Hope and Well-being in Vulnerable Contexts During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Does Religious Coping Matter?

Abstract

To identify potential protective mechanisms that might buffer the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on well-being, the current set of studies (NStudy 1 = 1172, NStudy 2 = 451) examined the roles of hope and religious coping (positive and negative) in promoting well-being during stay-at-home orders that were implemented in Colombia and South Africa. After controlling for relevant sociodemographic characteristics (Study 1), subjective health complaints, and sleep quality (Study 2), hope was positively associated with well-being and the relation between hope and well-being was moderated by religious coping. Whilst well-being was highest when levels of hope were high (irrespective of positive or negative religious coping levels), when reported hope was low, well-being tended to be higher when positive religious coping was high (Study 1) and negative religious coping was low (Study 2). Implications of the findings for maintaining well-being during a public health crisis are discussed.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20
Hope and well-being in vulnerable contexts during
the COVID-19 pandemic: does religious coping
matter?
Victor Counted, Kenneth I. Pargament, Andrea Ortega Bechara, Shaun Joynt
& Richard G. Cowden
To cite this article: Victor Counted, Kenneth I. Pargament, Andrea Ortega Bechara, Shaun Joynt
& Richard G. Cowden (2022) Hope and well-being in vulnerable contexts during the COVID-19
pandemic: does religious coping matter?, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17:1, 70-81, DOI:
10.1080/17439760.2020.1832247
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1832247
Published online: 03 Dec 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7829
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 30 View citing articles

Hope and well-being in vulnerable contexts during the COVID-19 pandemic:
does religious coping matter?
Victor Counted
a
, Kenneth I. Pargament
b
, Andrea Ortega Bechara
c
, Shaun Joynt
d
and Richard G. Cowden
e
a
School of Psychology, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia;
b
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling
Green, KY, USA;
c
Department of Psychology, Universidad Del Sinú, Montería, Colombia;
d
Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of the
Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa;
e
Human Flourishing Program, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA, USA
ABSTRACT
To identify potential protective mechanisms that might buer the eects of the COVID-19 pan-
demic on well-being, the current set of studies (N
Study 1
= 1172, N
Study 2
= 451) examined the roles
of hope and religious coping (positive and negative) in promoting well-being during periods when
stringent stay-at-home orders were implemented in Colombia and South Africa to control the
spread of SARS-CoV-2. After controlling for relevant sociodemographic characteristics (Studies 1
and 2), subjective health complaints, and sleep quality (Study 2), hope was positively associated
with well-being and the relation between hope and well-being was moderated by religious coping.
Whilst well-being was highest when levels of hope were high (irrespective of positive or negative
religious coping levels), when reported hope was low, well-being tended to be higher when
positive religious coping was high (Study 1) and negative religious coping was low (Study 2).
Implications of the ndings for maintaining well-being during a public health crisis are discussed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 25 August 2020
Accepted 15 September 2020
KEYWORDS
COVID-19; hope; well-being;
religious coping; vulnerable
contexts
The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome cor-
onavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) originated from China in late
2019. On March 11
th
, 2020, the World Health
Organization announced coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) as a global health pandemic. By the end of
March 2020, people in almost every part of the world
had been aected by the various public health control
measures that were implemented to limit transmission
of the virus (Fore, 2020). Epidemiological forecasting of
infection and mortality rates for the rst wave of SARS-
CoV-2 triggered large-scale stay-at-home orders in many
countries and states, particularly in low- and middle-
income countries where there were concerns about the
preparedness and capacity of healthcare systems to suc-
cessfully meet the projected health needs of local popu-
lations during the public health crisis. South Africa and
Colombia implemented some of the strictest stay-at-
home regulations in the world, which banned social
gatherings and heavily restricted non-essential travel
and activities (Trenchard, 2020). The Colombian govern-
ment imposed one of the longest lockdowns of any
nation during the COVID-19 pandemic (Emblin, 2020).
Although the threat that SARS-CoV-2 poses to physi-
cal health is central to the public health control mea-
sures that have been implemented around the world,
the implications that strict lockdown regulations have
had on psychological well-being are far broader. During
the most stringent stay-at-home order periods intro-
duced in Colombia and South Africa, public and private
institutions were forced to shift their operations or close
entirely. Unemployment rates increased drastically, and
the economies of each country came to a grim halt.
Alongside concerns about nancial security, people
had their daily routines disrupted indenitely and were
abruptly isolated from the people and places that were
part of their daily lives when stay-at-home orders
required citizens to emplace themselves at home.
Beyond the economic and healthcare strains of the
COVID-19 pandemic, it poses a profound threat to
human connection (Hagerty & Williams, 2020). The
causes of COVID-19-related psychological distress are
multifactorial and are likely to vary across individuals.
Findings of recent studies (e.g., Hagerty & Williams, 2020;
Hamouche, 2020) suggest that COVID-19-related psy-
chological distress may be triggered by a combination
of factors at environmental (e.g., social disconnected-
ness, connement), organizational (e.g., job insecurity,
infobesity versus the unknown), and individual levels
(e.g., the threat of contagion and potential death, per-
ception of safety, nancial loss). The specic pathways
by which the public health crisis impacts psychological
CONTACT Victor Counted connect@victorcounted.org
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
2022, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 70–81
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1832247
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

well-being might be particularly devastating for those
with pre-existing mental health issues.
COVID-19 and related public health control measures
that have been implemented have implications for mul-
tiple domains of well-being (e.g., psychological, social).
In vulnerable contexts where an assortment of pre-exist-
ing social-structural disadvantages are prevalent, the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on well-being is likely
to be magnied (Hagerty & Williams, 2020). To better
understand psychological processes that may be
involved in sustaining well-being among people
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the present set
of studies examine hope and religious coping as
resources that may support the well-being of people
living under lockdown conditions within contexts of
social-structural vulnerability.
Hope and well-being in a health pandemic
As a cognitive-motivational concept, hope refers to the
capacity of a person to identify pathways to goals and
harness agency to achieve desired outcomes of goal-
oriented pursuits (Snyder, 2000, 2002). The pathway
dimension involves the perceived capacity to generate
potentially useful ways of accomplishing desired goals,
whereas the agency dimension represents an individual’s
self-ecacy for executing desired goals that support well-
being (Snyder, 2000). The agency and pathways dimen-
sions of hopeful thinking are the experience of (both trait
and state) hope itself (Chang et al., 2013). Trait hope,
which is one’s dispositional tendency to experience
hope, can be built alongside state hope, which is one’s
current state of hopefulness (Snyder, 2000). Research
indicates that both trait and state hope have a positive
eect on well-being (Ciarrochi et al., 2015; Madan &
Pakenham, 2014). Considering the psychological costs of
COVID-19-related stressors (Hamouche, 2020), hopeful
thinking might be a valuable resource that enables peo-
ple to sustain or recover well-being.
In the midst of the obstacles created by COVID-19 and
related homebound restrictions, hope is likely to moti-
vate people to identify eective ways of achieving
desired goals that contribute to well-being. Hope is
related to better psychological adjustment in response
to a health crisis (Madan & Pakenham, 2014) and lower
levels of psychological distress (Kenney, Lude, Elfstrom,
& Smithson, 2012). Previous research suggests that peo-
ple with higher levels of hope tend to be more accepting
of a health crisis (Miller-Smedema et al., 2010) and may
have lower threat perceptions than those with low levels
of hope (Kennedy et al., 2009). Amid the unpredictable
reach of the COVID-19 pandemic, hope represents a
psychological resource that could enable people to
overcome setbacks or maintain progress towards goal
attainment while under stay-at-home orders (Schwarzer
& Luszczynska, 2008).
Hope, religious coping, and well-being
Religious resources have been found to facilitate the
coping responses of religious individuals (Aten et al.,
2019). The way people respond to stressors by drawing
from religion or their relation to the sacred has been
conceptualized as religious coping (Pargament, 2001).
Positive religious coping rests on a secure relationship
with the sacred, a benevolent view of the universe, and a
sense of spiritual connectedness with others. Positive
religious coping methods have generally been asso-
ciated with improved well-being and individual growth
amid life stressors (Chen et al., 2019; Prati & Pietrantoni,
2009). However, not all forms of religious coping are
necessarily positive. Negative religious coping (also
referred to as religious/spiritual struggles) reects a ten-
uous relation to the sacred, an ominous view of the
world, and religious/spiritual struggles with others. In
contrast to positive religious coping, negative religious
coping is associated with poorer mental health and well-
being among people facing stressful situations
(Pargament, 2001).
Although hope may be helpful for sustaining well-
being during the COVID-19 pandemic, research has
found that the protective role of hope in supporting
well-being may be suppressed by the negative eects of
disaster-related stress (Chen et al., 2019). Therefore, hope
may not be sucient on its own for dealing with stressors
experienced during the health pandemic (Hamouche,
2020). One alternative resource that has been found to
support well-being in the midst of stressful life events is
religious coping (Aten et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019). Use
of positive religious coping strategies may enable people
to relinquish their circumstances to the divine in a way
that sustains their capacity to imagine the possibilities of
overcoming the challenges of the COVID-19 health crisis
(Sandage & Morgan, 2014). On the other hand, negative
religious coping may evoke further distress by triggering
spiritual tensions that disrupt a person’s sense of security
with God or the sacred (Pargament & Ano, 2006). When
hope is felt to be in short supply, use of negative religious
coping strategies might contribute further to the burden
of successfully overcoming stressors experienced during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The present research
Hopeful thinking may be a valuable resource for promot-
ing well-being amid the complications of the COVID-19
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 71

pandemic, particularly in under-resourced contexts
where the implications of a public health crisis and lock-
downs are likely to be exacerbated (Govender et al.,
2020). To shed light on the dialectical nature of hopeful
thinking in vulnerable contexts that may be dispropor-
tionately aected by the consequences of the public
health crisis, one purpose of the current set of studies
was to examine the relation between (trait and state)
hope and well-being during homebound restrictions
tied to the COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia and South
Africa. Given the pervasive social-structural disadvan-
tages that exist in many developing countries (e.g., fra-
gile health systems, economic inequality), religious
coping may be an alternative resource that supports
well-being during a time when people are faced with
uncertainty about the attainability of their goals or a
hopeful perspective about goal-oriented pursuits that
are dicult to revive. Thus, a second purpose of the
current studies was to examine the role of religious
coping in supporting well-being, particularly when
hope may not represent a reasonable resource for peo-
ple who are constrained by the challenges of the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Study 1
In Study 1, we examined the associations of trait hope
and religious coping with well-being in a sample of
Colombians who were subjected to stay-at-home orders
during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that
trait hope would associate positively with well-being.
We expected religious coping to be associated with
well-being, such that positive religious coping would
be related to higher levels of well-being and negative
religious coping would be related to lower levels of well-
being. We also anticipated that the relation between
hope and well-being would be moderated by religious
coping. Specically, it was hypothesized that well-being
would be highest when trait hope levels were high
(regardless of positive or negative religious coping
levels). At low levels of hope, greater well-being was
expected at higher levels of positive religious coping
and lower levels of negative religious coping.
Method
Participants
Data collection for this study occurred from May 12
th
to
25
th
, 2020. This period overlapped with the country-wide
stay-at-home order that had been instituted by the
Colombian government in response to the SARS-CoV-2
outbreak. Sample characteristics (N = 1172) are reported
in Table 1. Participants ranged from 18 to 61 years of age
(M
age
= 21.70, SD = 3.96). A majority of the sample was
female (62.12%) and reported high school equivalency
as their highest level of education (64.59%). Most parti-
cipants self-identied as Christian (77.82%) and were not
currently in a romantic relationship (84.47%).
Measures
Participants responded to the following set of self-report
measures. Internal consistency reliability estimates for all
measures are reported in Table 2.
Table 1. Sample characteristics in Studies 1 and 2.
Study 1
(N = 1172)
Study 2
(N = 451)
Age (years), M ± SD (range) 21.70 ± 3.96
(18–61)
33.54 ± 11.93
(18–74)
Sex, n (%) 1166 451
Female 728 (62.12) 297 (65.85)
Male 438 (37.37) 154 (34.15)
Racial status
a
, n (%) - 451
Asian - 1 (0.22)
Black African - 334 (74.06)
Coloured - 37 (8.20)
Indian - 7 (1.55)
White - 68 (15.08)
Other - 4 (0.89)
Education level, n (%) 1172 451
Less than high school 1 (0.09) 90 (19.96)
Completed high school 757 (64.59) 221 (49.00)
Post-secondary school certificate - 32 (7.10)
Diploma or technical degree 261 (22.27) 68 (15.08)
Bachelor’s degree 89 (7.59) 30 (6.65)
Post-graduate degree (e.g., Hons, MA,
MD, PhD)
4 (0.34) 10 (2.22)
Other post-secondary education (e.g.,
professional education)
60 (5.12) -
Marital status, n (%) 1172 451
Married 26 (2.22) 89 (19.73)
Cohabiting 61 (5.20) 57 (12.64)
In a relationship 95 (8.11) 60 (13.30)
Single 981 (83.70) 209 (46.34)
Divorced 5 (0.43) 20 (4.43)
Separated - 10 (2.22)
Widowed 4 (0.34) 6 (1.33)
Religious status, n (%) 1172 451
Christian 912 (77.82) 374 (82.93)
Muslim 2 (0.17) 18 (3.99)
Taoism 1 (0.09) -
Buddhist 4 (0.34) 0 (0.00)
Something else 44 (3.75) 6 (1.33)
Not religious 209 (17.83) -
Ancestral, tribal, animist, or other
traditional African religion
- 26 (5.76)
Hindu - 2 (0.44)
Jewish - 1 (0.22)
Atheist - 1 (0.22)
Agnostic - 1 (0.22)
Nothing in particular - 5 (1.11)
Do not know - 1 (0.22)
Prefer not to answer - 16 (3.55)
Note. Percentages (%) are unweighted and may not add up to 100% due to
missing values. Demographic characteristics that do not contain summary
statistics were not assessed.
a
Race categories were adopted from Statistics
South Africa (2016) to maintain consistency with general reporting prac-
tices on race in South Africa.
72 V. COUNTED ET AL.

Well-being
Participants completed the Flourishing Index (FI;
VanderWeele, 2017). The FI consists of 10 questions/
statements that are evenly distributed across ve
domains of well-being (i.e., happiness and life satisfac-
tion, mental and physical health, meaning and purpose,
character and virtue, and close social relationships). An
11-point response format (from 0 to 10) is used to rate
each item (e.g., ‘Overall, how satised are you with life as
a whole these days?’), with orienting labels presented
alongside extreme categories.
Trait hope
The 12-item Adult Dispositional Hope Scale (Snyder et
al., 1991) was administered to assess trait hope. Eight of
the items (e.g., ‘I can think of many ways to get out of a
jam’) are included on the agency and pathways sub-
scales (four items each), which are combined for a total
hope score. The remaining four items serve as distractor
items. In this study, participants used a four-point
response format to rate each of the items
(1 = Denitely false; 4 = Denitely true).
Religious coping
Participants completed the Brief RCOPE (Pargament et
al., 1998, 2000), a 14-item measure that captures positive
and negative religious coping strategies (seven items
each) in response to a negative event. A four-point
response format (1 = Not at all; 4 = A great deal) is
used to rate each item (e.g., ‘Looked for a stronger
connection with God’).
Procedure
Institutional approval to conduct this study was pro-
vided by the ethical review board at Universidad del
Sinú. Undergraduate and graduate students of the
Universidad del Sinú were recruited electronically
using a variety of targeted methods (e.g., email, social
media advertisements, instant messaging). Interested
individuals were invited to access the survey via a
secure weblink. Participants provided electronic
informed consent prior to completing the survey in
Spanish. Two certied translators applied translation
and back-translation techniques to modify the survey
items from English to Spanish. The initial translation
was performed by one of the translators, whereas the
second translator completed back-translation. The
translation process was reviewed by AOB, who also
assisted with resolving any concerns raised by the
translators.
Results
Statistical processing was performed in R (R Core
Team, 2018). The userfriendlyscience package was
used to calculate omega total estimates of internal
consistency reliability. Ordinal omega total values
were computed for measures with ordinal response
formats consisting of fewer than nine response cate-
gories. Bivariate associations among the measures
were estimated using Pearson correlations produced
via the apaTables package. Descriptive statistics, esti-
mated reliability, and zero-order correlations among
the measures are reported in Table 2. Internal con-
sistency reliability values for all measures were ≥ .89.
Using Cohen’s (1992) guidelines of small (.10), med-
ium (.30), and large (.50) to interpret the strength of
zero-order correlations, bivariate associations varied
from negligible to large (r = |.08 to .67|) in eect
size. Trait hope yielded a large positive association
with well-being (r = .67). There was a medium-sized
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates, and bivariate associations among measures in Study 1 (N = 1172) and
Study 2 (N = 451).
M ± SD (range) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Study 1
(1) Well-being 78.78 ± 16.38 (10–100) .92
#
(2) Trait hope 27.36 ± 3.70 (10–32) .67*** [.64, .70] .89
##
(3) Positive religious coping 23.24 ± 5.31 (7–28) .34*** [.29,.39] .35*** [.30,.40] .97
##
(4) Negative religious coping 13.30 ± 5.92 (7–28) −.32*** [−.37, −.26] −.24*** [−.30, −.19] .08** [.02, .14] .94
##
Study 2
(1) Well-being 73.57 ± 17.66 (16–100) .87
#
(2) State hope 37.61 ± 7.98 (10–48) .56*** [.49,.62] .85
##
(3) Positive religious coping 24.91 ± 4.76 (7–28) .31*** [.23,.39] .26*** [.18,.35] .96
##
(4) Negative religious coping 14.59 ± 6.24 (7–28) −.16*** [−.25, −.07] .01 [−.08,.10] .14** [.04,.23] .92
##
(5) Subjective health complaints 10.27 ± 8.19 (0–32) −.30*** [−.39, −.22] −.08 [−.17,.01] −.01 [−.11,.08] .26*** [.17,.35] .92
##
(6) Sleep quality 56.10 ± 27.14 (0–100) .35*** [.27,.43] .17*** [.08,.26] .05 [−.04,.14] −.13** [−.22, −.04] −.40*** [−.48, −.32] -
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. 95% confidence intervals for Pearson correlations in brackets. Internal consistency values (in parentheses along diagonal)
estimated using
#
ordinal omega total and
##
omega total.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 73

positive association found between positive religious
coping and well-being (r = .34). Negative religious
coping evidenced a medium-sized negative associa-
tion with well-being (r = −.32).
A three-step hierarchical regression model was used
to test for the two-way interactions of trait hope ×
positive religious coping and trait hope × negative reli-
gious coping on well-being. Variables were entered into
the model as follows: the ve control sociodemographic
variables (Step one, the base model), trait hope, positive
religious coping, and negative religious coping (Step
two, main eects model), and the interactions of trait
hope × positive religious coping and trait hope × nega-
tive religious coping (Step three, two-way interactions
model). Trait hope and each of the religious coping
variables were mean-centered prior to model
estimation.
Modeling procedures and summary statistics were
computed with the stats and apaTables packages.
Cohen’s f
2
was calculated to assist with evaluating the
strength of global and local eects (Selya et al., 2012).
Cohen’s (1992) guidelines of small (.02), medium (.15),
and large (.35) were used to classify the strength of f
2
values. Squared semi-partial correlations (sr
2
) were cal-
culated to determine the amount of unique variance in
the criterion variable attributable to each independent
variable. Prior to interpretation of model t, assumptions
of normality and homoscedasticity of residuals for the
full model were visually assessed via a Wallyplot techni-
que with the MESS package (see Ekstrøm, 2014). The sets
of QQ plots and residual scatterplots suggested that
assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were
upheld. Variation ination factor (VIF) values computed
with the car package did not reveal any multicollinearity
concerns (all VIF values ≤ 1.52).
Results of the multiple regression analysis are
reported in Table 3. The control variables that were
included in Step one evidenced a small eect (f
2
= .03).
When trait hope, positive religious coping, and negative
religious coping were added to the model in Step two,
there was a large improvement in model t (f
2
= .98).
Inclusion of the two-way interactions of trait hope ×
positive religious coping and trait hope × negative reli-
gious coping in Step three yielded a small improvement
in model t (f
2
= .02). In the nal model, trait hope
(sr
2
= .21) and positive religious coping (sr
2
= .02) were
each positively associated with well-being, whereas
negative religious coping was negatively associated
with well-being (sr
2
= .03). The trait hope × positive
religious coping interaction reached statistical signi-
cance (sr
2
= .01).
The two-way interaction between trait hope and posi-
tive religious coping on well-being is displayed in Figure
1. A simple slopes analysis was performed by specifying
low (one standard deviation below the mean) and high
(one standard deviation above the mean) values for the
moderator variable (i.e., positive religious coping). The
results indicated that trait hope yielded a stronger posi-
tive association with well-being when positive religious
coping was low (b = 2.72, 95% CI [2.48, 2.96], p < .001)
compared to when it was high (b = 2.04, 95% CI [1.76,
2.33], p < .001).
The ndings of this study supported the hypothesis
that trait hope would associate positively with well-
being. The hypothesis that religious coping would be
associated with well-being was also supported, with
higher levels of positive religious coping (and lower
levels of negative religious coping) associated with
higher levels of well-being. The hypothesis that the
relation between trait hope and well-being would be
moderated by religious coping was partially sup-
ported, with an interaction emerging between trait
hope and positive religious coping on well-being.
Whereas well-being was highest when trait hope levels
were high (regardless of positive religious coping
levels), when reported hope was low, well-being
tended to be higher when participants engaged in
more adaptive religious coping responses (e.g., seek-
ing connection with God). Negative religious coping
did not moderate the association between trait hope
and well-being.
Study 2
In Study 2, we sought to extend the ndings of Study 1
in a sample of South Africans who were experiencing
homebound restrictions that were implemented in
response to the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. Second, we
replaced the trait hope measure used in Study 1 with a
measure of state hope in order to assess hope in a way
that might be more sensitive to specic challenges pre-
cipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to Study 1,
we hypothesized that state hope would be positively
associated with well-being. We also expected that posi-
tive religious coping would be positively associated with
well-being, whereas negative religious coping was
expected to associate negatively with well-being. We
also hypothesized that religious coping would moderate
the association between state hope and well-being. We
theorized that well-being would be highest when state
hope levels were high (regardless of positive or negative
religious coping levels). At lower levels of state hope, we
expected that well-being would be higher when positive
religious coping was high and negative religious coping
was low.
74 V. COUNTED ET AL.

Method
Participants
Recruitment of participants took place from April 3
rd
to
30
th
, 2020, which overlapped with a nationwide stay-at-
home order that was instituted by the South African
government to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Sample characteristics (N = 451) are reported in Table
1. Participants ranged from 18 to 74 years of age
(M
age
= 33.54, SD = 11.93). Most of the sample was
female (65.85%), identied racially as black African
(74.06%), and had fullled high school equivalency
requirements (80.04%). A majority of the participants
were not currently in an ongoing romantic relationship
(54.32%) and aliated religiously with Christianity
(82.93%).
Measures
The following set of self-report measures were adminis-
tered to participants. Estimates of internal consistency
for all multi-item measures are reported in Table 2.
Well-being and religious coping
Participants completed the FI (VanderWeele, 2017) and
the Brief RCOPE (Pargament et al., 1998, 2000) measures
that were used in Study 1.
State hope
The Adult State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996) was used
to assess state hope. The measure contains six items (e.g.,
‘If I should nd myself in a jam, I could think of many
ways to get out of it’) that assess goal-directed thinking,
each of which are rated using an eight-point response
format (1 = Denitely false; 8 = Denitely true). The items
are evenly distributed across the subscales of pathways
and agency. A total state hope score is derived by aggre-
gating responses to all items.
Covariates
Participants completed the eight-item Giessen
Subjective Complaints List (Kliem et al., 2017) and a
single-item Sleep Quality Scale (Snyder et al., 2018).
These measures were included in statistical modeling
to control for subjective health and sleep issues that
might be precipitated or exacerbated by stressors
related to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., restricted mobi-
lity, loss of income).
Procedure
Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by
the University of Pretoria and the University of the Free
State. Participants were recruited via a nationally repre-
sentative consumer email database. Prospective partici-
pants were directed to a secure weblink to complete an
electronic version of the survey. Before completing the
survey, participants were presented with elements of
informed consent and gave electronic consent.
Informed consent and the measures were completed in
English.
Results
Descriptive statistics, estimated reliability, and zero-
order correlations among the measures are reported in
Table 2. Omega total values for the multi-item measures
were ≥ .85. Pearson correlations revealed that the asso-
ciations among the measures were negligible to large
(r = |.01 to .56|) in eect size. State hope evidenced a
large positive association with well-being (r = .56). A
medium-sized positive association was found between
positive religious coping and well-being (r = .31).
Table 3. Summary statistics for hierarchical regression analysis in Study 1 (n = 1166).
Independent variable
Criterion variable = Well-being
b [95% CI] sr
2
[95% CI] F (df) R
2
[95% CI] ∆R
2
Step one: Base model (controls only) 6.27*** (5, 1160) .026 [.008, .044] -
(Intercept) 76.38*** [72.18, 80.58]
Age 0.06 [−0.13, 0.25] .00 [−.00, .00]
Sex 3.55*** [2.15, 4.95] .01 [.00, .02]
Education level 0.48 [−1.00, 1.97] .00 [−.00, .00]
Marital status −0.03 [−2.70, 2.63] .00 [−.00, .00]
Religious status 0.23 [−1.65, 2.10] .00 [−.00, .00]
Step two: Main effects model 150.00*** (8, 1157) .509 [.469, .549] .483***
Trait hope 2.38*** [2.17, 2.59] .21 [.18, .25]
Positive religious coping 0.52*** [0.37, 0.67] .02 [.01, .03]
Negative religious coping −0.53*** [−0.65, −0.41] .03 [.02, .05]
Step three: Two-way interactions model 123.60*** (10, 1155) .517 [.478, .556] .008***
Trait hope × positive religious coping −0.06*** [−0.09, −0.03] .01 [.00, .01]
Trait hope × negative religious coping 0.03 [−0.00, 0.06] .00 [−.00, .00]
Note. Dummy codes for demographic variables are as follows: Sex (0 = female, 1 = male), Education level (0 = other education level, 1 = post-secondary
education), Marital status (0 = other, 1 = married or cohabiting), Religious status (0 = not religious, 1 = religious). *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 75

Negative religious coping yielded a small negative asso-
ciation with well-being (r = −.16).
A three-step multiple linear regression model was
used to test for the two-way interactions of state hope
× positive religious coping and state hope × negative
religious coping on well-being. Variable entry order
proceeded as follows: sociodemographic variables,
subjective health complaints, and sleep quality (Step
one, base model), state hope, positive religious cop-
ing, and negative religious coping (Step two, main
eects model), and the interactions of state hope ×
positive religious coping and state hope × negative
religious coping (Step three, two-way interactions
model). Modeling procedures were performed after
mean centering state hope and the religious coping
variables. Sets of Wallyplots indicated that the resi-
duals for the full model were approximately normal
in distribution and that homogeneity of variance
could reasonably be assumed. VIF values for the nal
model did not reveal any multicollinearity concerns
(all VIF values ≤ 1.37).
The multiple regression results are displayed in Table
4. Inclusion of the control variables in Step one yielded a
medium eect (f
2
= .25). The addition of state hope,
positive religious coping, and negative religious coping
in Step two yielded a large improvement in model t
(f
2
= .52). A marginal improvement in the overall t of the
model was found when the two-way interactions of state
hope × positive religious coping and state hope × nega-
tive religious coping were entered in Step three (f
2
= .01).
In the nal model, state hope (sr
2
= .17) and positive
religious coping (sr
2
= .02) associated positively with
well-being, whereas negative religious coping was nega-
tively associated with well-being (sr
2
= .01). The interac-
tion of state hope × negative religious coping reached
statistical signicance (sr
2
= .01).
The two-way interaction between state hope and
negative religious coping on well-being is displayed in
Figure 2. Simple slopes analysis revealed that state hope
had a stronger positive association with well-being
when negative religious coping was high (b = 1.19,
95% CI [0.98, 1.41], p < .001) compared to when it was
low (b = 0.85, 95% CI [0.62, 1.09], p < .001).
Similar to the ndings of Study 1, the hypothesis that
state hope would associate positively with well-being
was supported. There was also evidence in favor of the
hypothesis that religious coping would be associated
with well-being, with higher levels of positive religious
coping (and lower levels of negative religious coping)
associated with higher levels of well-being. The interac-
tion between hope and positive religious coping on
well-being that was found in Study 1 did not replicate
in this study. Instead, there was evidence of an interac-
tion between state hope and negative religious coping
on well-being. Specically, well-being was highest when
levels of state hope were high (irrespective of negative
Figure 1. Two-way interaction of trait hope and positive religious coping on well-being.
76 V. COUNTED ET AL.

religious coping levels). When state hope was low, well-
being tended to be higher when participants did not
express tensions, conicts, and struggles with their reli-
gious faith or experience.
General discussion
The current set of studies extends existing research on
psychological resources that may oer protection
against the eects of the COVID-19 pandemic by exam-
ining relations between hope, religious coping, and well-
being in two under-resourced contexts where pervasive
social-structural disadvantages limit local capacity to
eectively deal with and recover from the public health
crisis. In both studies, we found consistent evidence in
favor of our hypotheses that higher levels of hope (both
trait and state variants), higher levels of positive religious
coping, and lower levels of negative religious coping
would be linked with higher levels of well-being. There
was mixed support for our hypothesis that the relation
between hope and well-being would be moderated by
religious coping. The results of Study 1 revealed that
Table 4. Summary statistics for hierarchical regression analysis in Study 2 (N = 451).
Independent variable
Criterion variable = Well-being
b [95% CI] sr
2
[95% CI] F (df) R
2
[95% CI] ∆R
2
Step one: Base model (controls only) 13.61*** (8, 442) .198 [.133, .262] -
(Intercept) 63.51*** [54.79, 72.23]
Age −0.03 [−0.15, 0.09] .00 [−.00, .00]
Sex 2.35 [−0.32, 5.03] .00 [−.00, .01]
Racial status −0.81 [−4.68, 3.06] .00 [−.00, .00]
Education level −1.05 [−3.73, 1.63] .00 [−.00, .00]
Marital status 2.80 [−0.01, 5.61] .00 [−.00, .01]
Religious status 7.19* [1.67, 12.72] .01 [−.00, .02]
Subjective health complaints −0.32*** [−0.49, −0.15] .02 [−.00, .03]
Sleep quality 0.12*** [0.07, 0.17] .03 [.01, .05]
Step two: Main effects model 35.61*** (11, 439) .472 [.407, .536] .274***
State hope 1.02*** [0.86, 1.19] .17 [.12, .23]
Positive religious coping 0.64*** [0.36, 0.93] .02 [.00, .04]
Negative religious coping −0.34** [−0.56, −0.13] .01 [−.00, .03]
Step three: Two-way interactions model 30.67*** (13, 437) .477 [.413, .541] .006
State hope × positive religious coping −0.00 [−0.03, 0.03] .00 [−.00, .00]
State hope × negative religious coping 0.03* [0.00, 0.05] .01 [−.00, .02]
Note. Dummy codes for demographic variables are as follows: Sex (0 = female, 1 = male), Racial status (0 = white, 1 = non-white), Education level (0 = other
education level, 1 = post-secondary education), Marital status (0 = other, 1 = married or cohabiting), Religious status (0 = not religious, 1 = religious). *p < .05,
**p < .01, ***p < .001.
Figure 2. Two-way interaction of state hope and negative religious coping on well-being.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 77

positive religious coping (but not negative religious cop-
ing) moderated the association between trait hope and
well-being, whereas in Study 2 the association between
state hope and well-being was moderated by negative
religious coping (but not positive religious coping). In
both studies, well-being was highest when levels of
reported trait and state hope were high (irrespective of
positive or negative religious coping levels). When hope
was low, well-being tended to be higher when positive
religious coping was higher (Study 1) and negative reli-
gious coping was lower (Study 2). Although the ndings
of these two studies indicate that hope is strongly asso-
ciated with higher levels of well-being, that relation
appears to depend (in part) on type and degree of
religious coping.
Trait and state hope were each associated with higher
levels of well-being during stay-at-home lockdowns in
Colombia and South Africa. These ndings are consistent
with research that has reported on the role of hopeful
thinking in responding adaptively to adverse circum-
stances in both health and disaster contexts (Brazeau &
Davis, 2018). Despite the social-structural challenges
that exist for many people in Colombia and South
Africa, those who have the underlying willpower and
motivation to achieve their desired goals may be better
positioned to adjust more adaptively to the public
health crisis (Tong et al., 2010).
There was evidence in both studies of positive reli-
gious coping associating positively with well-being,
which is consistent with prior research that has pointed
to the adaptive function of drawing on the security of
one’s relationship with the sacred to cope with challen-
ging life events (Prati & Pietrantoni, 2009). In contrast,
tensions, struggles, and conicts with one’s religious
faith (negative religious coping) associated negatively
with well-being. Previous research suggests that rela-
tionships with the sacred are often tethered to places
of worship (Counted & Zock, 2019), and religious parti-
cipation is linked to better health and well-being (Aten
et al., 2019; VanderWeele et al., 2016). Lockdowns
imposed in Colombia and South Africa during the
COVID-19 pandemic deprived people of access to places
of worship and their broader religious communities,
which may have strained spiritual connection with the
divine and thwarted opportunities to engage in faith-
based activities that typically supported well-being.
We expected that religious coping strategies would
represent an alternative resource that could be drawn
upon to support well-being during the COVID-19 pan-
demic, particularly when psychological resources (e.g.,
hope) are low in supply. The ndings of the current
studies provided some evidence of this, but the results
varied across the two studies. In Study 1, participants
who reported low levels of trait hope reported higher
levels of well-being when positive religious coping was
higher. Previous research suggests that people who
engage positive religious coping strategies to deal with
catastrophic life events (e.g., oods, hurricanes) are able
to reinterpret their circumstances more positively and
maintain a sense of control by believing that a divine
purpose is at work (Aten et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019;
Smith et al., 2000). People with low dispositional hope
who drew on religious/spiritual resources to cope with
stressors during the strict stay-at-home lockdowns may
have reported higher levels of well-being because they
acquired a divine perspective on their circumstances or
surrendered their set of pandemic-related challenges to
the sacred in way that supported their well-being. The
ndings of Study 2 revealed that well-being was higher
among participants who reported lower levels of state
hope when negative religious coping was lower.
Research has found that negative religious coping in
response to life-altering events (e.g., loss) can aggravate
distress and prolong psychological recovery (Lee et al.,
2013), both of which can have immediate and long-term
implications for well-being. When combined with a lack
of goal-oriented plans and resources, people who
respond to stressors experienced during the COVID-19
pandemic by engaging in more negative religious cop-
ing strategies could nd it particularly challenging to
adjust adaptively and emerge resilient in the aftermath
of the public health crisis.
Practical implications
In comparison to structurally advantaged contexts (e.g.,
the United States, Australia) where resources are more
widely available to support citizens during periods of
nationwide diculty, people living in under-resourced
countries (e.g., Colombia, South Africa) may need to look
internally for hope or draw on their relationship with a
higher power to adapt successfully to stressors that
accompany a period of strict lockdown. More practically,
clinicians should be alert to how religion can be a poten-
tial resource, as well as a source of potential struggle,
during the COVID-19 pandemic. As psychologist Paul
Johnson (1959) once wrote: ‘When the values of life are
at stake, there is reason to be earnest. In times of crisis,
religion usually comes to the foreground. The more
urgent the need the more [people] will seek for a
response’ (p. 82). The COVID-19 pandemic represents
such a crisis, one that reveals human limitations. It has
been and continues to be a source of threat and damage
to our physical lives, psychological well-being, economic
security, sense of intimacy and community with others,
and our relationships with whatever we may hold most
78 V. COUNTED ET AL.

sacred. Religious response to the COVID-19 pandemic
may have particularly important implications for well-
being in vulnerable contexts where the challenges of
long-standing social-structural issues (e.g., poverty)
have been amplied by the public health crisis.
Although most providers of psychological services
have not received training in how to address religious
and spiritual issues in counseling (Pearce et al., 2019;
Schafer et al., 2011), a number of useful books have
been published that can provide guidance (e.g., Jones,
2019; Pargament, 2007; Rosmarin, 2018). For example, in
the initial meeting, clinicians can assess for more and
less constructive roles of religion by asking whether
religion is or has been a resource for clients in dealing
with their problems, and whether the COVID-19 pan-
demic has aected them religiously or spiritually in
more or less helpful ways (Pargament, 2007).
Questions, conicts, and tensions about religion can
also be addressed with understanding and compassion,
as would be the case with other sensitive topics.
Moreover, therapies that integrate hopeful thinking
techniques and religious coping methods into the pro-
cess of treatment can be eective means of supporting
the well-being of clients during a public health crisis
(Chamodraka et al., 2016; Aten et al., 2019).
Limitations and directions for future research
There are several methodological limitations of the cur-
rent studies. First, data in both studies were collected
from countries – Colombia and South Africa – that are
less Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and
Democratic (WEIRD). Although the ndings provide useful
insight into the roles of hope and religious coping in
supporting well-being in low-resource contexts where
pre-existing social-structural vulnerabilities are likely to
be exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is
uncertain whether the ndings of these two studies gen-
eralize to people living in more WEIRD societies. Second,
the use of cross-sectional data in both studies precludes
interpretations of causality. With evidence suggesting
that psychological and spiritual outcomes may uctuate
in the aftermath of natural disasters (e.g., Hurricanes) and
during the COVID-19 pandemic (Aten et al., 2019; Chen et
al., 2019; Pirutinsky et al., 2020), longitudinal approaches
are needed to understand the eects of hope and reli-
gious coping on mental health and well-being at dierent
stages of the public health crisis.
Conclusion
The current set of studies suggest that hope and positive
religious coping may serve as protective resources that
support well-being in the midst of the COVID-19 pan-
demic. During a period of public health crisis when a
multi-layered combination of extraneous circumstances
obstructs pathways to reaching established goals or
make it challenging to regain hope, adaptive features
of religious coping appear to oer a potential avenue for
sustaining well-being. Hope and coping responses (reli-
gious or otherwise) are likely to be valuable resources for
promoting positive adjustment in the aftermath of the
COVID-19 pandemic, especially in vulnerable contexts
where psychosocial mechanisms may be needed to
accelerate the recovery process.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no potential conict of interest.
ORCID
Richard G. Cowden http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9027-4253
References
Aten, J. D., Smith, W. R., Davis, E. B., Van Tongeren, D. R., Hook, J.
N., Davis, D. E., Shannonhouse, L., DeBlaere, C., Ranter, J.,
O’Grady, K., & Hill, P. C. (2019). The psychological study of
religion and spirituality in a disaster context: A systematic
review. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 11(6), 597. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000431
Brazeau, H., & Davis, C. G. (2018). Hope and psychological
health and well-being following spinal cord injury.
Rehabilitation psychology, 63(2), 258.
Chamodraka, M., Fitzpatrick, M. R., & Janzen, J. I. (2017). Hope as
empowerment model: A client-based perspective on the
process of hope development. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 12(3), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17439760.2016.1225115
Chang, E. C., Kahle, E. R., Yu, E. A., Lee, J. Y., Kupfermann, Y., &
Hirsch, J. K. (2013). Relations of religiosity and spirituality
with depressive symptoms in primary care adults: Evidence
for hope agency and pathway as mediators. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 8(4), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17439760.2013.800905
Chen, Z. J., Bechara, A. O., Worthington, E., Jr, Davis, L., &
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2019). Trauma and well-being in
Colombian disaster contexts: Eects of religious coping,
forgivingness, and hope. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1663254
Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., Kashdan, T. B., Heaven, P. C., & Barkus, E.
(2015). Hope and emotional well-being: A six-year study to
distinguish antecedents, correlates, and consequences. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(6), 520–532. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1015154
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1),
155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Counted, V., & Zock, H. T. (2019). Place spirituality: An attach-
ment perspective. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 41
(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0084672419833448
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 79

Ekstrøm, C. T. (2014). Teaching ‘instant experience’ with gra-
phical model validation techniques. Teaching Statistics: An
International Journal for Teachers, 36(1), 23–26. https://doi.
org/10.1111/test.12027
Emblin, R. (May, 2020). Colombia on course for world’s longest
lockdown after extension to July 1. The City Paper Bogotá.
Retrieved 01 Aug 2020, from https://thecitypaperbogota.
com/news/colombia-on-course-for-worlds-longest-lock
down-after-extension-to-july-1/25236
Fore, H. H. (2020). A wake-up call: COVID-19 and its impact on
children’s health and well-being. The Lancet Global Health,
8(7), e861–e862. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)
30238-2
Govender, K., Cowden, R. G., Nyamaruze, P., Armstrong, R., &
Hatane, L. (2020). Beyond the disease: Contextualized impli-
cations of COVID-19 for children and young people living in
Eastern and Southern Africa. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 504.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00504
Hagerty, S. L., & Williams, L. M. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on
mental health: The interactive roles of brain biotypes and
human connection. Brain, Behavior, & Immunity-Health, 5,
100078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100078
Hamouche, S. (2020). COVID-19 and employees’ mental health:
Stressors, moderators and agenda for organizational
actions. Emerald Open Research, 2, 15. https://doi.org/10.
35241/emeraldopenres.13550.1
Johnson, P. (1959). Psychology of religion. Abingdon Press.
Jones, R. S. (2019). Spirit in session: Working with your client’s
spirituality (and your own) in psychotherapy. Templeton
Press.
Kennedy, P., Evans, M., & Sandhu, N. (2009). Psychological
adjustment to spinal cord injury: The contribution of coping,
hope and cognitive appraisals. Psychology, Health &
Medicine, 14(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13548500802001801
Kennedy, P., Lude, P., Elfström, M. L., & Smithson, E. (2012).
Appraisals, coping and adjustment pre and post SCI rehabi-
litation: a 2-year follow-up study. Spinal Cord, 50(2), 112–118.
Kliem, S., Lohmann, A., Klatt, T., Mößle, T., Rehbein, F., Hinz, A.,
Beutel, M., & Brähler, E. (2017). Brief assessment of subjective
health complaints: Development, validation and population
norms of a brief form of the giessen subjective complaints
list (GBB-8). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 95, 33–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.02.003
Lee, S. A., Roberts, L. B., & Gibbons, J. A. (2013). When religion
makes grief worse: Negative religious coping as associated
with maladaptive emotional responding patterns. Mental
Health, Religion & Culture, 16(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13674676.2012.659242
Madan, S., & Pakenham, K. I. (2014). The stress-buering eects
of hope on adjustment to multiple sclerosis. International
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21(6), 877–890. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12529-013-9384-0
Miller-Smedema, S., Catalano, D., & Ebener, D. J. (2010). The
relationship of coping, self-worth, and subjective well-being:
A structural equation model. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 53(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0034355209358272
Pargament, K. I. (2001). The psychology of religion and coping:
Theory, research, practice. Guilford Press.
Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy.
Guilford Press.
Pargament, K. I., & Ano, G. G. (2006). Spiritual resources and
struggles in coping with medical illness. Southern Medical
Journal, 99(10), 1161–1162. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.smj.
0000242847.40214.b6
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many
methods of religious coping: Development and initial vali-
dation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(4),
519–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200004)
56:4<519::AID-JCLP6>3.0.CO;2-1
Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998).
Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with
major life stressors. Journal for the Scientic Study of
Religion, 37(4), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388152
Pearce, M. J., Pargament, K. I., Oxhandler, H. K., Vieten, C., &
Wong, S. (2019). A novel training program for mental health
providers in religious and spiritual competencies. Spirituality
in Clinical Practice, 6(2), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/
scp0000195
Pirutinsky, S., Cherniak, A. D., & Rosmarin, D. H. (2020). COVID-
19, mental health, and religious coping among American
orthodox Jews. Journal of Religion and Health, 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10943-020-01070-z
Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2009). Optimism, social support, and
coping strategies as factors contributors to posttraumatic
growth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 14(5),
364–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325020902724271
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statis-
tical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
https://www.R-project.org/.
Rosmarin, D. H. (2018). Spirituality, religion, and cognitive-beha-
vioral therapy: A clinician’s guide. Guilford Press.
Sandage, S. J., & Morgan, J. (2014). Hope and positive religious
coping as predictors of social justice commitment. Mental
Health, Religion & Culture, 17(6), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13674676.2013.864266
Schafer, R., Handal, P., Brawer, P., & Ubinger, M. (2011). Training
and education in religion/spirituality within APA-accredited
clinical psychology programs: 8 years later. Journal of
Religion and Health, 50(2), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10943-009-9272-8
Schwarzer, R., & Luszczynska, A. (2008). Reactive, anticipatory,
preventive and proactive coping: A theoretical distinction.
The Prevention Researcher, 15(4), 22–24. https://eric.ed.gov/?
id=EJ823354
Selya, A. S., Rose, J. S., Dierker, L. C., Hedeker, D., & Mermelstein,
R. J. (2012). A practical guide to calculating Cohen’s f
2
, a
measure of local eect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3, 111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.
00111
Smith, B. W., Pargament, K. I., Brant, C., & Oliver, J. M. (2000).
Noah revisited: Religious coping by church members and
the impact of the 1993 midwest ood. Journal of Community
Psychology, 28(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
1520-6629(200003)28:2<169::AID-JCOP5>3.0.CO;2-I
Snyder, C. R. (2000). The past and possible futures of hope.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 11–28.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.11
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind.
Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.
1207/S15327965PLI1304_01
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. H., Irving, L.
M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., &
80 V. COUNTED ET AL.

Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and
validation of an individual-dierences measure of hope.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak,
M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of
the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70(2), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.70.2.321
Snyder, E., Cai, B., DeMuro, C., Morrison, M. F., & Ball, W. (2018).
A new single-item sleep quality scale: Results of psycho-
metric evaluation in patients with chronic primary insomnia
and depression. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 14(11),
1849–1857. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.7478
Statistics South Africa. (2016). Community Survey 2016 in brief.
Pretoria, South Africa: Statistics South Africa. Retrieved 15
July 2020, from http://cs2016.statssa.gov.za/wp-content/
uploads/2017/07/CS-in-brief-14-07-2017-with-cover_1.pdf
Tong, E. M., Fredrickson, B. L., Chang, W., & Lim, Z. X. (2010). Re-
examining hope: The roles of agency thinking and pathways
thinking. Cognition & Emotion, 24(7), 1207–1215. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02699930903138865
Trenchard, T. (2020). PHOTOS: lockdown in the world’s most
unequal country. NPR (National Public Radio). Retrieved 01
July 2020, from https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsand
soda/2020/04/21/837437715/photos-lockdown-in-the-
worlds-most-unequal-country.
VanderWeele, T. J. (2017). On the promotion of human our-
ishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
114(31), 8148–8156. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1702996114
VanderWeele, T. J., Li, S., Tsai, A. C., & Kawachi, I. (2016).
Association between religious service attendance and
lower suicide rates among US women. JAMA Psychiatry, 73
(8), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.
1243
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 81