Religious Coping Strategies

Religious Coping Strategies: Coping strategy means to deal or overcome with a difficult situation, and a detailed plan or the skills for achieving the success in difficult situations.

Coping strategies can be defined as: Coping strategies refer to the specific efforts, both behavioral and psychological, that people employ to master, tolerate, reduce, or minimize stressful events (Shelley,Taylo 1998).

Religious coping involves the use of cognitive or behavioral strategies that are based on religious beliefs or practices to help manage emotional stress or physical discomfort (Koenig, 1994).

Researchers have shown consistent correlation between religious coping strategies and well-being (Folkman, 1997; Pargament, Smith et al., 1998). The utilization

Styles of Religious Coping

Research identifies three basic styles of religious coping: self-directed, deferring, and collaborative (Pargament, Kennell, Hathaway, Grevengoed, Newman, & Jones, 1988).

The self-directing style: Reflects the belief that God has little direct influence in the lives of individuals; therefore it is the individual’s responsibility to solve problems for themselves. The self-directed style of religious coping emphasizes the free will given by God that allows for the individual to solve the problem on their own.

The deferring style: Emphasizes the choice to wait for God to directly intervene in human affairs to provide a solution to the presenting problem. The deferring coping style is when individuals rely heavily on God and delegate their stress without taking personal responsibility for the situation.

The collaborative coping style: Involves a decision to share responsibility with God for solving the problem. The collaborative style of religious coping involves an active and internalized personal exchange with

This, he suggests, involves a positive move against learned helplessness, or the tendency to think pessimistically when faced with successive negative situations in which one appears to have no control over outcomes. Pessimists, Seligman argues, are prone to blaming themselves for bad things, while optimists are naturally inclined to be less affected by negative events, recognising the possible external factors involved.6 By using his positive thinking techniques, Seligman suggests, optimism can be learned in order to improve mental well-being (which, ironically, implies that pessimists are rather optimistic about the curative powers of Seligman’s solution to their negative