What relevance do positive psychology and religion/spirituality have amidst such situations? In this chapter, we (a) review the salience of religious/spiritual (R/S) processes to coping with mass trauma and (b) synthesize key strength-based theories of disaster recovery. We then introduce our systemic model of Disaster Spiritual Fortitude and Resilience (DSFR), which holistically addresses survivors' needs while attending to strengths and capacities.

#### **The Salience of R/S Resources and Contexts Amidst Disaster**

Although many disaster recovery models focus on risks and vulnerabilities, survivors and the communities they live in also possess capacities that can help sustain and strengthen them, thus promoting fortitude and resilience. The terms *fortitude* and *resilience* capture related yet unique aspects of human experience. *Fortitude* refers to the capacity to endure persistent suffering with courage. *Resilience* speaks to adaptation and recovery. Disasters challenge our beliefs about the world, and disaster survivors who identify as R/S often turn to their faith to make sense of their disaster-related suffering (Davis et al., 2018; Park, 2016). Studies have shown that it is not how devout disaster survivors are that makes the difference in their postdisaster adaptation, but rather it is how they engage with their faith that counts (e.g., McElroy-Heltzel et al., 2018). From a relational perspective, R/S engagement can be understood dialectically, including movements toward spiritual dwelling or spiritual seeking (Sandage et al., 2020b). Spiritual dwelling includes practices that foster security, communal affliation, affect regulation, and spiritual grounding. Spiritual seeking (often in tension with dwelling) involves grappling with uncertainties and showing a willingness to question and reshape personal views and an appreciation for paradox and complexity. Incorporating R/S concerns in psychotherapy and community intervention can improve survivor outcomes, decrease stigma, and improve accessibility to resources. It can also link survivors with valuable social capital and spiritual support networks (Aten et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2018, 2019a; Pargament & Cummings, 2010).

However, the relationship between religion/spirituality and postdisaster adaptation and growth is not just salubrious. Survivors may experience a variety of moral, existential, and R/S struggles, particularly when there is a gap between previously held beliefs (e.g., God is loving and able to protect me) and personal disaster impacts (Aten et al., 2012, 2019). R/S struggles are common and can lead to chronic distress and mental disorders, if unaddressed (Pargament & Exline, 2021). Practice-based research has found R/S struggles are linked to spiritual seeking (Sandage et al., 2020a), suggesting R/S struggles can activate a quest for transformative spiritual evolution if responded to with validation and support during survivors' spiritual reorganization. However, when struggles are viewed as sinful and R/S communities stigmatize members who are doubting, survivors may feel demoralized and stuck.

#### *Trajectories of R/S Coping Following Disaster*

The diverse ways survivors engage with and understand the sacred can affect fortitude and resilience processes (Captari et al., 2019; McElroy-Hetzel et al., 2018). Appraisals of threat (negatively valenced) and/or challenge (positively valenced) can be impacted by personal R/S dynamics, the cause and type of disaster, and survivors' personally experienced losses. Positive R/S coping (e.g., seeking God's love or assistance) may involve nurturing a secure attachment with one or more sacred entity, whereas negative R/S coping (e.g., feeling abandoned by God) often stems from attachment anxiety and/or avoidance in relation to the sacred. Although negative R/S coping has been associated with psychological, physical, and R/S distress, more positive R/S engagement (e.g., fnding meaning and hope) can buffer the relationship between disaster-related resource loss and psychological distress. Put differently, R/S domains can be a source of both struggle *and* strength—often in tandem (Aten et al., 2019).

The literature suggests four main trajectories of R/S coping following disaster. R/S survivors may (a) draw closer to the sacred and a R/S community to cope (e.g., spiritual dwelling), (b) grapple with R/S dilemmas that lead to R/S evolution over time (e.g., spiritual seeking), or (c) deidentify with religion/spirituality because of unsolvable R/S dilemmas, pursuing other groups and support networks that can contribute to meaning. Finally, (d) previously non-R/S survivors may refect on ultimate concerns following disaster and turn toward faith as a result (Counted et al., 2020). Contextual factors can also affect the relationship between survivors' experiences and outcomes. Individual differences (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age), prior trauma, and R/S variables (e.g., R/S attributions, coping, and importance) have been found to infuence (i.e., moderate) or explain (i.e., mediate) R/S and psychological outcomes (Feder et al., 2013; Shannonhouse et al., 2019). Macrolevel (e.g., R/S community) and disaster-related variables (e.g., resource loss, prior crises) are also critical to consider (Cook et al., 2013).

### **Holistic and Strength-Based Disaster Recovery Theories: A Brief Review**

Disasters can indeed catalyze a process of R/S and psychological growth over time, wherein losses, R/S struggles, and related vulnerabilities can be meaningfully addressed. A growing literature is examining the relevance of positive psychology in catalyzing community recovery and development processes in the wake of disaster (Morgado, 2020; Pargament & Cummings, 2010; Park, 2016; Southwick et al., 2016). Despite this, no model to date has synthesized the intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, and larger societal infuences that may contribute to positive R/S coping and adaptation. Below, we review four key theories that serve as building blocks to a holistic, strength-based understanding of postdisaster adaptation.

#### *Disaster Recovery as a Dynamic, Evolving Process*

According to the Phases of Disaster Model (Zunin & Myers, 2000), disaster situations evoke a normative trajectory of reactions across time. Although survivors' responses may vary signifcantly, this framework offers a helpful heuristic for tracking common responses. In the *predisaster phase*, fear and uncertainty abound, frequently alongside minimization or denial of threat. Even when there is a warning period (e.g., a weather forecast of hurricanes), some individuals will prepare more than others, which can lead to guilt and self-blame among survivors who end up sustaining damage. Sudden and unpredictable disasters (e.g., a mass shooting) are often more disruptive to a sense of personal agency and control. During the *disaster impact phase*, people may feel a range of intense emotions (e.g., terror, rage, helplessness), tempered by survival instincts that promote swift action. In the *heroic phase*, adrenaline-induced rescue behavior (e.g., prosocial or altruistic behavior) is prevalent. This behavior can lead to dramatic shifts in emotion, described as the *honeymoon phase*, during which survivors feel incredibly bonded and fear tends to be offset by optimism. However, as the effects of stress, exhaustion, and loss become more apparent in the *disillusionment phase*, survivors may experience increased psychological distress and become more vulnerable to engaging in maladaptive coping (e.g., substance abuse). Finally comes the *reconstruction phase*, which often takes years and involves re-engaging with daily life in a forever-altered world and working through grief as a community. In cases of a protracted threat such as the COVID-19 pandemic, communities have experienced multiple impact points (e.g., waves of infection and lockdown), leading to a less linear process involving a confusing vortex of heroism, honeymoon, and disillusionment.

Integrating risks and vulnerabilities alongside human strengths, the phases of disaster model attends to the ways in which a communal focus, altruism, and optimism can help promote adaptation. However, this does not preclude survivors from also needing to grapple with and process the realities of death, displacement, and more ambiguous losses (e.g., of daily routines, freedom, dreams, and possessions). Furthermore, it is vital to distinguish truly *positive* psychology from emotional avoidance and minimization, which can masquerade as unrealistic optimism or hope and try to circumvent the slow, hard work of reconstruction. The spiritual bypass literature similarly tracks the human propensity to avoid or circumvent consideration of psychological and physical needs, which can serve as a barrier to helpseeking behaviors (Fox et al., 2020).

#### *Resource Loss and Access as Critical Junctures*

Conservation of Resources (COR) theory explains individual differences in postdisaster adaptation as stemming from resource loss and access (Hobfoll, 1989). *Resources* are defned broadly as including material objects (e.g., house, belongings), personal characteristics (e.g., optimism, humor), relational conditions (e.g., companionship, feeling valuable to others), and energies (e.g., money, sleep). Within COR theory, the individual, family, and larger community are all viewed as having resources (Hobfoll et al., 1995). Although resources lost at an individual level (e.g., losing one's job during the pandemic) can affect a person and their household, resources lost at a community or larger level (e.g., inability to gather for celebrations, funerals, and religious rituals) may also result in less-successful coping at the individual level. Research has found resource loss to predict increased anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress (Aten et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2018). In contrast, resource access can promote resilience, as resources help mitigate stressors and restore a sense of personal agency (Hobfoll, 2011). There is some evidence R/S coping might be involved in these associations, such that negative R/S coping may explain how resource loss provokes psychological distress, and positive R/S coping may buffer adverse effects of resource loss (Cook et al., 2013; Shannonhouse et al., 2019).

Disasters can trigger "loss spirals" (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 519) particularly for vulnerable populations (e.g., children, older adults, or minorities), who often have fewer resources and greater levels of prior trauma and therefore are often more affected psychologically by disasters. However, increased access to resources can catalyze "gain spirals" (Hobfoll, 2011, p. 133) that bolster survivors' sense of agency, adaptive capacities, and community connections. In a study of racially diverse older adults, the demographic group hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic, those who were already socially isolated, had a low income and had chronic health conditions—that is, low levels of crucial resources—were particularly susceptible to further resource loss (Shannonhouse et al., 2021). In particular, losses in relational (i.e., not feeling valuable to others) and personal (i.e., losing one's sense of optimism) domains were tied to increased suicidality. COR theory's holistic framing of resources as physical, psychological, and relational—and as situated in individual and systemic contexts—captures much of the complexity of human experience. Assessing survivors' areas of resource loss and access can help tailor interventions strategically to address specifc areas of need, rather than taking a one-size-fts-all approach.

#### *The Human Drive to Find Meaning Amidst Tragedy*

Meaning-making is a vital process survivors engage in to make sense of disaster (Park, 2016). Park's (2010) Meaning-Making Model describes survivors' global meaning, which consists of beliefs, goals, and subjective feelings developed across the lifespan (e.g., a sense of safety, controllability, and justice). Global meaning also includes motives, hopes, and purpose, which may stem from a R/S tradition, salient identities, cultural groups, or family heritage. According to this model, when a disaster occurs, it can be interpreted in relation to survivors' global meaning system. If a survivor's situational meaning (specifc to the disaster experience) is discrepant

from their global meaning, they may feel distressed and be motivated to resolve this cognitive dissonance. However, if their appraisal of the disaster is congruent with their global meaning, they will not experience distress, so further processing is unneeded. The greater the discrepancy between global and situational meanings, the greater the distress experienced (Park, 2010, 2016).

R/S survivors often draw on their faith to reduce discrepancies between global and situational meanings and restore a global view of the world as meaningful, their losses as comprehensible, and life as worthwhile (Hall et al., 2018). Engaging faith as a meaning system can include drawing on R/S beliefs, practices, and virtues (e.g., hope, courage, gratitude). In this context, successful resolution may result not only in a reduction of the discrepancy between global and situational meanings but also in perceived psychological or spiritual growth (Cook et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2019a). To illustrate, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, for a person whose global meaning includes theodicies of divine protection from suffering, losing loved ones may evoke situational attributions of divine judgement or abandonment, precipitating a search for revised meaning. In contrast, a person whose global meaning includes viewing adversity as an inevitable human experience amidst which God is present may possess greater inherent capacities to metabolize suffering, and this is often bolstered by the reinforcement of a faith community. Although Park's (2010) Meaning-Making Model focuses mainly on cognitive processes (and less on other aspects of human experience), it highlights the human drive to fnd meaning and how R/S beliefs can serve as risk or protective factors in disaster recovery.

#### *Recovery Processes as Unfolding Within Relationships*

Disaster unfolds in a social context, and survivors' social relationships can signifcantly infuence their postdisaster adjustment process. The Social Ecology of Post-Traumatic Stress theory points out that human-caused disaster events produce greater risk for post-traumatic stress, potentially because survivors' relational schemas (e.g., are other people safe or a source of threat?) are more substantially affected (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008). Relatedly, perceived social support *before* and *after* a potentially traumatic event uniquely predicts psychological functioning across time and can buffer against the development of post-traumatic stress. This speaks to the ways in which meaning-making and resilience processes unfold within close relationships and community connections, which can provide instrumental support (e.g., practical, tangible help) and emotional support (e.g., facilitating coregulation of trauma-related affect and restoration of a sense of safety). However, close relationships can be the context for either (a) empathic support and facilitative processing of disaster-related shame, guilt, and anger *or* (b) emotional invalidation, confict, and disagreements that further exacerbate postdisaster psychological vulnerabilities (Maercker & Horn, 2013). At a broader societal level, community and government psychological responses can similarly be the context for either (a) collective grieving and memorializing of the disaster's broad-based impact and/or (b) segregation and prejudice toward nonmajority populations (who are frequently scapegoated as causing the disaster; e.g., in the United States, COVID-19 was caricatured as the "China virus," leading to increased hate crimes toward Asians and Asian Americans).

A focus on postdisaster social ecology interweaves positive psychology and R/S perspectives. For many survivors, their faith community is a primary context within which they feel a sense of belonging and companioning through suffering (see Wang et al., Chap. 29, this volume). Virtues such as hope, fortitude, and courage are not only intrapersonal strengths but also are capacities nurtured in an interpersonal matrix. For example, a parishioner overwhelmed with despair after the death of loved ones in a community tragedy may draw hope from the steady, responsive presence of their church, synagogue, or mosque. In sum, although the Social Ecology model only deals with the psychosocial aspects of disaster response, it offsets individualistic perspectives of disaster recovery by highlighting interactions between survivors' postdisaster adaptation and their relational, community, and societal milieu (ecological system).

### **A Systemic Model of Disaster Spiritual Fortitude and Resilience (DSFR)**

Each of these leading disaster theories offers a unique vantage point, but moving disaster science forward necessitates the development of a model that overtly synthesizes contributions from religion/spirituality and positive psychology. We also fnd it important to capture how social location, intersectionality, and structural oppression—as well as empowerment, liberation, and capacity-building—are inextricably intertwined with postdisaster adaptation. In our systemic Disaster Spiritual Fortitude and Resilience (DSFR) model (see Fig. 30.1), we frame disaster recovery as a complex, dynamic, and multidimensional process that (a) involves relational, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral domains and (b) unfolds across time in intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, and larger societal contexts. Next, we describe this model in detail.

#### *Domains of Human Experience*

The DSFR model views fortitude and resilience as emerging from adaptive responses in four domains of human experience: (a) relational (e.g., expecting the sacred and close others to be unreliable and punishing vs. responsive and supportive), (b) emotional (e.g., fear and despair vs. hope and optimism), (c) cognitive (e.g., appraisals of threat vs. opportunity), and (d) behavioral (e.g., erratic/maladaptive vs. strategic/ health-enhancing actions). These domains are shaped and reinforced across the lifespan based on experience, and past traumatic events can lead to both

**Fig. 30.1** Systemic model of Disaster Spiritual Fortitude and Resilience (DSFR). Disaster adaptation and recovery involves relational, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral domains of experience unfolding across time and within multiple contexts: intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, governmental/larger society, and time

survival-oriented biases (e.g., hypervigilance to threat) and distinct strengths (e.g., creativity, adaptability). Each domain can be the site of psychological and R/S vulnerabilities that increase risk for maladjustment, or psychological and R/S strengths that catalyze fortitude and resilience. Thus, postdisaster adaptation involves a complex set of relational, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral interactions, unfolding over time within multilevel social contexts.

Drawing on the attachment and social neuroscience literatures, the *relational domain* captures how survivors' relational spirituality dynamics contribute substantially to postdisaster psychological and spiritual outcomes, shaping "the course, intensity, and way of grieving" and overall adaptation (Stroebe et al., 2005, p. 58). Believers who have a sense of spiritual dwelling carry the relational expectation of their higher power(s) and R/S community as loving, emotionally present, and

responsive to their suffering. Amidst tragedy or disaster, although they may be angry or confused, R/S survivors are often motivated to seek experiential closeness to whatever they deem sacred as a means of comfort and support (Davis et al., 2019a, b). Indeed, Massengale et al. (2017) found that secure attachment to God following Hurricane Katrina weakened the link between loss of tangible resources and psychological distress. In a longitudinal study of food survivors, Davis et al. (2019b) found that divine attachment security facilitated emotional processing and spiritual meaning-making, including appraisals of God's providence and benevolence. In contrast, individuals with attachment insecurity in relation to the sacred may be at greater risk of psychological distress following traumatic death of a loved one (Captari et al., 2020) and disaster-related losses (Massengale et al., 2017). Taken together, survivors' relational schemas can either buffer or exacerbate a disaster's psychological impacts.

Secondly, the *emotional domain* captures both the deleterious impacts of traumarelated affect (e.g., fear, anxiety, guilt) and the health-enhancing infuences of positive emotions (e.g., curiosity, love, hope; see Van Cappellen et al., Chap. 20, this volume). Although emotion dysregulation is a common factor in psychopathology, the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions offers an additional perspective. Affect regulation includes an individual's ability to modulate emotional states in order to respond adaptively to their environment. In the context of disaster, emotions such as fear and anxiety can serve important adaptive functions in promoting survival-oriented and risk-reduction behaviors (e.g., evacuating, taking shelter, following health precautions). However, if not well-regulated, these emotions can be paralyzing and counterproductive over time. Within the DSRF model, the emotional domain also involves the upregulation of positive emotions, which can promote an upward spiral of cultivating psychological, R/S, and social resources (Van Cappellen et al., Chap. 20, this volume). Regulation can occur individually (self-regulation) and relationally (co-regulation). Adaptive regulation allows survivors to experience emotions more fully (rather than dissociating or avoiding) and use them productively (as cues about underlying needs, desires, and motivations).

Synthesizing contributions from the R/S coping and meaning-making literatures, the *cognitive domain* captures (a) the ways in which disasters may challenge or shatter previous beliefs about oneself, others, the world, and the sacred as well as (b) the role that positive or redemptive meanings can play in promoting resilience and adaptation. Many R/S survivors draw on their faith as they attempt to reconcile global meanings with painful disaster effects, often reducing dissonance by altering or expanding theodicies of suffering. This can include distress-perpetuating negative appraisals, such as blaming themselves or society at large (e.g., viewing the disaster as punishment for sin) or accusing God (e.g., viewing the divine as wrathful, cruel, or untrustworthy). Alternatively, believers can reaffrm a divine purpose and plan (e.g., seeing God as at work amidst the disaster) and make positive attributions about unity, sanctifcation, or potential R/S growth. For instance, in a longitudinal disaster study, Davis et al. (2019a, p. 6) found evidence that survivors engaged in resilience-promoting R/S appraisals about *cause* ("God did not cause the disaster but did allow it to happen"), *purpose* ("God has used the disaster to accomplish higher benevolent purposes"), and *presence* ("God has been a source of love, comfort, strength, and hope for survivors"). Metabolizing exposure to suffering, chaos, and death may occur via R/S narratives, rituals, and symbols that facilitate redemptive meaning-making.

Finally, the *behavioral domain* captures how in the context of danger, our bodies are physiologically primed to act, even as disasters upend our normal routines and rhythms of life. Survivors may exhibit erratic, disorganized action or antisocial behaviors and utilize maladaptive behaviors to cope. Or, on the contrary, survivors may restore a sense of personal agency and realistic control through engaging in adaptive coping strategies, altruism, and prosocial behaviors that meaningfully address community needs. As Vollhardt (2009) has noted, "Suffering may actually enhance the motivation to help other disadvantaged members of society, including outgroups" (p. 53). As one example, the resurgence of racial protests in the United States during the pandemic can be understood through this lens, as people spoke up and demanded justice for the bodies and lives of the oppressed. Yet altruistic action is not without its liabilities, and it can at times lead to counterproductive efforts (e.g., Penta et al., 2020) and exacerbated traumatization. Considering cultural norms, Lee and Kim (2020) found collectivism to be associated with greater prosocial behavior through the mediator of increased psychological closeness. This effect was particularly prominent among survivors reporting greater mortality salience, suggesting that awareness of life's fragility can orient people toward collaborative action in disaster recovery.

#### *The Infuence of Systemic Contexts*

Although many disaster recovery models focus on individual vulnerabilities, research has documented that the aforementioned domains of human experience are nested within community, R/S, and governmental contexts. Thus, as Fig. 30.1 depicts, human experience unfolds within—and is infuenced by—multiple levels of social ecology (see also Davis et al., Chap. 18, this volume). Critically, helping professionals and community leaders can look at each of these levels as potential intervention points. First, in the *intrapersonal* realm, personal strengths (e.g., resourcefulness, problem-solving) can buffer the psychological impacts of disasterrelated losses and disruptions by facilitating social support, emotion regulation, benevolent R/S appraisals, and prosocial behaviors. Alternatively, survivors' stressand-coping trajectory may be burdened by personal vulnerabilities (e.g., past trauma history, insecure attachment, mental or physical health problems), increasing risk for isolation, emotional dysregulation, malevolent religious appraisals, and maladaptive behaviors.

Second, with regard to *interpersonal* contexts, survivors' social relationships (e.g., social support from a partner, family members, and friends) can offer powerful

sources of fortitude and resilience. Couple and family systems enable co-regulation of diffcult affect, restore a sense of safety, and co-create benevolent, generative, and hope-flled meanings. For instance, parents can help their children adjust by developing a shared family narrative about surviving the disaster, drawing on R/S teachings and theodicies to make redemptive meaning of suffering and take prosocial action to support others. Alternatively, interpersonal contexts may exacerbate disaster-related loss and lead to maladaptive coping due to heightened confict, intimate partner violence, or abuse/neglect. Relationships that are unpredictable and unsafe (rather than stable and comforting) can fuel trauma-related affect, appraisals of threat, and desperate behaviors.

Third, *community* contexts, such as one's neighborhood, workplace, school, and faith community play vital roles. These formal and informal social networks have been described as a lynchpin in facilitating disaster preparation, response, and recovery at grassroots levels (Andrew et al., 2020). Schools are a safety net for vulnerable students, providing daily structure, socioemotional support, and nutritious meals (Lai et al., 2019). Workplaces offer daily continuity and opportunities for peer support. Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques are uniquely poised to help mitigate postdisaster social isolation because they are embedded within impacted communities and thus can serve as "social bridges [which] may in turn engender other sources of cohesion, such as trust, and further establishment of support networks and norms" (Vinson, 2004, p. 33). Community leaders' responses can help validate, contain, and support survivors in metabolizing suffering through adaptive coping, thereby providing contexts that facilitate mourning and meaningmaking. Or faith communities, learning environments, and local organizations can exacerbate disaster effects when leaders are reactionary, offer aid inequitably, or promulgate narratives that elicit fear and mistrust (rather than unity and collaboration). This can pit community members against each other, isolate vulnerable groups, and fuel maladaptive coping. Furthermore, communities themselves may be reeling from the effects of disasters and thus may be less able than usual to provide adequate support to individuals, families, and groups.

Finally, the responses of *governments and larger society* also infuence fortitude and resilience processes. Public health initiatives and media responses can buffer negative outcomes through addressing multiple domains of human experience. This may include cultivating a sense of community cohesiveness and solidarity, downregulating fear and anxiety by providing clear and direct information, fostering appraisals of rising to the challenge rather than minimizing or catastrophizing threat, and facilitating collaborative action to address survivors' needs. Alternatively, organizations and governments may compound disaster impacts when responses are uncoordinated, reactive, mismanaged, or inequitable. Such responses can precipitate feelings of invisibility (especially for nonmajority groups), fuel emotional reactivity and traumatic stress, promote distress-perpetuating meanings, and provoke dysregulated or erratic behavior.

#### **Community Implications and Future Research Directions**

This systemic model of DSFR integrates the contributions of R/S resources with positive psychology perspectives in ways that consider both catalysts and impediments to postdisaster adaptation across multiple contexts. We invite clinicians, R/S leaders, and community/government stakeholders to use this model as an orienting framework to understand and assess survivors' strengths and vulnerabilities holistically and within their socioecological situatedness. Helping survivors identify and draw on culturally embedded strengths, R/S practices, and community supports can bolster their sense of fortitude amidst chaos and collectively orient people toward resilience. Below, we offer several practical recommendations to guide such a disaster response.

**Be Responsive to Survivors' Needs in the Moment, Recognizing Changes Across Time.** For those involved in disaster response and spiritual care, it is vital to utilize a trauma-responsive approach, especially with respect to normative stress reactions and survivors' changing needs. For example, in the immediate aftermath, interventions that connect survivors with resources and help restore a felt sense of safety are advisable; practitioners can focus on offering survivors comfort, validation, and support. Survivors' meaning-making processes often unfold once their relational and emotional domains of experience are attended to, so practitioners should avoid jumping to theological concepts (e.g., quoting Scripture), which might be experienced as insensitive or invalidating. In research, mediation and moderation analyses can explore individual (e.g., R/S coping), familial (e.g., disaster narratives), and community (e.g., social support) variables that explain or infuence postdisaster adaptation. Social network analysis, longitudinal studies, and ecological momentary assessment can also help explore these nuances.

**Consider Overlapping Disaster Impacts and Each Person's Sociohistorical and Religious Context.** Disasters do not happen in isolation. Communities that are already vulnerable (due to historical trauma, oppression, and/or marginalization) are often hardest hit when a disaster strikes. Ongoing research is needed to explicate how these factors may affect the ways in which survivors view and relate to the sacred, as well as to develop culturally adapted forms of disaster spiritual and emotional care. Understanding differential effects of particular types of R/S coping can assist practitioners and R/S communities in offering effective culturally and spiritually responsive care.

**Intervene Across Multiple Domains and Contexts to Bolster Survivors' Strengths and Resources.** Clergy responses can help foster R/S coping and adaptive meaning-making within their spiritual communities in the aftermath of disaster. Community leaders can work to procure additional resources from larger government agencies that can help supplement and rebuild community resources, taking care to offer equitable supports and identify those most vulnerable. In addition to providing direct psychological care, mental health practitioners can partner with faith communities, schools, and other groups to create opportunities for memorializing and mourning, drawing on relevant R/S and cultural practices to foster hope, comfort, and support.

**Collaborate with and Contribute to Faith Communities.** Ongoing community partnerships between clergy, emergency/disaster response personnel, community leaders (e.g., school principal, mayor), and mental health practitioners are a key aspect of disaster preparedness and response. Clinicians should not deploy individually or attempt to intervene on their own, and R/S leaders should not work outside their competency by trying to provide psychological care. Public health efforts can also be much more effective when clergy are involved, given that many people trust and look to their spiritual leaders amidst crises. Research efforts should always be grounded in community-based participation and support. Wheaton College's Humanitarian Disaster Institute (https://www.wheaton.edu/academics/academiccenters/humanitarian-disaster-institute/) offers a hub for developing and enriching these types of community partnerships.

#### **Conclusion**

This chapter has synthesized the contributions of leading disaster theories and proposed a systemic model integrating positive psychological and R/S perspectives. We invite researchers, clinicians, and community stakeholders to use this model to inform empirical investigations and community-based interventions. By considering the interplay of human strengths and capacities for positive adaptation alongside R/S processes of struggle and transformation, we all can support individuals, families, and communities in not just surviving disasters but transcending them by moving through seasons of mourning and disorientation toward horizons of new meanings, deeper connections, and hopeful possibilities.

**Acknowledgement** This project was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation on "Christian Meaning-Making, Suffering and the Flourishing Life" (#61467).

**Conficts of Interest** We have no conficts of interest to disclose.

#### **References**

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **Part VIII Field Unifcation and Advancement**

## **Chapter 31 Future Directions for the Positive Psychology of Religion and Spirituality**

**Edward B. Davis, Sarah A. Schnitker, Everett L. Worthington Jr., and Ethan K. Lacey**

You have nearly reached the end of this *Handbook of Positive Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality*. In this fnal chapter, we highlight key themes that emerged across the *Handbook* and identify several defciencies in theory and research that were also uncovered along the way. We then propose the unifcation of positive psychology and the psychology of religion/spirituality (R/S) into an integrated feld—the positive psychology of R/S—to address these defciencies. Finally, we make recommendations about strategic priorities to guide science and practice in this unifed feld.

### **Key Themes Across the Handbook**

## *Positive Psychology and the Psychology of R/S Are Not Yet Well-Integrated*

Despite their similar aims, foundations, and emphases, these two felds are not yet well-integrated (Davis et al., Chap. 1, this volume). *Handbook* authors offered possible reasons for this gap.

E. B. Davis (\*) · E. K. Lacey

School of Psychology, Counseling, and Family Therapy, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL, USA

e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
S. A. Schnitker

E. L. Worthington Jr. Psychology Department, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nelson and Canty (Chap. 2, this volume) critiqued the felds by averring that one historical and philosophical reason for this lack of integration is that both felds are hindered by a commitment to *positivistic naturalism* (i.e., the assumption that nothing exists beyond the natural world and all knowledge must be verifed empirically by the scientifc method). They, Porter et al. (Chap. 3, this volume), and Tsang et al. (Chap. 8, this volume), encouraged positive psychology and the psychology of R/S to transcend this commitment by adopting a more methodologically and epistemologically pluralistic approach that will welcome more diverse methods and sources of knowledge.

Davis et al. (Chap. 1, this volume) indicated there might be personal and professional reasons for this lack of integration as well. They noted that psychologists usually lack personal or professional familiarity with R/S (Vieten & Lukoff, 2022) and often exhibit skepticism and potential bias against both R/S (Slife & Reber, 2009) and positivity (Vaish et al., 2008).

In addition, Davis et al. (Chap. 1, this volume) explained how these biases might infuence the openness of editors and peer reviewers to publishing research on R/S in mainstream psychology journals, despite comparatively more openness to publishing positive psychology research. Mattis (Chap. 9, this volume), Rossy et al. (Chap. 15, this volume), and Cowden et al. (Chap. 16, this volume) discussed other structural and logistical reasons for the lack of integration between the positive psychology and psychology of R/S. For instance, many countries and cultural groups lack the access, resources, and infrastructure to support such research. Moreover, the theories, measures, and applied tools in positive psychology and the psychology of R/S are overwhelmingly White-, Christian-, and Western-centric, as was mentioned in most chapters.

#### *There Are Several Natural Bridges Between the Fields*

Despite these noteworthy barriers between the positive psychology and psychology of R/S felds, there are several natural bridges of intersection between them. Numerous authors highlighted the potential for *virtues and character strengths* to serve as a nexus for such integration (Ratchford et al., Chap. 4, this volume; Hill et al., Chap. 7, this volume; Shafranske, Chap. 22, this volume; Washington-Nortey et al., Chap. 23, this volume; Cauble et al., Chap. 24, this volume; Long & VanderWeele, Chap. 25, this volume; Captari et al., Chaps. 26 and 30, this volume; Wang et al., Chap. 29, this volume). As the least-developed area among the positive psychology search terms that were systematically reviewed in Chap. 1 (Davis et al., this volume), there is indeed enormous room for growth in this domain. Several authors pointed to other prime candidates for bridging the felds, including *meaning* (Park & Van Tongeren, Chap. 6, this volume; King et al., Chap. 17, this volume; Davis et al., Chap. 18, this volume; Shafranske, Chap. 22, this volume; Dik & Alayan, Chap. 27, this volume), *positive emotions* (Van Cappellen et al., Chap. 20, this volume; Shafranske, Chap. 22, this volume; Captari et al., Chap. 30, this volume), *human and perceived divine relationships* (King et al., Chap. 17, this volume; Davis et al., Chap. 18, this volume; Mahoney et al., Chap. 28, this volume; Wang et al., Chap. 29, this volume), and *health and well-being* itself (Davis et al., Chap. 1, this volume; MacDonald, Chap. 5, this volume; Singh et al., Chap. 13, this volume; Mancuso & Lorona, Chap. 19, this volume; Masters et al., Chap. 21, this volume; Shafranske, Chap. 22, this volume; Long & VanderWeele, Chap. 25, this volume). These natural bridges between positive psychology and the psychology of R/S refect three elements in Seligman's (2011) PERMA well-being framework: positive emotions, positive relationships, and meaning.

## *R/S Are Robustly Linked to Positive Psychology Constructs and to Well-Being, but the Directionality, Mechanisms, and Boundary Conditions of These Links Are Less Clear*

Another theme that echoed across the *Handbook* was that R/S is robustly linked to positive psychology constructs and to health and well-being. For instance, extant research indicates that R/S is consistently associated with each of the aforementioned natural bridges with positive psychology: (a) virtues and character strengths (e.g., forgiveness, hope, humility, gratitude, and love; Washington-Nortey et al., Chap. 23, this volume; Cauble et al., Chap. 24, this volume; Long & VanderWeele, Chap. 25, this volume; Captari et al., Chap. 26, this volume), (b) meaning (Park & Van Tongeren, Chap. 6, this volume; Dik & Alayan, Chap. 27, this volume), (c) positive emotions (Van Cappellen et al., Chap. 20, this volume), and (d) positive relationships (King et al., Chap. 17, this volume; Davis et al., Chap. 18, this volume; Mahoney et al., Chap. 28, this volume). R/S is also robustly linked to overall health/well-being (MacDonald, Chap. 5, this volume; Davis et al., Chap. 18, this volume) and many of its facets, including life satisfaction (Mancuso & Lorona, Chap. 19, this volume), physical health (Masters et al., Chap. 21, this volume), mental health (Shafranske, Chap. 22, this volume), relational health (Mahoney et al., Chap. 28, this volume), occupational health (Dik & Alayan, Chap. 27, this volume), and community health (Long & VanderWeele, Chap. 25, this volume; Captari et al., Chaps. 26 and 30, this volume).

Even so, the directionality (causal direction of effects), causal mechanisms (mediators), and boundary conditions (moderators) of links between R/S and positive psychology constructs are less clear. One methodological refrain that emerged across chapters is that over 93% of the studies at the intersections of positive psychology and the psychology of R/S are cross-sectional/correlational (Tsang et al., Chap. 8, this volume), thereby precluding tests of causal effects (directionality; VanderWeele et al., 2020) or causal mechanisms (mediators; Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Furthermore, boundary conditions for effects are largely unknown, especially when it comes to identifying cultural and contextual factors that may infuence the strength or direction of the relationship between R/S and positive psychological traits or phenomena.

### **Defciencies Inhibiting the Integration of Positive Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality**

Chapter authors discussed several defciencies hindering the integration of positive psychology and the psychology of R/S. Here we highlight three major themes.

#### *Theoretical and Cultural Defciencies*

First, there are several theoretical defciencies uncovered in this *Handbook*. Although there are exceptions (e.g., Koenig et al., 2012; see MacDonald, Chap. 5, this volume, for a review), there is a relative dearth of theories that explain how, why, and when R/S and positive psychological traits and phenomena are linked. Several chapter authors addressed this need by proposing or elaborating on integrative theories, including (a) Mattis's (Chap. 9, this volume) Culture, Religiosity/Spirituality, and Positive Development theory; (b) Davis et al.'s (Chap. 18, this volume) Positive Religious and Spiritual Development theory; (c) Van Cappellen et al.'s (Chap. 20, this volume) Upward Spiral Theory of Sustained Religious/Spiritual Practice; (d) Shafranske's (Chap. 22, this volume) Religious/ Spiritual Pathways to Mental Health model; (e) Dik and Alayan's (Chap. 27, this volume) R/S and Meaningful Work model; and (f) Captari et al.'s (Chap. 30, this volume) Systemic Model of Disaster Spiritual Fortitude and Resilience. Each of those models also addressed another inadequacy in the extant literature on R/S and positive psychology—the lack of theories attending to multiple levels of analysis and the interactions among those levels (e.g., at the individual, relational, and macrosystemic levels). To date, most research at the intersections of R/S and positive psychology has been atheoretical (i.e., not guided by a particular theory; see Davis et al., Chap. 18, this volume) or focused only on the individual level of analysis.

Relatedly, as Mattis (Chap. 9, this volume) underscored, most research at the intersections of R/S and positive psychology has been acultural (i.e., neither focusing on culture nor considering culture meaningfully in its conceptual foundations, research questions, or data analyses and interpretation). In fact, positive psychology often seems to have culturally appropriated religious/spiritual beliefs, practices, and phenomena. For instance, apart from Peterson and Seligman (2004) acknowledging the religious origins of their taxonomy, positive psychology has largely ignored the religious moorings of virtues and virtue development (Nelson & Canty, Chap. 2, this volume; Ratchford et al., Chap. 4, this volume). It also has largely disregarded the religious mechanisms that have helped people cultivate virtues and well-being for millennia—through historic religious practices, guided by historic religious texts, and nurtured in historic religious traditions and communities (Schiffman et al., Chap. 11, this volume; Singh et al., Chap. 13, this volume; Wang et al., Chap. 29, this volume). Positive psychology seems to have appropriated certain historically religious concepts (e.g., hope and forgiveness; Washington-Nortey et al.,

Chap. 23, this volume) and practices (e.g., mindfulness and meditation; Segall & Kristeller, Chap. 14, this volume), secularized them, and demonstrated empirically that the secularized versions apply to and work effectively with nonreligious/nonspiritual people.1

Yet the psychology of R/S feld is not faultless either. It has rarely attempted to establish the cross-cultural equivalence of its constructs and measures (Hill et al., Chap. 7, this volume), the cross-cultural generalizability of its theories and fndings (Rossy et al., Chap. 15, this volume; Cowden et al., Chap. 16, this volume), or the cross-cultural applicability of its theories and interventions (MacDonald, Chap. 5, this volume; Mattis, Chap. 9, this volume; Captari et al., Chap. 26, this volume). Moreover, the psychology of R/S feld frequently ignores the contributions of culture to R/S, fails to disentangle culture from R/S, and glosses over cultural variations in R/S (e.g., differences in how R/S is approached and practiced; Saroglou et al., 2020).

#### *Methodological and Analytic Defciencies*

This *Handbook* also revealed methodological and analytic inadequacies at the intersections of positive psychology and the psychology of R/S. Many authors underscored this literature's overreliance on cross-sectional studies, culturally homogenous (and small/underpowered) samples, and correlational analyses. Admittedly, this defciency characterizes mainstream psychology and most (if not all) its subfelds—not just positive psychology and the psychology of R/S (Tsang et al., Chap. 8, this volume). Nevertheless, there is a clear need for greater methodological and analytic sophistication. That of course includes a need for more longitudinal and experimental research, but it also includes a need for more studies that recruit large samples characterized by meaningful diversity within and across cultural groups (in terms of nationality, religious affliation, religious/spiritual importance, age, gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, marital status, and disability status). In addition, there is a need for more studies that use advanced statistical analyses (e.g., growth modeling [Grimm et al., 2017] or outcome-wide analyses [VanderWeele, 2017a; VanderWeele et al., 2020]), conduct sensitivity analyses (to test the robustness of effects to potential unmeasured confounding; VanderWeele & Ding, 2017), and utilize open science practices (e.g., preregister study plans and hypotheses, share study data and materials, replicate study fndings, and post manuscript preprints; https://www.cos.io/; Nosek et al., 2015; Tsang et al., Chap. 8, this volume).

<sup>1</sup>To be fair, religious/spiritual people and groups are often eager to appropriate secular, positive psychological research evidence, claiming it empirically validates their preexisting religious/spiritual concepts and practices.

#### *Applied and Practical Defciencies*

Finally, this *Handbook* illuminated the scarcity of practical applications and implications that have been explored adequately at the intersections of positive psychology and the psychology of R/S. Most of the literature at these intersections is *basic science* (i.e., "scientifc research or theory that is concerned with knowledge of fundamental phenomena and the laws that govern them, regardless of the potential applications of such knowledge," VandenBos, 2015, p. 109), rather than *applied science* (i.e., "the use of scientifc principles and theories to serve a practical human purpose rather than to extend knowledge for its own sake," VandenBos, 2015, p. 70). There is a great need to nurture and refne an applied positive psychology (Lomas et al., 2014) and an applied psychology of R/S (Pargament, 2013), but more broadly, there is an exigent need to emphasize the applied and practical sides of integrating positive psychology and the psychology of R/S. Several chapters explored possible venues and vehicles for doing that, including public health efforts (Long & VanderWeele, Chap. 25, this volume), psychological and spiritual interventions (Captari et al., Chap. 26, this volume), work settings (Dik & Alayan, Chap. 27, this volume), couples and families (Mahoney et al., Chap. 28, this volume), religious communities (Wang et al., Chap. 29, this volume), and humanitarian and disaster contexts (Captari et al., Chap. 30, this volume).

### **Prospectus for a Positive Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (PPRS)**

#### *The Defnition, Aims, and Scope of a Unifed PPRS Field*

To address these and other defciencies at the intersections of positive psychology and the psychology of R/S, we propose formalizing a new, unifed feld—the positive psychology of R/S. Building on the work of Linley et al. (2006; who defned positive psychology as "the scientifc study of optimal human functioning", p. 8) and Davis et al. (Chap. 18, this volume; who defned R/S as "people's search for and response to sacred meaning and connection"), we defne the *positive psychology of R/S* (PPRS) as the feld of psychological science and practice dedicated to understanding and promoting fourishing in and through people's R/S (search for and response to sacred meaning and connection; Davis et al., Chap. 18, this volume). In other words, the aims of the PPRS are to understand and promote fourishing in and through people's R/S.

When it comes to the topical scope of PPRS, we adapt the same four elements that Linley et al. (2006) identifed as the pillars of positive psychology's scope: (a) *wellsprings*, (b) *internal processes*, (c) *external processes*, and (d) *outcomes*. We have slightly modifed Linley et al.'s (2006) defnitions and conceptualizations, in part to account for the multilevel nature of R/S.

<sup>2</sup>Due to space constraints, we have mainly provided examples at the individual level. However, as we show in some of the provided examples, wellsprings and processes can refer to multiple levels of analysis (e.g., dyads, groups, institutions, communities, cultures, and societies). For example, at the dyadic level of analysis (e.g., a parent–child dyad or a romantic couple), examples of *wellsprings* might include the individuals' respective genetics and temperament, their life experiences as individuals and as a dyad, and their respective families and cultures of origin. At the institutional level of analysis (e.g., a school, workplace, or religious community), examples of *internal processes* might include the institution's structure and dynamics, and its *external processes* would include the community and culture within which the institution is embedded. At the macrosystemic level of analysis (e.g., a community or culture), examples of *wellsprings* might include the community or culture's history, *internal processes* might include the community or culture's internal structure and dynamics, and *external processes* might include the community or culture's relations with other communities and cultures, as well as the broader societal context and historical period within which the community or culture is embedded.

#### *Strategic Priorities for Science in the PPRS Field*

**Basic Science** Most fundamentally, we encourage scientists in the PPRS feld to remedy the theoretical, cultural, methodological, analytic, applied, and practical defciencies we mentioned above. Topically, there are at least three major strategic priorities to address in PPRS basic science.

*Question 1: What Is the Nature and Function of Flourishing-Facilitative R/S (and Flourishing-Undermining R/S) in Various Cultures and Contexts?* There likely are similarities and differences in what characterizes and facilitates (or impedes) fourishing across various cultures and contexts (VanderWeele, 2017b). By extension, there are presumably similarities and differences in the nature and function of fourishing-facilitative versus fourishing-undermining R/S. For instance, there may be some dimensions of R/S that only play a strong role in characterizing, facilitating, or impeding fourishing in certain cultures or contexts, whereas other dimensions may play a strong role across all or most cultures and contexts. Largescale, longitudinal research with geographically, culturally, and religiously diverse samples (e.g., the Global Flourishing Study of 240,000 people across 22 countries; Crabtree et al., 2021) and well-replicated research across diverse contexts (e.g., the Religious Replication Project; PRSM Lab, n.d.) is greatly needed.

*Question 2: What Are the Determinants and Consequences of Flourishing-Facilitative R/S (and Flourishing-Undermining R/S) in Various Cultures and Contexts?* In the same way, there probably are similarities and differences in what determines and results from fourishing-facilitative R/S and fourishing-undermining R/S (i.e., internal/external processes and outcomes). For example, there may be mediators (causal mechanisms), boundary conditions (moderators), and outcomes of fourishing-facilitative (or fourishing-undermining) R/S that only emerge in certain cultures and contexts, whereas others may be evident across most cultures and contexts. To illustrate, even though the meaning may be a causal mechanism of fourishing across most cultures and contexts (Park & Van Tongeren, Chap. 6, this volume), cultures vary considerably in how often R/S is approached as a substantive source of meaning (e.g., R/S is often mentioned as a source of meaning in the United States but rarely mentioned as such in most Asian or European countries; Pew Research Center, 2021). Hence, experimental and longitudinal PPRS research may fnd that R/S causally enhances meaning and fourishing in certain cultures but does not do so in others. To address such questions, team science approaches that coordinate the collection of data internationally at diverse sites should be adopted, as is being done through the Developing Belief Network's (n.d.) coordination across 30 international feld sites with participants from multiple religious/spiritual traditions (see also Many Analysts of Religion Project, n.d.; Psychological Science Accelerator, n.d.).

*Question 3: What Are the Internal and External Processes That Lead to (or Impede) Flourishing-Facilitative R/S at Various Levels of Analysis?* In addition, there is a need for PPRS basic science research on the internal and external processes that cause (or undermine) fourishing-facilitative R/S in individuals, dyads, families, groups, institutions, communities, cultures, and societies. For instance, at the individual level, researchers could work to identify the physiological (e.g., neurobiological) substrates of fourishing-facilitative and fourishing-undermining R/S (Masters et al., Chap. 21, this volume) and examine how those substrates interact bidirectionally with internal psychological processes (e.g., emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and motivational factors) and external social and cultural processes (e.g., relational, systemic, and societal factors). One research center that is pioneering this type of multilevel research on R/S is the Institute for the Biocultural Study of Religion (https://www.ibcsr.org/).

**Applied Science** Applied science in the PPRS feld should of course address the aforementioned defciencies. In addition, there are at least three major topical priorities to address.

*Question 1: Why, When, and for Whom Are PPRS Interventions Effective?* As Captari et al. (Chap. 26, this volume) have summarized, there is a growing evidence base supporting the effectiveness of spiritually integrated, positive psychological, and virtue-based interventions. However, there still is a need for process research to identify the change mechanisms and contextual infuencers of PPRS interventions' effectiveness (e.g., the Mental Healthcare, Virtue, and Human Flourishing Project; John Templeton Foundation, 2021a). There also is a need for identifying the people for whom PPRS interventions are most (or least) effective, based on the recipient's characteristics, culture, and preferences, such as the recipient's presenting concerns (mental disorders; spiritual struggles) and religious/spiritual affliation, salience, beliefs, and practices (Shafranske, 2013; Captari et al., Chap. 26, this volume). Moreover, there is a need to ensure that all mental health practitioners develop clinical competencies in R/S (Vieten & Lukoff, 2022; e.g., the Religious and Spiritual Competencies in Mental Health Care Project; John Templeton Foundation, 2021b).

*Question 2: What Are Ways to Promote Flourishing-Facilitative R/S at Multiple Levels and in Various Cultures and Contexts?* Practically all PPRS interventions have been developed (a) in North America, Europe, or Australia–Oceania; (b) from Western conceptual, religious, and valuative frameworks; (c) for WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), White, and Christian people; and (d) to promote fourishing at the individual level. These defciencies must be addressed in PPRS applied science. For example, there is a need for PPRS interventions that effectively promote the fourishing of couples (e.g., hope-focused couple therapy; Ripley & Worthington, 2014), families (e.g., sanctifcation-focused family therapy; cf. Mahoney et al., Chap. 28, this volume), organizations (e.g., meaningfocused organizational interventions; cf. Dik & Alayan, Chap. 27, this volume), religious communities (e.g., virtue-focused congregational interventions; McMinn,

2017; cf. Wang et al., Chap. 29, this volume), and societies (e.g., R/S-focused public health interventions; Long & VanderWeele, Chap. 25, this volume). There also is a need for PPRS interventions that are found effective in a diverse range of contexts and with a geographically, religiously, and culturally diverse range of people (e.g., the Building More Forgiving Communities Around the Globe Project; Templeton World Charity Foundation, n.d.).

*Question 3: How Can the Science–Practice Gap in PPRS Be Narrowed?* One major problem in mainstream psychology and its subfelds is the *science–practice gap*—the integration divide between the knowledge produced through scientifc research and the knowledge consumed and used by practitioners and the public (Aguinis et al., 2020). Of note, although the science–practice gap usually refers only to the divide between science and clinical practice, we are using this phrase to refer to the divide between science and real-world practice in a much broader sense. Specifcally, we use the phrase to refer to the divide between science and practice not only in clinical healthcare contexts but also in religious ministry, educational institutions, organizational contexts, public health, and other broadly defned areas of practice, including laypeople's everyday lives.

The science–practice gap is especially pronounced in the PPRS, partly due to the same barriers and defciencies described above (see also Davis et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Nelson & Canty, Chap. 2, this volume) and partly due to other factors. Some of these other factors include (a) the need for scientists to make knowledge more relevant, useful, and accessible; (b) the need for practitioners and the public to tell researchers what knowledge they want, need, and actually will use; and (c) the need for scientists and practitioners to welcome each other's valuable contributions more humbly and offer those contributions more proactively. To illustrate, (a) PPRS scientists can contribute scientifc knowledge about R/S, virtues, and fourishing; (b) PPRS practitioners can contribute practical tips and tools for helping people cultivate their R/S, virtues, and fourishing; and (c) religious practitioners (e.g., religious leaders, institutions, and laypeople) can contribute theological and experiential knowledge about R/S, virtues, and fourishing and offer practical tools (e.g., religious texts and practices) that people across cultures and history have used to cultivate them. For lists of suggestions for science–practice integration that could easily be adapted for the PPRS, see Aguinis et al. (2020) and Geimer et al. (2020).

#### *Strategic Priorities for Practice in the PPRS Field*

Lastly, we highlight six strategic priorities for practice in the PPRS feld. These priorities are domains through which the PPRS might arguably be of greatest beneft to society and humanity.

**Clinical Practice** The PPRS interventions mentioned above can be disseminated and used in a diverse array of clinical practice contexts, including healthcare settings (e.g., hospitals, outpatient clinics, inpatient programs, treatment centers, long-term care facilities), correctional facilities (e.g., prisons), and spiritual care contexts (e.g., spiritual direction centers, spiritual retreat centers, and spiritual study centers). Practitioners in all these settings can also cultivate their clinical competencies in positive psychology (Rashid & Seligman, 2018) and R/S (Vieten & Lukoff, 2022), including skills in how to help people build fourishing-facilitative R/S (Pargament, 2007) and reduce fourishing-undermining R/S (e.g., resolve religious/spiritual struggles; Pargament & Exline, 2022).

**Religious Ministry** PPRS interventions can be disseminated and used in religious ministry settings as well, but these interventions may often need to be culturally adapted, in order to enhance their compatibility with religious groups' beliefs, values, practices, and worldviews (Soto et al., 2018). Additionally, religious leaders and laypeople can draw on the fndings and tools of PPRS to supplement the benefts they glean from their preexisting beliefs and practices. Furthermore, religious leaders and communities can use knowledge and tools from PPRS to enhance the effectiveness of their existing religious ministry efforts and programs (McMinn, 2017).

**Character Education** *Character* refers to the totality of a person's morally relevant habits of thought, feeling, and behavior (Baehr, 2017), and *virtues* are habits of thought, feeling, or behavior that are consensually esteemed as morally good, contextually adaptive (benefcial to the person and their social context), and situationally coherent (prudent for specifc times and places; Lerner, 2019). *Character education* (i.e., deliberate attempts to promote the development of virtues and good character) frequently happens in the context of schools, families, religious communities, colleges, and faith-based organizations. Character educators can incorporate the knowledge and tools of PPRS into their efforts and strategies (Berkowitz & Hoppe, 2009).

**Organizational Settings** People's work is one of the strongest contributors to their overall fourishing (VanderWeele, 2017b), and workers often draw on their R/S to enhance the meaningfulness of their work (Dik & Alayan, Chap. 27, this volume). Organizations and their leaders can harness the fndings of PPRS research (Hill & Dik, 2012; Neal, 2013) to improve the fourishing, functioning, and performance of their employees, leaders, and overall organization.

**Humanitarian and Disaster Contexts** The number of people affected by disasters and humanitarian crises has increased dramatically over the past 50 years. For example, since 1970 there have been over 22,000 natural and technological disasters (collectively causing 4.6 million deaths and nearly \$5 trillion in economic losses), and the number of natural disasters per decade has increased fvefold (World Meteorological Organization, 2021). Between 2000 and 2019 (i.e., the 20 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), over 4 billion people were affected by disasters (UNDRR, 2020), and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance and protection has increased exponentially (from 1 in 45 people globally [168 million] during 2019 to 1 in 33 people globally [235 million] during 2020; UNICEF, 2021).

There already is an extensive amount of PPRS research on humanitarian crises and disasters (Aten et al., 2019; Captari et al., Chap. 30, this volume), along with numerous practical tools and resources to use in humanitarian and disaster contexts. Many of these resources are available through Wheaton College's Humanitarian Disaster Institute (http://www.wheaton.edu/hdi). Policymakers, religious communities, and humanitarian aid and disaster organizations can draw on such studies and resources to help prepare for and respond to disaster-related and humanitarian needs.

**Public Health** As Long and VanderWeele (Chap. 25, this volume) have discussed, public health is the scientifc discipline focused on preventing disease, promoting fourishing, and prolonging life (Winslow, 1920). An enormous share of the global population (about 85%) identifes as religious/spiritual (Pew Research Center, 2015), and for most people (around 68%), R/S is an important part of their lives and identity (Diener et al., 2011). This is especially the case for people in Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East (Pew Research Center, 2018). Global research suggests that people living in societies characterized by diffcult life circumstances—including many countries in the same regions just mentioned—are particularly likely to self-identify as religious/spiritual and to experience higher fourishing to the degree they are religious/spiritual (Diener et al., 2011). In these and other societies worldwide, policymakers, government workers, and public health offcials could draw on the fndings of PPRS research (e.g., Chen & VanderWeele, 2018; Long & VanderWeele, Chap. 25, this volume) to inform their efforts in making policies and laws, designing public health initiatives and interventions, and engaging in public health prevention and management. Doing so could improve the lives, well-being, and longevity of literally billions of people around the globe (Idler, 2014).

#### **Conclusion**

Take the frst step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the frst step. – Martin Luther King, Jr.

You have reached the end of the *Handbook of Positive Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality*. Regardless of how religious or spiritual you are personally, we hope you now have a greater understanding and appreciation of how intimately intertwined R/S, positive psychology, and fourishing are. We hope you also are inspired to apply what you have learned and make your work, life, and the world a better place—flled with more love, hope, and fourishing. Even if you don't know exactly how to do that, we encourage you to heed the visionary call of Dr. Martin

Luther King, echoing through the halls of time and beckoning you just to take the frst step in faith.

**Acknowledgement** This publication was made possible through the support of Grants 61865 and 62208 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily refect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

**Conficts of Interest** We have no known conficts of interest to disclose.

#### **References**

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). *Flourish*. Simon and Schuster.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.


**1. Introduction**

Zeolite is a crystalline alumino-silicate material that has a micropore structure. The three-dimensional structure of the zeolite is composed of AlO4 and SiO4 which are related to each other by sharing electrons from oxygen and are arranged tetrahedral [1]. Zeolites have been widely used in industrial processes as environmentally friendly heterogeneous catalysts, ion exchange and adsorbents due to their high specific surface area, large pore volume, uniform micropore channels and excellent thermal and hydrothermal stability. The use of zeolite as a catalyst in various industries is limited due to its narrow pores. The reactant components that have a large molecular size will experience difficulties during the mass transfer process which

will affect the catalytic activity [2, 3]. Increasing the diffusion of the reactants on the catalyst can be done by increasing the pore size of the zeolite, or by creating a mesoporous structure on the zeolite. Therefore, the meso-sized catalyst structure is preferred by most industries, especially the petroleum processing industry because it can increase the effectiveness in the petroleum processing process [4].

Researchers [5] have synthesized mesoporous zeolite-Y using a mold in the form of pluronic F127. In general, the mold used is a surfactant that has a long chain. This method has been effective in making of mesoporous zeolite-Y [6].

Mesoporous which is more practical and economical, namely the alkaline treatment known as desilication. This method has been used by many researchers, one of them is researchers [7] that have succeeded in synthesizing mesoporous mordenite using NaOH. Mesoporous distribution in the mordenite increased significantly after being treated with NaOH. This shows that NaOH treatment can produce mesoporous zeolites with a fairly practical and inexpensive process.

The Si/Al ratio in zeolite is one of the characteristics that is closely related to this method of mesoporosity recognition. Alkaline treatment can cause dominant desilication if the Si/Al ratio is above 25 [7]. The low Si/Al ratio value has a limited effect from the alkaline treatment, this is due to the high aluminum content in the zeolite framework, so to get the optimal Si/Al ratio for dominant desilication, the dealumination process needs to be done first. Researchers [8] have succeeded in dealing with H-mordenite, zeolite-Y and ZSM using nitric acid. The dealumination can increase the Si/Al ratio without significantly impairing the crystallinity. In addition, previous study [9] used nitric acid to alluminate zeolite HMCM-22. Nitric acid is considered a strong acid to increase the Si/Al ratio of the zeolite. The dealumiation of mordenite with nitric acid showed an increase in the Si/Al ratio without destroying its crystallinity. This study was conducted by [10].

Mordenite is the most widely used catalyst in industrial processes, one of which is the petrochemical and petroleum process [11]. Mordenite has high thermal stability and is more resistant to acids. Mordenite is also a catalyst with a stronger acid site compared to zeolite-Y [12]. Therefore, mordenite can be used to produce biofuel. One of the raw materials in making biofuel is cellulose.

The research of [13] stated that cellulose is a candidate biomass source with the most potential to replace fossil fuels in the next few years, because it can reduce greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels. One type of cellulose polymer is α-cellulose. The α-cellulose polymer has a degree of polymerization above 200 [14]. This causes α-cellulose to be a carbon source that can be converted into biofuel. Α-cellulose can be converted into fuel fractions in the form of hydrocarbons and alcohol by using a pyrolysis process.

However, the pyrolysis process is not effective in producing hydrocarbon and alcohol fractions, this is because bio-oil from pyrolysis is known to have acidic properties, is unstable for heating, and contains many oxygenated compounds [15]. Therefore, one effort that can be done to improve the quality of bio-oil from hydrolyzed α-cellulose is the hydrotreating process. The hydrotreating process can be applied to produce biofuels. This causes the hydrotreating process to become a major concern in the petroleum processing industry because it can produce products that have better selling power and usability [16].

Based on the description above, mordenite modification is carried out by treating HNO3 and/or NaOH. This study examines the effect of HNO3 and/or NaOH treatment on Si/Al ratio, crystallinity and acidity of mordenite and the effect of NaOH treatment on mordenite pore character. Then the activity and selectivity of the catalyst were tested in the hydrolyzed α-cellulose hydrotreating process.


**4. The model under investigation**

The calculations were made for a one-cycle heat exchanger, Fig. 1, whose model has been developed on the basis of the technical documentation of the Py-100-020 decarbonized water heater.

The elements that were taken into account in the 3D model of the heat exchanger are as follows: perforated plates (1), bottoms (2), a jacket (3), heating cartridge pipes (8), heating cartridge gaskets (10) shown in Fig.1. Perforated plates are fixed to bottoms with screw fasteners (9). Connector pipes (6) and (7) supply and take off the steam. Detail B shows dimensions of the hole in the perforated bottom before rolling out and a view of the pipeperforated bottom connection after rolling out. The perforated plates have a hexagonal system of holes that make perforations. The materials used in the structure are listed in Table 1.

Numerical Analysis of the Structural Stability of Heat Exchangers – The FEM Approach 171

For the strength analysis in the elastic-plastic range, stresses σ versus strains ε at the maximum operating temperature were used as the basic model of the material the perforated plate and the heating cartridge pipes were made of. A physical model of the St41K steel is presented in Fig. 2, whereas the physical model of the I-K10 steel is shown in Fig. 3. In the calculations, the material consolidation factor λ=0.99 was assumed, according

The pressure acting on the gasket was calculated on the basis of the required value of the initial stress of screws in the bottom–gasket–perforated bottom–gasket–jacket connection

A shell-solid model (Fig. 4) was built for the numerical calculations. The calculations were conducted for the plate thickness decreased by approx. 15% up to 50 mm and by 50% up to 30 mm, the remaining dimensions were unaltered. The numerical model was divided into elements of the SOLID 45 type (perforated bottoms) and Shell 43 (heating cartridge pipes and the jacket). The numerical calculations were conducted to calculate initial stresses and strains occurring in the heat exchanger with respect to a stability loss, whereas the thickness of perforated bottoms was altered. The calculations were carried out for the emergency

Fig. 2. Physical model of the St 41K steel. (perforated bottom plate).

Table 2. Parameters of the heat exchanger operation.

given in the technical documentation.

to Table 1.

state.

Parameters Steam chamber Pressure p0=1.17 MPa Temperature T0 =523 K

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the heat exchanger.

Table 1. Strength properties of the materials used in the structure

#### **5. Numerical calculations**

The numerical calculations were conducted for the case when the water inflow and the outflow of were closed, whereas the steam was still supplied to the heat exchanger. The data presented in Table 2 were assumed in the calculations on the basis of the technical documentation:

Table 2. Parameters of the heat exchanger operation.

170 Heat Exchangers – Basics Design Applications

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the heat exchanger.

**5. Numerical calculations**

documentation:

I - K10 PN-74/H-74252 boiler pipe

tensile strength Rm=345440 MPa Rm =400 490

Table 1. Strength properties of the materials used in the structure

yield point Re =235 MPa Re =255 MPa Re=196 MPa

Young' s modulus E =2٠105 MPa E =2٠105 MPa E =2٠105 MPa consolidation factor =0.99 =0.99 =0.99 Poisson's ratio =0.3 =0.3 =0.3 friction coefficient = 0.23 - -

The numerical calculations were conducted for the case when the water inflow and the outflow of were closed, whereas the steam was still supplied to the heat exchanger. The data presented in Table 2 were assumed in the calculations on the basis of the technical

St41K PN-75/H-92123 boiler sheet

MPa -

St 36K PN-75/H-92123 boiler sheet

For the strength analysis in the elastic-plastic range, stresses σ versus strains ε at the maximum operating temperature were used as the basic model of the material the perforated plate and the heating cartridge pipes were made of. A physical model of the St41K steel is presented in Fig. 2, whereas the physical model of the I-K10 steel is shown in Fig. 3. In the calculations, the material consolidation factor λ=0.99 was assumed, according to Table 1.

The pressure acting on the gasket was calculated on the basis of the required value of the initial stress of screws in the bottom–gasket–perforated bottom–gasket–jacket connection given in the technical documentation.

A shell-solid model (Fig. 4) was built for the numerical calculations. The calculations were conducted for the plate thickness decreased by approx. 15% up to 50 mm and by 50% up to 30 mm, the remaining dimensions were unaltered. The numerical model was divided into elements of the SOLID 45 type (perforated bottoms) and Shell 43 (heating cartridge pipes and the jacket). The numerical calculations were conducted to calculate initial stresses and strains occurring in the heat exchanger with respect to a stability loss, whereas the thickness of perforated bottoms was altered. The calculations were carried out for the emergency state.

Fig. 2. Physical model of the St 41K steel. (perforated bottom plate).

Numerical Analysis of the Structural Stability of Heat Exchangers – The FEM Approach 173

Q function of stress termed potential (which determines the direction of plastic

The following boundary conditions were assumed in the calculations: the rear perforated plate Ux=Uy=Uz=0, the front perforated plate Ux=Uy=0. Such boudary conditions were

plastic multiplier (which determines the amount of plastic straining)

assumed on the circumference of both plates (Fig.4).

Fig. 4. Numerical model of the heat exchanger under investigation.

In heat exchangers, the analysis of a complex influence of perforated bottoms on the jacket connected to them, as well as a distribution of stresses in the jacket, pipes and perforated bottoms is essential. The substitutive stress that decides basically about strains occurring in steel structures was calculated according to the Huber-Misses hypothesis. The calculations of the heat exchanger were conducted on the assumption of high strains in the structural

The Finite Element Method - ANSYS 12.0 - was used for the numerical calculations. The results of the numerical calculations have been presented in the form of maps of stresses and strains. The results shown in Figs. 5-12 concern the heat exchanger in which the thickness of

straining)

**5.1 Results**

elements.

 *e* equivalent stress {*S*} deviatoric stress

Fig. 3. Physical model of the I-K10 steel (heating cartridge pipes).

The mathematical model of the numerical code is described by the following equations from numerical program ANSYS

$$\mathbb{E}\left\{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{p\boldsymbol{i}}\right\} = \left[\boldsymbol{B}\right] \{\boldsymbol{\mu}\} - \left\{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{t\boldsymbol{h}}\right\} \text{ - strain} \tag{1}$$

$$\{\sigma\} = \begin{bmatrix} D \end{bmatrix} \begin{Bmatrix} \varepsilon^{cl} \end{Bmatrix} \text{ - stress} \tag{2}$$

$$
\sigma\_e = \left[\frac{3}{2} \{\mathbf{S}\}^T \left[T\right] \{\mathbf{S}\}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \text{ - equivalent stress} \tag{3}
$$

the flow rule determines the direction of plastic straining

$$
\left\{\mathbf{d}\varepsilon^{\rm pl}\right\} = \mathcal{L}\left\{\frac{\delta\mathbf{Q}}{\delta\sigma}\right\}\tag{4}
$$

where:

$$
\begin{array}{ll}
\{\boldsymbol{x}^{\operatorname{pi}}\} & \text{structures that cause stresses} \\
\{\boldsymbol{B}\} & \text{strain-displacement matrix evaluated at integration point} \\
\{\boldsymbol{\mu}\} & \text{nodal displacement vector} \\
\{\boldsymbol{x}^{\operatorname{th}}\} & \text{thermal strain vector} \\
\{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\} & \text{stress vector} \\
\{\boldsymbol{D}\} & \text{elasticity matrix}
\end{array}
$$

*e* equivalent stress

172 Heat Exchangers – Basics Design Applications

The mathematical model of the numerical code is described by the following equations from

(4)

*e S TS* - equivalent stress (3)

*pi th*

*B u*

*el*

*T*

3 2

1

pl δQ dε

δ

Fig. 3. Physical model of the I-K10 steel (heating cartridge pipes).

2

[*B*] strain-displacement matrix evaluated at integration point

the flow rule determines the direction of plastic straining

strains that cause stresses

{*u*} nodal displacement vector

thermal strain vector

 stress vector [*D*] elasticity matrix *D*

numerical program ANSYS

where: *pi*

 *th*

 {*S*} deviatoric stress

plastic multiplier (which determines the amount of plastic straining)

Q function of stress termed potential (which determines the direction of plastic straining)

The following boundary conditions were assumed in the calculations: the rear perforated plate Ux=Uy=Uz=0, the front perforated plate Ux=Uy=0. Such boudary conditions were assumed on the circumference of both plates (Fig.4).

Fig. 4. Numerical model of the heat exchanger under investigation.


*Edited by Carlos M. Travieso-González*

Nowadays, the technological advances allow developing many applications in different fields. In the book Colorimetry and Image Processing, two important fields are presented: colorimetry and image processing. Colorimetry is observed by a visual interactive programming learning system, an approach based on color analysis of Habanero chili pepper, an approach based on scene image segmentation centered on mathematical morphology, other systems based on the simulations of the dichromatic color appearance, and, finally, an approach based on the color reconstruction in order to enhancement its using super-resolution methods. On the other hand, image processing is shown by pansharpening algorithms for hyperspectral images, an approach based on the analysis of the low-resolution satellite images and ground-based sky camera for estimating the cloud motion, a hybrid super-resolution framework that combines desirable features of TV and PM models, a study of the real-time video analysis used for anthropometric measurements on agricultural tools and machines, and finally, an approach based on the threshold optimization iterative algorithm using the ground truth data and assessing the accuracy of a range of threshold values through the corresponding Kappa coefficient of concordance.

Photo by stevanovicigor / iStock