The religiosity gap: preferences for seeking help from religious advisors

Abstract

As unique cultural variables receive increasing attention in the extant psychotherapy and counselling literature, religiosity seems an apt target for continued close examination. In a sample of 235 college students, the current study focused on variables associated with preferences for seeking help from a religious advisor (for psychological distress), rather than the help of a psychological professional. Results indicated that religiosity accounted for the most variance (R ²= 0.20) in preferences for religious help-seeking (PReHS). Additionally, the perceived benefits of self-disclosure, religious involvement, mental illness stigma, and attachment anxiety all accounted for much smaller amounts of unique variance in PReHS. Practitioners are encouraged to consider internal aspects of religiosity (e.g., thoughts and beliefs) at intake and throughout treatment, in addition to more external aspects such as religious affiliation and church attendance. Limitations, implications for future research, and conceptualisations of religiosity in mental health care are discussed.

Keywords:

• religion
• religiosity
• help-seeking
• self-disclosure
• attachment
• Hispanic

Notes

1. For a non-clinical sample, the results indicated a much higher rate of care “from a mental health care professional” than was expected. It should be noted we did not operationally define “mental health care professional” for the participants. This term could have been interpreted in a number of ways, whether accurately or not (e.g., school counsellor, guidance counsellor, clinical graduate student-in-training). The data collection site also provides clinical training for psychotherapy practice and, due to the high number of individuals reporting past care, it is possible that some participants may have participated in role-play/training sessions with advanced graduate students-in-training and indicated those as care from a mental health professional. These descriptive results should, therefore, be interpreted with caution.