When suffering contradicts belief: measuring theodical struggling.

Global meaning systems help people make sense of their experiences, but suffering can violate global meaning and create distress. One type of potential violation is conflict between one's experience of suffering and one's deeply-held beliefs about God as loving, powerful, and just. The problem of theodicy-why an all-powerful and all-loving God would allow suffering-has long been an important theological and philosophical concern, but little is known about how theodicy plays out psychologically for religious individuals facing serious life difficulties. To address this issue within a specific religious tradition, Christianity, we drew upon philosophy, Christian theology, and psychology to develop the construct of theodical struggling. Through theological and philosophical input, we generated a 28-item pool and conducted 10 cognitive interviews with a diverse sample of Christian adults. In three consecutive online studies of Christian adult samples, we reduced the scale to 11 items through PCA, found a strong one-factor solution using EFA, and found support for the one-factor solution along with preliminary reliability and validity. This newly-developed Theodical Struggling Scale represents an important advance in understanding individuals' experiences of ruptures in their beliefs regarding God's goodness and paves the way for future research on this topic. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04642-w.

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of interest/competing interestsThe authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.