COVID-19 distress, sources of meaning, and crisis of meaning in the Finnish context

ABSTRACT

In secularised Nordic cultures, more research is needed about the existential significance of COVID-19 distress. The connection between COVID-19 distress, crisis of meaning, and sources of meaning was studied using the Finnish version of Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life (SoMe) questionnaire. The data were collected from 551 Finns. Respondents’ sociodemographic information was related to the studied variables. Commitment to protecting one's health and closeness to nature were associated with decreased COVID-19 distress while focus on the self and social commitment was associated with increased distress. This distress was connected to increased crisis of meaning that was buffered by religiosity. COVID-19 distress was highest among women and young people. Young age, less education, being a student, non-religious worldview, and male gender were associated with increased crisis of meaning. The results for this pandemic context suggest that in secularised cultures, people turn to religion if other coping strategies are unavailable.

KEYWORDS:

• COVID-19 distress
• sources of meaning
• crisis of meaning
• explicit religiosity
• spirituality

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on people’s lives worldwide. In addition to the large numbers of deaths and physical illness, it has caused psychological distress like fear, loneliness, and adverse mental health (Asmundson et al., 2020; Carlander et al., 2022; Georgieva et al., 2021; McCracken et al., 2020; Wickens et al., 2021). Generally, adversities may have an impact on an individual’s existential wellbeing, including sense of meaning in life and even leading to a crisis of meaning (Park, 2010; Park & Folkman, 1997; Schnell, 2009). In the COVID-19 pandemic adverse effects have largely depended on the individual’s socioeconomic background (Kowal et al., 2020). Especially, the pandemic has decreased young people’s sense of meaning in life (Eronen et al., 2022; Ojalammi et al., 2023; Pedersen & la Cour, 2021; Saarelainen et al., 2021). For example, a Danish study pointed out that crisis of meaning in young people was linked with instability in mental health and with fear of being infected with COVID-19 (Pedersen & la Cour, 2021). In Finland, it was reported that awareness of individual mortality increased, and this was particularly stressful for people under 30 (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, [ELCF], 2020). In line with these notions, meaning-related coping methods have been connected to decreased negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (Eisenbeck et al., 2021; Park et al., 2021; Sandbakken & Moss, 2023; Schnell & Krampe, 2020; Wong et al., 2021).

Meaningfulness refers to a “fundamental sense of meaning, based on an appraisal of one’s life as coherent, significant, directed, and belonging” (Schnell, 2009, p. 487). According to Schnell (2009), meaningfulness and crisis of meaning are not bipolar concepts, but may co-exist (Schnell & Becker, 2007). While an individual going through a crisis of meaning inevitably has a low sense of meaningfulness, a low sense of meaningfulness does not necessarily lead to crisis of meaning (Damásio et al., 2013; Schnell, 2021). Crisis of meaning, thus, does not necessarily imply that sense of meaningfulness is absent, but it refers to the appraisal of life as “empty, pointless and lacking meaning” (Schnell, 2009, p. 487).

Sense of meaningfulness in life is largely determined by an individual’s personal sources of meaning (Schnell, 2009). As such, sources of meaning are not abstract or external from life. On the contrary, a source of meaning is a set of values put into practice based on one’s idea or theory of meaning in life. The Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life (SoMe) questionnaire was established through extensive qualitative interviews using a laddering technique (Leontiev, 2007) to find sources of meaning that are not further reducible to any other underlying source.

Religiosity and spirituality are sources of meaning in life that can provide a significant resource in individual or collective crises (Pargament, 1997; Park, 2016). As concepts, religiosity, and spirituality refer to “orientation towards an immaterial, cosmic power” (Schnell, 2009, p. 488) but while religiosity is expressed within organised religious traditions, spirituality may be expressed outside religious traditions. Empirically, in an individual’s life religiosity and spirituality may overlap (Saarelainen, 2017). At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, people’s religiosity seemed to be activated (Bentzen, 2021; Kowalczyk et al., 2020; cf. Prinds et al., 2023). However, during the pandemic, religion functioned both as a coping resource and/or burden (e.g., Cinjee et al., 2022; Cowden et al., 2022; Lucchetti et al., 2021; Łowicki et al., 2022). In a Polish study, prayer predicted lowered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) reactions, whereas religious experience predicted worsened PTSD caused by the pandemic (Szalachowski & Tuszynska-Bogucka, 2021). Christians in another study experienced more fear of COVID-19, but less social isolation than Muslims and non-religious people (Jaspal et al., 2020).

In Finland, where this study was conducted, 66.5% of people are members of the national Lutheran church but still, only a minority of Finns believe in the Christian God (ELCF [Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland], n.d.). In secularised and pluralistic Nordic cultures such as Finland (Ketola, 2020), little research exists about the role of religion and spirituality in coping with COVID-19. However, religion may not be as significant in these cultures as in more religious cultures. In Sweden during the pandemic, for instance, it was found that coping as a search for objects beyond immediate needs was to a greater extent linked to nature and engagement in outdoor activities than to religious activity like prayer and connectedness with God (Ahmadi et al., 2022). Previous research has shown that for people in Nordic cultures in general, relationship to nature may have spiritual meaning (Ahmadi, 2006).

In this article, we ask how COVID-19 distress is connected to sources of meaning in life and crisis of meaning in Finnish survey participants, especially when accounting for explicit religiosity and spirituality. We aim to answer three questions: (1) Which sources of meaning explain COVID-19 distress? (2) How are participants’ sociodemographic characteristics connected to COVID-19 distress? (3) How does COVID-19 distress explain crisis of meaning, when accounting for explicit religiosity, spirituality, and participants’ sociodemographic characteristics?

We expected that explicit religiosity and spirituality would reduce COVID-19 distress and that COVID-19 distress would be positively associated with crisis of meaning. Based on previous research, we assumed that women, young people, those with less education and students would experience higher COVID-19 distress.

Method

Participants and procedure

The data was collected between mid-August and early October 2021.¹ Participants were recruited through social media, the website of the University of Eastern Finland, occupational institutions, and snowball technique. We sent an information leaflet and invitation to participate in the research to various educational institutes and trade unions as well as posting it on broad social media networks to be able to recruit people with various types of life situations. The study was also discussed in the media. The data gathering was designed to include participants with many sociodemographic backgrounds. Participants were informed about the voluntary nature of the study and data protection practices. We utilised a Webropol e-form as an electronic form of the questionnaire. Webropol allowed us to include appendixes to explain all the participants’ rights, the purpose of the research, and the actions taken to secure all the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

At the time when the data was gathered, the state of emergency in Finland due to COVID-19 had ended a few months ago in April 2021 (Finnish Government Communications Department, 2021). Social restrictions had been lifted during the summer but in Southern Finland, remote working was recommended again in October. When we started collecting the data, the COVID-19 incidence was around 185/100,000 inhabitants and when we finished, this had decreased to 123/100,000 inhabitants, although the incidence was about to rise again (Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health [STM], 2022). By the end of September, nearly 70% of citizens over twelve years old had received the second COVID-19 vaccine (STM, 2021). Vaccines were first distributed to people over 70 years old and those with higher risks for the infection (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare [THL], n.d.). In our questionnaire, we did not ask respondents whether they had been infected with COVID-19.

Out of the participants, 76% identified as women and 17% as men. Less than 6% identified as other or did not want to report their gender. Due to the small numbers, these last two groups were excluded from analyses that included the variable gender. For analytical purposes, other small groups were either excluded or combined with other groups. For example, the three oldest age groups (60–69, 70–79, 80+) were merged; however, only two respondents reported age 80 or above. The median age group was 40–49. By taking both age and gender into account, the three biggest groups were women aged between 30 and 59. Most of the participants were highly educated; 74% had either a lower or higher academic degree. Majority of participants reported their worldview as Christian; in this article, worldview is approached as a sociodemographic variable. Table 1 represents the sociodemographic groups.

Table 1. Sociodemographic information of study participants, N = 551.

Characteristics	n	%
Gender
Female	421	76
Male	94	17
Age
18–25	69	13
26–29	45	8
30–39	126	23
40–49	111	21
50–59	99	18
60–80+	99	18
Education
Vocational	74	13
High school	59	11
Bachelor degree	182	33
Postgraduate degree	225	41
Employment
Employed (full-time/part-time)	261	48
Unemployed/occasionally working	35	6
Retired	85	15
Student	88	16
Worldview
Christian	280	50.8
Spiritual without religious membership	47	8.5
Agnostic	51	9.3
Atheist	106	19.2

Measures

MerTa

Sources of meaning and crisis of meaning were measured by using the MerTa questionnaire (in Finnish: Merkityksen lähteet ja elämän tarkoituksellisuus) that was translated from the SoMe questionnaire (Schnell, 2009) and validated by the authors of this article (Peltomäki et al., under review). The questionnaire maps 26 individual sources of meaning, sense of meaningfulness, and crisis of meaning.²

Items were rated on a six-point Likert scale (0 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree). The original SoMe measures sources of meaning by five dimensions: vertical self-transcendence, horizontal self-transcendence, self-actualisation, order, and wellbeing and relatedness. For example, social commitment belongs to the dimension of horizontal self-transcendence and is measured by items such as “I intervene when I see injustice being done.” Explicit religiosity and spirituality belong to vertical self-transcendence measured by such items as “Prayer is important to me” (explicit religiosity) and “Everyone’s fate is predestined” (spirituality). Crisis of meaning is a more global measure, without belonging to a dimension, measured by such items like “I feel pain in finding no purpose in life.” The previous examples are from the English SoMe questionnaire (Schnell, 2009, 2016).

Validation of MerTa

Reliability analysis with mean Cronbach’s alpha was conducted on MerTa scales showing values between α = .61 and α = .93 (Peltomäki et al., under review). IBM AMOS was employed to apply confirmatory factor analysis with a poor fit to the data (N = 551; df = 300; p = .000; X² = 2920; CFI = .59; RMSEA = .13; TLI = .55). Results of eigenvalues produced by explorative parallel analysis supported more strongly a six-factor model instead of the original five-factor model, although the original model was also possible according to the analysis. More specific analysis of the structure of the questionnaire, produced with exploratory factor analysis offered a model that is largely similar to the study with the Norwegian translation (Sørensen et al., 2019). With MerTa, two subscales of vertical self-transcendence, i.e., explicit religiosity, and spirituality, loaded on the same factor in both the five- and six-factor models. The Crisis of Meaning Subscale consists of five items (Schnell, 2009), and it had high reliability in the Finnish data: α = .926 (Peltomäki et al., under review).

COVID-19 distress

The authors designed an ad hoc COVID-19 Distress Scale that was included at the end of the MerTa questionnaire. It consisted of the following items: (1) “Due to COVID-19 I have been more irritated than usual”; (2) “The COVID-19 pandemic makes me fearful or anxious”; (3) “Due to COVID-19 my loneliness has increased”; (4) “Due to COVID-19, I experience depression or anxiety”; (5) “COVID-19 has decreased opportunities to realize my personal potential.”

Psychometric properties of the ad hoc COVID-19 Distress Scale Exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factor analysis with direct oblimin) was conducted to test the presumed unidimensionality of the COVID-19 Distress Scale. The data were suitable for FA as well as the achieved factored model (KMO = .87, χ² = 1659.24, df = 10, p = .000). The determinant was .048, indicating variables that were not multicollinear. The FA resulted in one factor both according to Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalue over 1, explaining 70.63% of the variance, and by a clear scree plot. These five items showed also high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .895). In addition, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), conducted with IBM AMOS, suggested a moderate goodness of fit (N = 551, df = 5, X² = 29.48, p < .000, GFI = .98, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .09, TLI = .97).

Because COVID-19 distress and crisis of meaning have a central role in this research and both are designed to measure distress, tests were run to determine whether respective scales measured two latent factors as assumed. Thus, principal axis factor analysis (FA) with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was conducted to the five COVID-19 distress items and five crises of meaning items simultaneously. The data were suitable for FA as well as the achieved factored model (KMO = .91, χ² = 4053.52, df = 45, p = .000). The determinant was .001 and thus variables were not multicollinear. The FA resulted in two factors both according to Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalue over 1, two factors together explaining 74.36% of the variance, and by a clear scree plot. The pattern matrix showed that all individual items loaded clearly on the intended factors (≥|.654|) and loadings to another factor were small (≤|.170|). Thus, the COVID-19 Distress Scale and Crisis of Meaning Subscale were defined to measure different latent factors.

Analysis

Data were tested with IBM SPSS (version 27). Possible outliers were not excluded. Two answer lines were excluded because they had multiple open items. Normality was checked: based on descriptive statistics, the skewness of scale variables ranged from −.876 to .503, and kurtosis from −1.436 to .917. This indicates a sufficiently normal distribution of the data for parametric tests to be employed (Cohen et al., 2003). However, as stricter views considering skewness also exist, nonparametric tests were employed in correlational analyses (Hair et al., 2017).

Only those MerTa variables that showed statistically significant correlations with COVID-19 distress were included for later analyses. To study these associations, both parametric Pearson and nonparametric Spearman correlational analyses were employed. One-way and two-way analyses of variance and t-tests were conducted to detect sociodemographic variables statistically associated with COVID-19 distress. To support the interpretation of results, MerTa variables that significantly correlated with COVID-19 distress were also tested for age, education, employment, and worldview.

In analyses of variance, there were significant differences between sample sizes, so homogeneity of variance was carefully considered to avoid the risk of Type I error (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). As a result, sociodemographic groups were excluded and/or united (see Table 1). Also, Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was consistently checked. Tukey HSD was employed in post hoc significance level < .01. Regarding effect sizes, Cohen’s d was employed for t-tests, and eta-squared for ANOVA.

Multiple linear regression analysis was employed to study dependencies between COVID-19 distress, MerTa variables, and dummy coded sociodemographic variables. In the latter, the biggest group was chosen as the reference group each time. Tests for collinearity were checked.

Results

COVID-19 distress and its associations with sources of meaning and crisis of meaning

Pearson analysis showed that there was a statistically significant correlation between COVID-19 distress and crisis of meaning. The following sources of meaning were also correlated with COVID-19 distress: health, social commitment, explicit religiosity, and self-knowledge. In addition, nonparametric Spearman analysis showed intercorrelations between COVID-19 distress, unison with nature, and spirituality. Table 2 presents all the correlations with statistical significance.

Table 2. Statistically significant correlations between crisis or sources of meaning and COVID-19 distress.

	COVID-19 distress
Crisis of meaning	.54**
Health	−.11**
Social commitment	.11**
Unison with nature	(−.09*)
Explicit religiosity	−.10*
Spirituality	(−.10*)
Self-knowledge	.14**

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

In parentheses: Spearman correlations for values without statistical significance in Pearson analysis.

The correlation between COVID-19 distress and crisis of meaning is positive and moderate. All the correlations between COVID-19 distress and sources of meaning represented in Table 2 are small. Spirituality and unison with nature were statistically significant only with Spearman correlation that has a weaker statistical power compared to Pearson correlational analysis. Spirituality was included because it aims to measure the dimension of vertical self-transcendence together with explicit religiosity (Schnell, 2009). In the Finnish secular culture where explicit religiosity is not important for most people, this is well-argued. Unison with nature was included in subsequent analyses as previous research suggests the COVID-19 pandemic has made Finns’ relationship with nature closer (Ministry of the Environment, 2020).

COVID-19 distress: associations with sociodemographic variables

Women experienced more COVID-19 distress than men, as did the youngest age group compared to the two oldest age groups. These differences were statistically significant. No statistically significant differences existed for the other sociodemographic variables. Table 3 shows the statistically significant results of the analysis.

Table 3. Statistically significant sociodemographic variables for COVID-19 distress.

Independent variable	Mean (std)	df	Distribution	Effect size
Age group	18–25: 3.13 (1.34)	(5, 543)	F = 5.21***	η^2 = .05
	26–29: 2.92 (1.59)
	30–39: 2.50 (1.53)
	40–49: 2.61 (1.46)
	50–59: 2.17 (1.52)
	60–80+: 2.16 (1.54)
Gender	Female 2.63 (1.47)	513	t = 3.26***	d = 1.50
	Male 2.07 (1.64)

***The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

Sources of meaning associated with sociodemographic variables

To interpret COVID-19 distress, differences in relevant sources of meaning and crisis of meaning between sociodemographic groups were tested. According to t-tests, social commitment and health were more important for women than men. A one-way ANOVA showed that health, explicit religiosity, spirituality, and unison with nature were more important for respondents aged 60 or older, and crisis of meaning was higher for all respondents younger than 60. Another one-way ANOVA showed that crisis of meaning and social commitment were higher in respondents with vocational or high school education. For employment, retired respondents had higher levels of explicit religiosity and spirituality compared to employed respondents and/or students. Self-knowledge was higher for unemployed/occasionally working than retired respondents. Crisis of meaning was higher for students than for employed respondents. For worldview, explicit religiosity, and spirituality were higher for Christians than all other groups, and self-knowledge was higher for respondents who identified as spiritual than those that identified as atheists (Table 4).

Table 4. Differences in respondents’ sociodemographic variables for selected sources and crisis of meaning.

	Gender	Age	Education	Employment	Worldview
Health	t(513) = 2.25*, d = .09	F(5,543) = 5.98***, η^2 = .05
Social commitment	t(513) = 2.36*, d = .82		F(3,536) = 7.17***, η^2 = .04
Unison with nature		F(5,543) = 4.95***, η^2= .04
Explicit religiosity		F(5,543) = 11.35***, η^2= .095		F(3,504) = 7.74***, η^2= .04	F(3,480) = 151.57***, η^2= .49
Spirituality		F(5,543) = 7.02***, η^2= .06		F(3,504) = 5.30***, η^2= .03	F(3,480) = 117.01***, η^2= .42
Self-knowledge		F(5,543) = 2.34***, η^2= .02		F(3,504) = 4.58***, η^2= .03	F(3,480) = 4.39*, η^2= .03
Crisis of meaning		F(5,543) = 6.36***, η^2= .06	F(3,536) = 4.53*, η^2= .03	F(3,504) = 4.64*, η^2= .03

***The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

When looking at effect sizes, it is useful to consider their magnitude: there are medium or large differences in gender regarding social commitment and health; age regarding health, and as expected, in worldview regarding explicit religiosity and spirituality.

Sources of meaning explaining COVID-19 distress

Multiple linear regression analysis showed that social commitment, self-knowledge, health, and unison with nature statistically significantly predicted COVID-19 distress. Although statistically significant, these sources of meaning explained only 6.7% of variance in COVID-19 distress (F (6, 544) = 6, 465, p = .000, R² = .067). For each source of meaning, standardised beta coefficients are presented in Table 5. Spirituality and explicit religiosity had no statistical significance in the model. They were also the only predictors without statistical significance.

Table 5. Regression coefficients for sources of meaning as predictors for COVID-19 distress.

	β	p
Social commitment	.13	.007**
Self-knowledge	.15	.001***
Health	−.12	.008**
Unison with nature	−.11	.025*
Explicit religiosity	−.099	.086
Spirituality	.01	.830

***The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

**The mean difference is significant at the .01 level.

*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

The above model was tested with gender and age groups as dummy coded variables. For gender, there was a significant, negative score for men (β = −.149, p = .001). In other words, male respondents scored lower in COVID-19 distress than female respondents. For age, the model provided statistically significant differences: the youngest (18–25) age group scored higher for COVID-19 distress (β = .151, p = .002) than the reference (30–39) age group.

COVID-19 distress explaining crisis of meaning

Next, linear regression analysis was conducted to discover if COVID-19 distress statistically predicted crisis of meaning. The overall regression was statistically significant: F (1, 549) = 229, 564, p = .000, R² = .295. The same model was also tested when accounting for gender, age, education, employment, and worldview as dummy coded variables. The results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. COVID-19 distress as a predictor for crisis of meaning with sociodemographic variables.

	R^2	F	df	β (p)
Sociodemographic variable as predictor (Reference group)
Gender (Female)	.31	115.51***	2, 512	For male gender, .13 (.001)
Age (30–39)	.31	40.90***	6, 542	For 60–80+ years −.12 (.007)
Education (Higher academic degree)	.31	59.12***	4, 535	For vocational school .102 (.009)
				For high school .13 (.001)
Employment (Full-time employment)	.32	57.91***	4, 503	For students.08 (.047)
Worldview (Christians)	.35	62.96***	4, 479	For spiritual without religious membership .105 (.006), agnostic .088 (.021), atheist .160 (.000)

***The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

COVID-19 distress, explicit religiosity, and spirituality explaining crisis of meaning

Next, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to discover if COVID-19 distress together with explicit religiosity and spirituality statistically predicted crisis of meaning. The overall regression was statistically significant F (3, 547) = 96, 36, p = .000, R² = .35. For COVID-19 distress, explicit religiosity was statistically significant, but spirituality was not. Table 7 presents standardised beta values for the coefficients.

Table 7. Religiosity and spirituality as predictors for crisis of meaning in COVID-19 distress.

	β	p
COVID-19 distress	.52	.000***
Explicit religiosity	−.25	.000***
Spirituality	.04	.425

***The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

Using the same model, dummy coded variables (age, gender, education, employment, worldview) were included in the regression model as independent variables. The overall significance of the model, scores for predictor variables, and outcome variable did not change to impact on the interpretation. Male respondents (β = .13, p = .001) scored higher in crisis of meaning than female respondents. In education, respondents with vocational school (β = .095, p = .012) and high school (β = .123, p = .001) education scored significantly and positively higher in crisis of meaning than other educational groups. In this model, however, age, employment, and worldview did not have statistical significance.

Discussion

The results show that COVID-19 distress was negatively associated with the following sources of meaning: health and unison with nature. The results emphasise the buffering roles of healthy lifestyles and spending time in nature, possibly reflecting the process where unison with nature has become more important for Finns during the pandemic (Ministry of the Environment, 2020). Respondents who were committed to protecting their health may have found security in the idea that they could keep themselves safe from the severe symptoms of the virus. Also, most Finnish adults had had two COVID-19 vaccines by autumn 2021, when the survey was conducted.

Self-knowledge and social commitment were two sources of meaning that positively related to COVID-19 distress. For social commitment, it may be that it increases worry about the health of others, such as older relatives. Both COVID-19 distress and social commitment were higher for women; this suggests the pandemic has emphasised their traditional gender role of caregiver (Ojalammi et al., 2023). This lines up with previous research showing that women experienced more stress than men during the COVID-19 pandemic (Carli, 2020; McCracken et al., 2020; Pieh et al., 2020; Prowse et al., 2021). Self-knowledge was another risk factor for COVID-19 distress. This result may refer to a personality type, and mental health-related factors as previous research linked high COVID-19 distress to neurotic personality, sensitivity, concern about one’s own health and mental health problems (Carlander et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021; Taylor, 2021).

Although the above sources of meaning (health, unison with nature, social commitment, and self-knowledge) contributed to the variance of COVID-19 distress, in the regression model used, their contribution was small (6.7%). This indicates that other factors contribute to COVID-19 distress, possibly not closely connected to sources of meaning. COVID-19 distress is complicated and may not be explainable by any single, underlying factor (Carlander et al., 2022).

Young people experienced higher levels of COVID-19 distress; this is not a new finding (McCracken et al., 2020; Ojalammi et al., 2023; Saarelainen et al., 2021). In a Swedish study, McCracken et al. (2020) suggest this is connected to vulnerabilities characteristic to young people. In the present study, young people also experienced higher levels of crisis of meaning, a finding supported by previous research (Eronen et al., 2022). COVID-19 distress has increased mental health problems particularly in young people (e.g. McCracken et al., 2020). Generally, mental health problems are connected to crisis of meaning (Dezutter et al., 2014; Sørensen et al., 2019; Steger et al., 2008).

It was found that COVID-19 distress was connected to increased crisis of meaning. Crisis of meaning was higher for men, young respondents, respondents with less education, and students. In worldview, crisis was higher for atheists, agnostics, and those who identified as spiritual without a religious membership when compared to Christians (see Jaspal et al., 2020). Especially, the result that men experienced more crisis of meaning related to COVID-19 distress is interesting for many reasons. First, for gender, there were no statistically significant differences with crisis of meaning when measured alone. However, men are at higher risk of developing a severe COVID-19 infection, and have higher mortality rates (Peckham et al., 2020). In Finland, men were less likely to have been vaccinated (Kontio et al., 2021). A UK survey found that men experienced more traumatic stress in connection to COVID-19; the researchers suggested this is connected to the virus’ greater impact on their health (Shevlin et al., 2020). This is in line with the central idea of terror management theory according to which even thinking about one’s own death is connected to anxiety and questioning meaning in life (Greenberg et al., 1990).

The authors’ expectations about the buffering role of explicit religiosity and spirituality for COVID-19-related distress were mainly not confirmed. Explicit religion in general and Christianity in particular were not associated with COVID-19 distress as such, but had a role in buffering against crisis of meaning related to COVID-19 distress. Religion can help people to cope with a crisis of meaning (Pargament, 1997). Christian worldview has been connected to lower levels of fear during COVID-19 pandemic (Jaspal et al., 2020). This raises the question of why in the present study, religion did not play a role in COVID-19 distress, although it was negatively associated with crisis of meaning. This result may be explained by the secular cultural landscape in Finland, where explicit religiosity does not have significance for the majority of people (Ketola, 2020). In Sweden, a neighbour to Finland and a highly secularised culture, similar conclusions have been reached. Nature and outdoor activities as resources in dealing with stress were far more prominent than religious activities in a study of Sweden (Ahmadi et al., 2022), as was the case in the present study. A previous study that included Finland pointed out that religiosity played a role in supporting meaningfulness during the first COVID-19 wave among the religiously committed (Seryczynska et al., 2021). Another perspective based on the results of the current study is that as long as other meaning-related coping tools exist, like trust in one’s good health and/or vaccines, religion does not play a role. However, when these are unavailable, religion becomes activated as a coping resource in crisis of meaning (Pargament, 1997).

Spirituality did not have statistical significance in any of the study analyses. It may be that explicit religion’s role is stronger as it is connected not only to cognition but also to routines and rituals that are easier to integrate in daily life under stress. However, as relationship to nature was important in the results of this study and previous research has emphasised its spiritual significance to Nordic people (Ahmadi, 2006), it is possible that nature has had spiritual significance that was not reached by the measure of spirituality used in this study.

Conclusions

This study suggests that from the perspective of COVID-19 distress, sense of security has been of particular importance. This security may be increased by commitment to protecting one’s health, unison with nature, and/or explicit religiosity. It seems that these sources of meaning contribute to different kinds of security in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. People who focused on their health may have felt a sense of agency, assumably connected to the vaccines. It is important to remember that sociodemographic factors – such as financial ability to invest in one’s health – play a role in who accesses which sources of meaning. Also, unison with nature may refer to ability to calm oneself down in nature in a holistic sense, both physically and mentally. Explicit religiosity becomes important as buffering against crisis of meaning, possibly connected to fear of the infection and the threat of death.

Suggestions for future research

In studying COVID-19 distress and meaning, longitudinal designs are needed. Regarding COVID-19 Distress Scale, it would be important to distinguish between different fears, such as fear of loved ones having a severe COVID-19 infection and fear of one’s own infection and death. With the MerTa questionnaire, mediation analyses would detect more detailed relationships between COVID-19 distress and the studied variables. In the questionnaire, explicit religiosity was measured using only three items, which may limit its ability to detect negative roles of religion (e.g., Szalachowski & Tuszynska-Bogucka, 2021). It is important to continue research about both religion’s positive and negative effects on COVID-19 distress. Also, there is a need to gather in-depth knowledge through qualitative research designs.

Limitations

Because this study is cross-sectional and not representative of the population, it does not allow for causal inferences and generalisations. Other limitations concern the use of an online survey and self-reports. Regarding the MerTa questionnaire, its mediocre internal coherence also limits the accuracy of the results. Participants were not asked their marital status, under-age children, mental illnesses, COVID-19 infections and vaccines, although these factors may impact the experience of meaning and/or COVID-19-related distress.

Acknowledgements

We thank Prof. Kati Tervo-Niemelä for her valuable comments on the article and Dr. Kate Sotejeff-Wilson for revising the language.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors thank the Emil Aaltonen Foundation for funding the study project.

Notes

1 An ethical statement has been issued for this research by the Committee on Research Ethics at the University of Eastern Finland. Data will eventually be stored in the Finnish social science data archive.

2 One item (question 150 “I like to go out”; Schnell, 2016) was mistranslated, so it was omitted from the analysis.