneth E. Vail and Clay Routledge. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 351–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abu-Raiya, Hisham, Ali Ayten, Mustafa Tekke, and Qutaiba Agbaria. 2019. On the Links between Positive Religious Coping, Satisfaction with Life and Depressive Symptoms among a Multinational Sample of Muslims. International Journal of Psychology 54: 678–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abu-Raiya, Hisham, Kenneth I. Pargament, and Annette Mahoney. 2011. Examining Coping Methods with Stressful Interpersonal Events Experienced by Muslims Living in the United States Following the 9/11 Attacks. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 3: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aflakseir, Abdulaziz, and Peter G. Coleman. 2009. The Influence of Religious Coping on the Mental Health of Disabled Iranian War Veterans. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 12: 175–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. AlHadi, Ahmad N., Mohammed A. Alarabi, and Khulood M. AlMansoor. 2021. Mental Health and Its Association with Coping Strategies and Intolerance of Uncertainty during the COVID-19 Pandemic among the General Population in Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Psychiatry 21: 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Allport, Gordon W., and J. Michael Ross. 1967. Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5: 432–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Almansa, Joice Franciele Friedrich, Tatiane Trivilin, Claudio Simon Hutz, Rosa Maria Martins de Almeida, Ana Claudia Souza Vazquez, and Clarissa Pinto Pizarro de Freitas. 2024. Mental Health of Brazilian Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Gratitude, Optimism, and Hope in Reducing Anxiety. Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy 46: e20220496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Angın, Yasemin. 2021. Covid-19 Pandemi Sürecinden Geçerken Sağlık Çalışanlarında Dini Başa Çıkma ve Psikolojik Sağlamlık İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi 25: 331–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Asgari Ghoncheh, Karim, Chieh-hsiu Liu, Chung-Ying Lin, Mohsen Saffari, Mark D. Griffiths, and Amir H. Pakpour. 2021. Fear of COVID-19 and Religious Coping Mediate the Associations between Religiosity and Distress among Older Adults. Health Promotion Perspectives 11: 316–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bakır, Nazife, Pelin Irmak Vural, and Caner Demir. 2021. Relationship of Depression, Anxiety and Stress Levels with Religious Coping Strategies among Turkish Pregnant Women during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 3379–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Batmaz, Hakan, and Kadir Meral. 2022. The Mediating Effect of Religiousness in the Relationship between Psychological Resilience and Fear of COVID-19 in Turkey. Journal of Religion and Health 61: 1684–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bauer, Joachim, Axel Stamm, Katharina Virnich, Karen Wissing, Udo Müller, Michael Wirsching, and Uwe Schaarschmidt. 2006. Correlation Between Burnout Syndrome and Psychological and Psychosomatic Symptoms among Teachers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 79: 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Baysal, Selameddin. 2024. Doğal Afetler Karşısında Dini Tutum ve Ritüellerin Rolü. Sosyolojik Bağlam Dergisi 5: 142–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bianchi, Renzo, Irvin Sam Schonfeld, and Eric Laurent. 2015. Is It Time to Consider the ‘Burnout Syndrome’ a Distinct Illness? Frontiers in Public Health 3: 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bonelli, Raphael M., and Harold G. Koenig. 2013. Mental Disorders, Religion and Spirituality 1990 to 2010: A Systematic Evidence-Based Review. Journal of Religion and Health 52: 657–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Briggs, Robert, Cillian P. McDowell, Céline De Looze, Rose Anne Kenny, and Mark Ward. 2021. Depressive Symptoms Among Older Adults Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 22: 2251–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Byrd, Kevin R., Andrew Hageman, and Dawn Belle Isle. 2007. Intrinsic Motivation and Subjective Well-Being: The Unique Contribution of Intrinsic Religious Motivation. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 17: 141–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Byrne, Barbara M. 2016. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed. Oxford: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chamaa, Farah, Hisham F. Bahmad, Batoul Darwish, Jana M. Kobeissi, Malak Hoballah, Sibell B. Nassif, Yara Ghandour, Jean-Paul Saliba, Nada Lawand, and Wassim Abou-Kheir. 2021. PTSD in the COVID-19 Era. Current Neuropharmacology 19: 2164–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, Yilin, Hui Xu, Chuanshi Liu, Jing Zhang, and Chenguang Guo. 2021. Association Between Future Orientation and Anxiety in University Students during COVID-19 Outbreak: The Chain Mediating Role of Optimization in Primary-Secondary Control and Resilience. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12: 699388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. COVID-19—Coronavirus Statistics—Worldometer. 2024. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  24. Daoust, Jean-François. 2020. Elderly People and Responses to COVID-19 in 27 Countries. PLoS ONE 15: e0235590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Duarte, Ivone, Andreia Teixeira, Luísa Castro, Sílvia Marina, Carla Ribeiro, Cristina Jácome, Vera Martins, Inês Ribeiro-Vaz, Hugo Celso Pinheiro, Andreia Rodrigues Silva, and et al. 2020. Burnout among Portuguese Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. BMC Public Health 20: 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Duplaga, Mariusz, and Marcin Grysztar. 2021. The Association Between Future Anxiety, Health Literacy and the Perception of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare 9: 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Edara, Inna Reddy, Fides del Castillo, Gregory S. Ching, and Clarence Darro del Castillo. 2021. Religiosity and Contentment Among Teachers in the Philippines During COVID-19 Pandemic: Mediating Effects of Resilience, Optimism, and Well-Being. Religions 12: 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Emmerich, Arndt. 2022. Masks, Mosques and Lockdowns: Islamic Organisations Navigating the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany. Entangled Religions 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Feldman, David B., and C. Richard Snyder. 2005. Hope and the Meaningful Life: Theoretical and Empirical Associations Between Goal-Directed Thinking and Life Meaning. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 24: 401–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Galanis, Petros, Aglaia Katsiroumpa, Panayota Sourtzi, Olga Siskou, Olympia Konstantakopoulou, and Daphne Kaitelidou. 2023. The COVID-19 Burnout Scale: Development and Initial Validation. Journal of Mental Health 32: 985–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gallagher, Matthew W., and Shane J. Lopez. 2009. Positive Expectancies and Mental Health: Identifying the Unique Contributions of Hope and Optimism. The Journal of Positive Psychology 4: 548–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gallagher, Matthew W., Lia J. Smith, Angela L. Richardson, Johann M. D’Souza, and Laura J. Long. 2021. Examining the Longitudinal Effects and Potential Mechanisms of Hope on COVID-19 Stress, Anxiety, and Well-Being. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 50: 234–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Girdhar, Ritika, Vivek Srivastava, and Sujata Sethi. 2020. Managing Mental Health Issues Among Elderly During COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Geriatric Care and Research 7: 32–35. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gorsuch, Richard L. 1994. Toward Motivational Theories of Intrinsic Religious Commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 33: 315–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Heid, Allison R., Francine Cartwright, Maureen Wilson-Genderson, and Rachel Pruchno. 2021. Challenges Experienced by Older People During the Initial Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Gerontologist 61: 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hoge, Dean R. 1972. A Validated Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 11: 369–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hooper, Daire, Joseph Coughlan, and Michael R. Mullen. 2008. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6: 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1998. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychological Methods 3: 424–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6: 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hwang, Tzung-Jeng, Kiran Rabheru, Carmelle Peisah, William Reichman, and Manabu Ikeda. 2020. Loneliness and Social Isolation During the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Psychogeriatrics 32: 1217–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jalili, Mohammad, Mahtab Niroomand, Fahimeh Hadavand, Kataun Zeinali, and Akbar Fotouhi. 2021. Burnout Among Healthcare Professionals During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 94: 1345–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Javaid, Zartashia Kynat, Saman Naeem, Syeda Sahar Haroon, Sidra Mobeen, and Nida Ajmal. 2024. Religious Coping and Mental Well-Being: A Systematic Review on Muslim University Students. International Journal of Islamic Studies and Culture 4: 363–76. [Google Scholar]
  43. Karaca, Faruk. 2001. Din Psikolojisinde Metot Sorunu ve Bir Dindarlık Ölçeğinin Türk Toplumuna Standardizasyonu [Methodological Problem in Psychology of Religion and Standardization of a Religiosity Scale for Turkish Society]. EKEV Akademi Dergisi 3: 187–201. [Google Scholar]
  44. Karaca, Faruk, and Mebrure Doğan. 2021. COVID-19 Salgın Sürecinde Aktif Çalışan Sağlık Çalışanlarında Ölüm Kaygısı Ile Dini Başa Çıkma Arasındaki İlişki Üzerine Bir Araştırma [An Investigation on the Relationship between Death Anxiety and Religious Coping of Actively Working Health Care Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic]. İlahiyat Tetkikleri Dergisi 55: 327–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. 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] [PubMed]
  46. Kızılgeçit, Muhammed, and Murat Yıldırım. 2023. Fear of COVID-19, Death Depression and Death Anxiety: Religious Coping as a Mediator. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 45: 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Kline, Rex B. 2015. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modelling. In Methodology in the Social Sciences. New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  48. Koenig, Harold G. 2018. Religion and Mental Health: Research and Clinical Applications. Cambridge: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Konaszewski, Karol, Sebastian Binyamin Skalski-Bednarz, Małgorzata Niesiobędzka, and Janusz Surzykiewicz. 2022. Religious Struggles and Mental Health in the Polish Population during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mediation Effects of Resilience as an “Ability to Bounce Back”. Journal of Beliefs & Values 44: 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kroesbergen-Kamps, Johanneke. 2024. God Is in Control: Religious Coping in Sermons About the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Reformed Church in Zambia. Journal of Religion and Health 63: 704–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lakhan, Ram, Amit Agrawal, and Manoj Sharma. 2020. Prevalence of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress During COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice 11: 519–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, Matthew, Grace Yukich, and Rhys H. Williams. 2021. A Divine Infection: A Systematic Review on the Roles of Religious Communities During the Early Stage of COVID-19. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 3131–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, Sherman A., Mary C. Jobe, Amanda A. Mathis, and Jeffrey A. Gibbons. 2020. Incremental Validity of Coronaphobia: Coronavirus Anxiety Explains Depression, Generalized Anxiety, and Death Anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 74: 102268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, Cindy H., Emily Zhang, Ga Tin Fifi Wong, and Sunah Hyun. 2020. Factors Associated with Depression, Anxiety, and PTSD Symptomatology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Clinical Implications for U.S. Young Adult Mental Health. Psychiatry Research 290: 113172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lluch, Cristina, Laura Galiana, Pablo Doménech, and Noemí Sansó. 2022. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Burnout, Compassion Fatigue, and Compassion Satisfaction in Healthcare Personnel: A Systematic Review of the Literature Published During the First Year of the Pandemic. Healthcare 10: 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mahamid, Fayez Azez, and Dana Bdier. 2021. The Association Between Positive Religious Coping, Perceived Stress, and Depressive Symptoms During the Spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Among a Sample of Adults in Palestine: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mahmood, Qaisar Khalid, Sara Rizvi Jafree, Malik Muhammad Sohail, and Muhammad Babar Akram. 2021. A Cross-Sectional Survey of Pakistani Muslims Coping with Health Anxiety Through Religiosity During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Religion and Health 60: 1462–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Malach-Pines, Ayala. 2005. The Burnout Measure, Short Version. International Journal of Stress Management 12: 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Maltby, John, and Liza Day. 2004. Should Never the Twain Meet? Integrating Models of Religious Personality and Religious Mental Health. Personality and Individual Differences 36: 1275–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McCullough, Michael E., William T. Hoyt, David B. Larson, Harold G. Koenig, and Carl Thoresen. 2000. Religious Involvement and Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review. Health Psychology 19: 211–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Menzies, Rachel E., and Ross G. Menzies. 2020. Death Anxiety in the Time of COVID-19: Theoretical Explanations and Clinical Implications. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist 13: e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ok, Üzeyir, Ayşe Burcu Gören, and Nükhet Bayer. 2024. The Effects of COVID-19 on Wellbeing and Resilience among Muslims in Turkey. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 27: 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Oprisan, A., Eduardo Baettig-Arriagada, Carlos Baeza-Delgado, and L. Martí-Bonmatí. 2022. Prevalence of Burnout Syndrome During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Factors. Radiología (English Edition) 64: 119–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Özer, Zülfünaz, Meyreme Aksoy, and Gülcan Bahcecioglu Turan. 2023. The Relationship Between Death Anxiety and Religious Coping Styles in Patients Diagnosed With COVID-19: A Sample in the East of Turkey. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 87: 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Özgüç, Safiye, Emine Kaplan Serin, and Derya Tanriverdi. 2024. Death Anxiety Associated with Coronavirus (COVID-19) Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 88: 823–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pargament, Kenneth I. 1997. The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  67. Park, Crystal L. 2021. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Motivation: Retrospect and Prospect. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 31: 213–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Petretto, Donatella Rita, and Roberto Pili. 2020. Ageing and COVID-19: What Is the Role for Elderly People? Geriatrics 5: 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. 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]
  70. 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]
  71. Rivas, Noel, María López, María-José Castro, Sofía Luis-Vian, Mercedes Fernández-Castro, María-José Cao, Sara García, Veronica Velasco-Gonzalez, and José-María Jiménez. 2021. Analysis of Burnout Syndrome and Resilience in Nurses Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 10470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Roslan, Nurhanis Syazni, Muhamad Saiful Bahri Yusoff, Ab Razak Asrenee, and Karen Morgan. 2021. Burnout Prevalence and Its Associated Factors Among Malaysian Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Pandemic: An Embedded Mixed-Method Study. Healthcare 9: 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Scherz, Paul. 2018. Risk in Christianity and Personalized Medicine: Three Frameworks for Understanding Risk in Scripture. Paper presented at 7th Annual Conference on Medicine & Religion, St. Louis, MO, USA, April 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  74. Seco Ferreira, Diogo Conque, Walter Lisboa Oliveira, Zenith Nara Costa Delabrida, André Faro, and Elder Cerqueira-Santos. 2020. Intolerance of Uncertainty and Mental Health in Brazil During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Suma Psicológica 27: 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Smith, Brooke M., Alexander J. Twohy, and Gregory S. Smith. 2020. Psychological Inflexibility and Intolerance of Uncertainty Moderate the Relationship Between Social Isolation and Mental Health Outcomes During COVID-19. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 18: 162–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Snyder, Charles R. 2002. Hope Theory: Rainbows in the Mind. Psychological Inquiry 13: 249–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Snyder, Charles R., and Shane J. Lopez. 2001. Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  78. Snyder, Charles R., Cheri Harris, John R. Anderson, Sharon A. Holleran, Lori M. Irving, Sandra T. Sigmon, Lauren Yoshinobu, June Gibb, Charyle Langelle, and Pat Harney. 1991. The Will and the Ways: Development and Validation of an Individual-Differences Measure of Hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60: 570–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tabachnick, Barbara G., and Linda S. Fidell. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson, 6 vols. [Google Scholar]
  80. Tarhan, Sinem, and Hasan Bacanlı. 2015. Sürekli Umut Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being 3: 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  81. 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]
  82. Ting, Rachel Sing-Kiat, Pei Hwa Goh, and Esther Zhen-Mei Ong. 2024. A Mixed-Methods Study on Religiosity, Pandemic Beliefs, and Psychological Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Malaysia. Pastoral Psychology 73: 107–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Turna, Jasmine, Jasmine Zhang, Nina Lamberti, Beth Patterson, William Simpson, Ana Paula Francisco, Carolina Goldman Bergmann, and Michael Van Ameringen. 2021. Anxiety, Depression and Stress During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from a Cross-Sectional Survey. Journal of Psychiatric Research 137: 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Van Tilburg, Theo G., Stephanie Steinmetz, Elske Stolte, Henriëtte Van der Roest, and Daniel H. De Vries. 2021. Loneliness and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study Among Dutch Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 76: e249–e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. VandenBos, Gary R. 2013. APA Dictionary of Clinical Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. World Health Organization (WHO). 2024a. Faith-Based Partners Voice Support for Pandemic Accord. March 28. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/28-03-2024-faith-based-partners-voice-support-for-pandemic-accord (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  87. World Health Organization (WHO). 2024b. World Health Organization. Available online: https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases?n=c (accessed on 15 February 2024).
  88. Yildirim, Hilal, Kevser Işik, and Rukuye Aylaz. 2021. The Effect of Anxiety Levels of Elderly People in Quarantine on Depression During COVID-19 Pandemic. Social Work in Public Health 36: 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yıldırım, Murat, and Abdurrahim Güler. 2021. Coronavirus Anxiety, Fear of COVID-19, Hope and Resilience in Healthcare Workers: A Moderated Mediation Model Study. Health Psychology Report 9: 388–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yıldırım, Murat, and Fatma Solmaz. 2022. COVID-19 Burnout, COVID-19 Stress and Resilience: Initial Psychometric Properties of COVID-19 Burnout Scale. Death Studies 46: 524–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yıldırım, Murat, Muhammed Kızılgeçit, İsmail Seçer, Fuat Karabulut, Yasemin Angın, Abdullah Dağcı, Muhammet 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 60: 2371–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Yıldırım, Murat, Ömer Kaynar, Gökmen Arslan, and Francesco Chirico. 2023. Fear of COVID-19, Resilience, and Future Anxiety: Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Dark Future Scale. Journal of Personalized Medicine 13: 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zaleski, Zbigniew. 1996. Future Anxiety: Concept, Measurement, and Preliminary Research. Personality and Individual Differences 21: 165–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zarzycka, Beata, Kamil Tomaka, Dariusz Krok, Sebastian Pietrzak, and Katarzyna Adamczyk. 2025. The Role of Religious Coping and Commitment in the Link Between COVID-19-Related Concerns and Mental Health. Journal for the Study of Spirituality, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Religions 16 00666 g001
Figure 1. The total effect of IRM on the COVID-19 burnout and future anxiety. * p < 0.05.
Figure 1. The total effect of IRM on the COVID-19 burnout and future anxiety. * p < 0.05.
Religions 16 00666 g001
Religions 16 00666 g002
Figure 2. A structural model illustrating the mediating role of hope between intrinsic religious motivation and psychological outcomes. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. A structural model illustrating the mediating role of hope between intrinsic religious motivation and psychological outcomes. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Religions 16 00666 g002
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.
VariableGroupFrequencyPercentage
GenderMale19645.9
Female23154.1
Age group55–6418443.1
65–7417340.5
75–846014.1
85+102.3
Marital statusSingle4510.5
Married31974.7
Divorced/Separated6314.8
Social environmentVillage23254.3
District7517.6
City12028.1
COVID-19 experienceYes24056.2
No18743.8
Having chronic diseasesYes23956.0
No18844.0
Death of a relative due to COVID-19Yes20147.1
No22652.9
Being under quarantineYes27163.5
No15636.5
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, reliability, and correlation analysis for the study variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, reliability, and correlation analysis for the study variables.
Variable1234
IRM-
Hope0.305 **-
COVID-19 burnout−0.158 **−0.242 **-
Future anxiety−0.083−0.258 **0.316 **-
Mean3.175.292.551.47
SD0.601.170.900.50
Range0–41–81–50–3
Cronbach (α)0.760.890.87-
Skewness−0.749−0.6960.2440.299
Kurtosis0.1180.1220.122−1.199
Note: ** p < 0.001. IRM: Intrinsic Religious Motivation. SD: Standard Deviation.
Table 3. t-test findings for differentiation of COVID-19 burnout according to some study variables.
Table 3. t-test findings for differentiation of COVID-19 burnout according to some study variables.
VariableGroupMSDdftp95% CI
LowerUpper
COVID-19 experienceYes2.640.8673962.920.0040.0870.443
No2.380.936
Having a chronic diseaseYes2.560.8883960.8630.389−0.1010.259
No2.480.931
Death of a relative due to COVID-19Yes2.730.8813964.440.0000.2200.570
No2.340.891
Being under quarantineYes2.590.8743961.720.085−0.0220.345
No2.420.953
Table 4. Results of the mediating effect of the hope variable in the relationships between IRM, COVID-19 burnout, and future anxiety.
Table 4. Results of the mediating effect of the hope variable in the relationships between IRM, COVID-19 burnout, and future anxiety.
PathHopeCOVID-19 BurnoutFuture Anxiety
β SEβ SEβ SE
IRM (c path) −0.098 * 0.076
R2 0.010
IRM (d path) −0.142 * 0.133
R2 0.020
IRM (a path)0.35 ** 0.254
R2 0.125
IRM (d′ path) −0.002 −0.003
IRM (c path) −0.046 ** −0.099
Hope (b path) −0.258 ** −0.191
R2 0.077
Hope (e path) −0.259 ** −0.123
R2 0.068
IRM > Hope > Future anxiety −0.092(CI = −0.148 | −0.046)
IRM > Hope > COVID-19 burnout −0.091(CI = −0.146 | −0.041)
Note: n = 427; ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05; CI: Confidence Interval.
Table 5. Model fit statistics.
Table 5. Model fit statistics.
Fit IndexValue
χ2726,602
df367
χ2/df1.98
GFI0.90
AGFI0.88
NFI0.87
IFI0.93
TLI0.92
CFI0.93
RMSEA0.048
Note. Χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation. Values indicate an acceptable to good model fit based on conventional cutoff criteria (e.g., Hu and Bentler 1999).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vural, M.E.; Geçer, H.; Hacıkeleşoğlu, H.; Yıldırım, M. Holding onto Hope in Times of Crisis: The Mediating Role of Hope in the Link Between Religious Motivation, Pandemic Burnout, and Future Anxiety Among Turkish Older Adults. Religions 2025, 16, 666. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060666

AMA Style

Vural ME, Geçer H, Hacıkeleşoğlu H, Yıldırım M. Holding onto Hope in Times of Crisis: The Mediating Role of Hope in the Link Between Religious Motivation, Pandemic Burnout, and Future Anxiety Among Turkish Older Adults. Religions. 2025; 16(6):666. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060666

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vural, Muhammet Enes, Harun Geçer, Hızır Hacıkeleşoğlu, and Murat Yıldırım. 2025. "Holding onto Hope in Times of Crisis: The Mediating Role of Hope in the Link Between Religious Motivation, Pandemic Burnout, and Future Anxiety Among Turkish Older Adults" Religions 16, no. 6: 666. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060666

APA Style

Vural, M. E., Geçer, H., Hacıkeleşoğlu, H., & Yıldırım, M. (2025). Holding onto Hope in Times of Crisis: The Mediating Role of Hope in the Link Between Religious Motivation, Pandemic Burnout, and Future Anxiety Among Turkish Older Adults. Religions, 16(6), 666. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060666

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