Conserving resources during chronic disaster: Impacts of religious and meaning-focused coping on Botswana drought survivors.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study explored the trauma symptoms of those who have endured a multiyear drought in Botswana, an arid, pastoral, and primarily Christian Southern African nation. Particularly, this study used conservation of resources theory to consider the effects of disaster-related resource loss (DRL) and the psychology of religion literature to investigate the roles of religious or spiritual (R/S) and meaning-focused coping. METHOD: Three hundred undergraduates in Botswana completed culturally adapted measures of their DRL, positive and negative R/S coping, search for meaning in life (meaning-focused coping), lifetime trauma exposure, and current trauma symptoms. Data were collected in the 4th year of the record-setting drought. RESULTS: Hierarchical regression analysis was used to add predictors sequentially and demonstrated that both DRL of energies (e.g., time, money) and coping behaviors (both negative R/S and meaning-focused) positively predicted current trauma symptoms beyond one's personal trauma exposure. Further, positive R/S coping was observed to moderate (buffer) the influence of DRL on trauma symptoms, whereas negative R/S and meaning-focused coping appeared to partially mediate the influence of DRL. CONCLUSION: This study extends research on DRL and coping to the context of chronic disasters. A nuanced treatment of resource loss (accounting for specific item wordings) suggests that although DRL in general may influence negative R/S coping, only some types of resource loss (energetic) from an ongoing-chronic disaster affect both one's current meaning-focused coping and trauma symptoms. In contrast to negative R/S coping behaviors (e.g., doubt), positive ones (e.g., seeking divine connection) were shown to mitigate those effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.