Refocusing the Person in Psychological Research: Using Qualitative Research Methods to Move Beyond Dichotomies when Exploring Faith and Mental Wellbeing in Christian Contexts
BY: Dr. Christopher Lloyd | December 9, 2024
Psychology has traditionally employed psychometric tests (standardised and validated questionnaires) and statistical analyses to build a useful and important body of knowledge. Within the field of the psychology of religion this has resulted in different instruments, or questionnaires, which are used and validated to test different variables, such as the relationship between church attendance and mental health, or perceived support from God and levels of anxiety and depression.[1] We can probably all think of many examples here, but some published examples might be how strong a person identifies with their faith, their level of attachment to the Divine, or their personal experiences of trauma. These often take the form of questionnaires which ask respondents to rate the strength of their beliefs on numbered scales, which are then subject to complex statistical analysis, which test relationships out between the predetermined variables.
Whilst such methods are vital for building our understanding of theoretical links between individual beliefs and faith – there is a two-fold problem if such methods are used in isolation. Firstly, many of these studies draw on such tools to examine individual beliefs as existing in a vacuum. This is problematic as beliefs are always held contextually with an individuals social context and are formed and shaped (and can change) through life. Take for example the instance of belief and faith and how this might impact an individual’s mental health. Quantitative forms of psychology typically negate the wider forms of an individual’s experience. Namely, if someone was attending their church community frequently but still reported low wellbeing? What else might be at play? Could it be that they are being dragged along to attendance, or is it something about their faith context, which is contributing to distress, or even their wider personal life? Quantitative methods may risk ignoring nuances of meaning and the overall context for human flourishing here – especially when looking at religious beliefs and practices and the potential effect on individuals and communities. This weakness in quantitative psychology has been termed ‘psychological reductionism’.
Secondly, such a position may unhelpfully pit variables against another – without deeper exploration of what an experience actually means for an individual and group. For some people, it might be that their church community is a helpful place and benefits their wellbeing because of the social interaction it affords, whilst for others, a specific religious leader or practice of the church may have damaging impacts on mental wellbeing– leading to mental distress (and sometimes illness).
To get around some of these issues, I led a team of researchers in mapping out what we know about how church and religious community might impact those living with some form of mental illness.[2] Unlike the quantitative studies I discussed above, we collated all forms of qualitative evidence – which explores experiences, meanings and context so as to get a better sense of how those living with mental illness experience their church community in their particular context.
We found some notable findings – which will help church communities to address where support and faith community is bolstering mental wellbeing and some areas which need improvements and revisiting. I summarise our findings below:
We systematically reviewed over 12,000 published academic studies to identify 22 studies which met our study remit. This included all qualitative studies which had explored the experiences and impact of church, or faith community on an individuals wellbeing and mental health.
From these, we systematically reviewed the papers to analyse what aspects of faith and church community were found to be helpful and unhelpful for mental wellbeing. This allowed us to zoom in onto the particular context and to begin to map the reasons for why! Why were some people reporting positive and others negative experiences of their faith communities? And what was it about their contexts which gave rise to these experiences? We found the following:
- For those reporting positive experiences and impacts upon their mental wellbeing, the social support from congregations and pastoral care was listed as high impact. These were often spoken about as a listening ear, or even care and understanding from other church goers but also having a faith leader who could identify with and support wellbeing through prayer, guidance and ministry.
- Secondly, the specific religious practices themselves were often reported to bolster mental wellbeing. This might have been through direct prayer and relationship with God but also the specific meanings given to biblical texts, which gave rise to positive and more helpful meanings amidst suffering.
- Moving onto more negative experiences. Participants reported negative impacts on mental wellbeing when they were subject to extreme forms of spiritualisation, such that their mental illness was not real or that they needed to pray more (without consideration to their practical needs and life contexts).[3] These experiences often went in tandem with and were compounded by experiences of stigma from other church members – that they were somehow to blame for their suffering and should be avoided – an effect which resulted in social distancing and often made their distress worse.
- Finally, our review highlighted some tensions for people living with mental illness, which were background factors to their distress. These included questioning why they were suffering despite their faith (e.g., has God abandoned me?) and the search for meaning even through suffering and experiences of illness continued.
A particularly potent finding from our work was the need to promote human agency in church communities– whether that be by spiritual interventions or practices that are part of the faith and community toolkit or by referral to secular psychological services was not always the relevant issue.[4] What was important was that individuals were given dignity and agency to choose - and loved regardless. Such a manner allows those experiencing mental illness in church communities to tap into the resources which are right for them – without having meanings and expectations thrust upon them.
As researchers who are exploring what is means to experience mental illness and to have Christian faith and community – I hope we will continue to hold onto the need to use both qualitative and quantitative paradigms as tools to understand and ultimately help those who are suffering.
[1] Lloyd, C. E. M., & Reid, G. (2022). Perceived God support as a mediator of the relationship between religiosity and psychological distress. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 25(7), 696-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2022.2116633
[2] Lloyd, C. E. M., Cathcart, J., Panagopoulos, M. C., & Reid, G. (2023). The experiences of faith and church community among Christian adults with mental illness: A qualitative metasynthesis. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000511
[3] Lloyd, C. E. M. (2021). Contending with spiritual reductionism: Demons, shame, and dividualising experiences among evangelical Christians with mental distress. Journal of Religion and Health, 60(4), 2702–2727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01268-9
[4] Lloyd, C. E. M., & Panagopoulos, M.C. (2022). ‘Mad, bad, or possessed’? Perceptions of self-harm and mental illness in evangelical Christian communities. Pastoral Psychology, 71, 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-022-01005-3
