{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02456140350877193, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009122807017543859, 'mean_word_length': 5.3097345132743365, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Religious Views of Suffering Profile Groups during COVID-19

Religion plays an important role in making sense of adversity, and individuals hold varying beliefs about God’s role in suffering (theodicy). This study examined the association between individuals’ theodicies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and outcomes of their religiousness and psychological well-being. The first aim was to classify participants into profile groups based on theodicy. The second aim was to compare the groups on religious commitment, COVID-19 stress, anxiety, and psychological well-being. Theodicy was measured with the Views of Suffering Scale among 233 participants. Three distinct groups emerged, viewing God as active, God as passive, and suffering as random. Individuals who held an active view of God’s role were most religiously committed and had the lowest levels of general anxiety and stress regarding COVID-19. In contrast, those who viewed God as passive reported the highest general anxiety level. Those who viewed suffering as random reported the highest level of COVID-19 stress and the lowest level of religious commitment. This study demonstrates the benefits of considering a person-centered approach to understanding theodicy. Even within a predominantly religious sample, the three clusters of active, passive, and random views demonstrated meaningful differences in outcomes between the groups of participants.