4.0 Article

Risk Perception of COVID-19, Religiosity, and Subjective Well-Being in Emerging Adults: The Mediating Role of Meaning-Making and Perceived Stress

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY AND THEOLOGY
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 3-18

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00916471221102550

关键词

risk perception of COVID-19; religiosity; meaning-making; perceived stress; subjective well-being; emerging adults

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pressure on young people due to COVID-19 has had a visible impact on their well-being. This study explored the role of risk perception and religiosity in relation to well-being, as well as the mediating effects of meaning-making and perceived stress. The findings suggest that the relationship between risk perception, religiosity, and well-being is mediated by meaning-making and perceived stress, which depend on the interplay of perceptual and religious factors.
The pressured experienced due to COVID-19 for young people has become clearly visible in the domain of well-being. Although the psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on emerging adults have been examined, little is known about the role played by risk perception and religiosity for their well-being. In addition, the mediating effects of meaning-making and perceived stress still need to be investigated. A total of 316 emerging adults (143 males and 173 females) participated in the present study. Using structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis, we showed that the relationship of risk perception of COVID-19 and religiosity with subjective well-being was largely mediated by meaning-making and perceived stress. However, their mediational roles were different and depended on the interplay of perceptual and religious factors, which can be more fully understood within the meaning-making model. Emerging adults tend to rely on both their personal evaluation of COVID-related risks and religious beliefs to the extent that it helps them understand current life situations and restore cognitive and emotional balance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据