Religiosity and political worldviews as protective factors during an ongoing national trauma

## Introduction In contexts of war, terrorism, and large‑scale disasters, people are confronted with heightened mortality salience, existential uncertainty, and extensive material and social losses. In such circumstances, religion worldview (e.g.[1]( "Bickerton, G. R. & Miner, M. Conservation of resources theory and spirituality at work: When a resource is not always a resource. Psychol. Relig. Spirit. 15, 241–250 (2023)."),[2]( "Gür, C. G. Psychological impacts of the 2023 Turkey earthquake within the framework of the conservation of resources theory: Relationships between earthquake exposure, depression, posttraumatic growth, social support, and religious coping. Psychol Trauma-Us. Advance online publication. (2025)"),[3]( "Oreg, A. & Erel-Brodsky, H. Taubman–Ben-Ari, O. Embodied memories - Exploring memorial tattoos through the lens of terror management theory. Death Stud. 50 (1), 89–102 (2026)."),[4]( "Vail, K. E. et al. A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14, 84–94 (2010)."), see[5]( "Alparslan, K. & Kuşdil, M. E. A review of research on the role of different types of religiosity in terror management. Curr. Psychiat. 16, 289–305 (2024).") for a literature review on this topic) as well as political worldview (e.g.[6]( "Chatard, A., Arndt, J. & Pyszczynski, T. Loss shapes political views? Terror management, political ideology, and the death of close others. Basic. Appl. Soc. Psych. 32 (1), 2–7 (2010)."),[7]( "Sani, F., Herrera, M. & Bowe, M. Perceived collective continuity and ingroup identification as defence against death awareness. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45, 242–245 (2009).")) may play a central role in coping, both as existential anxiety buffers[2]( "Gür, C. G. Psychological impacts of the 2023 Turkey earthquake within the framework of the conservation of resources theory: Relationships between earthquake exposure, depression, posttraumatic growth, social support, and religious coping. Psychol Trauma-Us. Advance online publication. (2025)"),[8]( "Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. & Greenberg, J. Thirty years of terror management theory: From genesis to revelation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 52, 1–7 (2015).") and as resource systems, or gains, that organize access to social, material, and psychological support[9]( "Rhodes, N. Terror management theory: Mortality salience. Int. Encycl Media Psychol. 1–9. (2020)."). Integrating Terror Management Theory (TMT), Anxiety‑Buffer Disruption Theory (ABDT), and Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) clarifies how religiosity and political allegiances shape hope, resilience, and distress in the context of collective threats. Specifically, the current paper draws on these theories to examine both positive and negative coping mechanisms in a large sample of Israeli adults. Participants were categorized into comparison groups based on either religiosity (secular vs. religious) or political orientation (government opponents vs. supporters). All participants completed a longitudinal resilience and coping questionnaire administered across seven measurement points during the prolonged war with Gaza. From a TMT perspective, religious and political worldviews mitigate death anxiety by offering meaning, value, and assurances of literal or symbolic immortality, while close interpersonal relationships and self-esteem further contribute to the maintenance of psychological equanimity[9]( "Rhodes, N. Terror management theory: Mortality salience. Int. Encycl Media Psychol. 1–9. (2020)."). When mortality becomes salient, individuals tend to adhere more strongly to their cultural worldviews, which serve a defensive function against existential threat, and to derogate those who threaten these worldviews[9]( "Rhodes, N. Terror management theory: Mortality salience. Int. Encycl Media Psychol. 1–9. (2020)."). A comprehensive meta-analytic review of empirical tests of TMT examined 277 individual studies and found results largely supportive of the theory, demonstrating a moderate overall effect of mortality salience on worldview defense[10]( "Burke, B. L., Martens, A. & Faucher, E. H. Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14 (2), 155–195 (2010)."). Religion is particularly well suited to this function because its core claims are largely resistant to falsification, deeply embedded within cultural frameworks, and frequently oriented toward forms of symbolic immortality, such as transcendence and beliefs in an afterlife[5]( "Alparslan, K. & Kuşdil, M. E. A review of research on the role of different types of religiosity in terror management. Curr. Psychiat. 16, 289–305 (2024)."). Nevertheless, political worldviews also represent a significant and empirically supported source of worldview defense, functioning as a buffer against death anxiety (e.g.[11]( "Burke, B. L., Kosloff, S. & Landau, M. J. Death goes to the polls: A meta-analysis of mortality salience effects on political attitudes. Polit Psychol. 34 (2), 183–200 (2013)."),[12]( "Greenberg, J. & Kosloff, S. Terror management theory: Implications for understanding prejudice, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, and political attitudes. Soc. Personal Psychol. Compass. 2 (5), 1881–1894 (2008).")). ABDT, an application of TMT, posits that severe or chronic trauma can undermine anxiety-buffering mechanisms, resulting in heightened death-thought accessibility and attenuated or distorted forms of worldview defense, particularly among individuals with elevated post-traumatic symptoms[13]( "Pyszczynski, T. & Kesebir, P. Anxiety buffer disruption theory: A terror management account of posttraumatic stress disorder. Anxiety Stress Copin. 24 (1), 3–26 (2011)."),[14]( "Pyszczynski, T. & Taylor, J. When the buffer breaks: Disrupted terror management in posttraumatic stress disorder. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25 (4), 286–290 (2016)."),[15]( "Vail, K. E., Goncy, E. A. & Edmondson, D. Anxiety buffer disruption: Worldview threat, death thought accessibility, and worldview defense among low and high posttraumatic stress symptom samples. Psychol. Trauma-Us. 11 (6), 647–655 (2019)."). Such disruption may manifest as crises of faith or disillusionment with political authorities[15]( "Vail, K. E., Goncy, E. A. & Edmondson, D. Anxiety buffer disruption: Worldview threat, death thought accessibility, and worldview defense among low and high posttraumatic stress symptom samples. Psychol. Trauma-Us. 11 (6), 647–655 (2019)."). However, under some conditions, exposure to severe threat may also revalidate anxiety buffers, strengthening religious conviction and national identification, thereby restoring a sense of coherence and control - an effect documented in several studies conducted during the protracted war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza (e.g.[3]( "Oreg, A. & Erel-Brodsky, H. Taubman–Ben-Ari, O. Embodied memories - Exploring memorial tattoos through the lens of terror management theory. Death Stud. 50 (1), 89–102 (2026)."),[16]( "Taubman–Ben-Ari, O., Erel-Brodsky, H., Ring, L. & Mijalevich-Soker, E. Terror management theory in action during a realtime mortality salience experience: The case of parents’ and grandparents’ reactions to wartime. Death Stud. (2025)."),[17]( "Taubman–Ben-Ari, O., Erel-Brodsky, H. & Ben-Kimhy, R. Collapse and validation of terror management anxiety buffers - Therapists’ reactions to war. Death Stud. (2025).")). COR complements the above existential accounts by conceptualizing different social identities as resource systems or gains embedded within cultural and institutional structures[18]( "Hobfoll, S. E., Tirone, V., Holmgreen, L. & Gerhart, J. Conservation of resources theory applied to major stress. In Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior. 65–71. (2016)."). According to the theory, individuals strive to obtain, retain, and protect valued resources. Stress emerges from actual resource loss, threatened loss, or insufficient resource gain. Major collective events, such as earthquakes, war, or terrorism, entail widespread losses of material, social, and symbolic resources (e.g., homes, income, social networks, and status), which in turn predict elevated depression and anxiety, as well as impaired functioning[18]( "Hobfoll, S. E., Tirone, V., Holmgreen, L. & Gerhart, J. Conservation of resources theory applied to major stress. In Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior. 65–71. (2016)."). In contrast, positive religious coping, perceived social support, and community or national solidarity function as resource gains that can interrupt loss spirals, mitigate depressive symptoms, and promote post-traumatic growth[2]( "Gür, C. G. Psychological impacts of the 2023 Turkey earthquake within the framework of the conservation of resources theory: Relationships between earthquake exposure, depression, posttraumatic growth, social support, and religious coping. Psychol Trauma-Us. Advance online publication. (2025)"),[18]( "Hobfoll, S. E., Tirone, V., Holmgreen, L. & Gerhart, J. Conservation of resources theory applied to major stress. In Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior. 65–71. (2016)."). Although the conceptualization of religious worldviews as resource systems within the COR theory perspective has been examined empirically (e.g.[1]( "Bickerton, G. R. & Miner, M. Conservation of resources theory and spirituality at work: When a resource is not always a resource. Psychol. Relig. Spirit. 15, 241–250 (2023)."),[19]( "Abualigah, A., Koburtay, T., Syed, J., Arici, H. E. & Aboramadan, M. The interconnection between workplace incivility, religiosity and employees’ psychological well-being: An update of the conservation of resources theory. J. Manag Spirit Relig. 21 (1), 42–62 (2024).")), we are not aware of parallel research conceptualizing political worldviews as resources. Nevertheless, it is theoretically straightforward to view support for the government as a resource system, particularly during periods of external war that coincide with internal political crises, as has been the case in Israel in recent years[20]( "Marciano, H., Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Impact of prolonged social crisis on resilience and coping indicators. PLoS One. 19 (8), e0305542 (2024)."). Taken together, TMT, ABDT, and COR suggest that religion and political worldviews fulfill dual roles in collective crises: they manage death anxiety by affirming meaning, value, and belonging, and they organize resource flows that shape who can withstand or recover from large‑scale trauma. Differences in levels of religiosity and political alignment can thus help explain variations in individual and national resilience, hope, social cohesion, and distress during prolonged periods of collective threat. The present study was conducted during a protracted war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, characterized by continuous exposure to traumatic conditions. We propose that groups differentiated by their worldviews experience varying levels of positive and negative coping outcomes during such prolonged conflict. Changes in sociopolitical circumstances may either enhance or undermine the societal resilience (SR) of broad social groups. For example, the electoral success of right-wing parties in recent Israeli elections was associated with increased SR among government supporters and decreased SR among opposition voters[20]( "Marciano, H., Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Impact of prolonged social crisis on resilience and coping indicators. PLoS One. 19 (8), e0305542 (2024)."). Building on this finding, and in light of theoretical conceptualizations of religiosity and political worldviews as protective factors - anxiety-buffering systems (TMT) or resource systems (COR), we hypothesize that groups perceiving themselves as politically and socially powerful will exhibit higher levels of positive coping variables and lower levels of negative coping variables during the current war, compared with groups that are more socially and politically vulnerable. Accordingly, the present study focuses on two sociodemographic dimensions: religiosity and political orientation. Specifically, it compares religious and secular Israeli communities, as well as supporters and opponents of the government’s management of the current war. ### Positive and negative coping indicators In this study, individual resilience (IR), Societal resilience (SR), perceived social cohesion, and hope are considered as positive coping indicators. The level of distress symptoms is a negative coping indicator in the current study. ### Individual resilience (IR) Throughout life, individuals may face severe events perceived as traumatic[21]( "Bonanno, G. A. & Mancini, A. D. The human capacity to thrive in the face of potential trauma. Pediatrics 121 (2), 369–375 (2008)."). IR reflects the capacity to adapt to and recover from such adversities through protective factors[22]( "Bonanno, G. A., Romero, S. A. & Klein, S. I. The temporal elements of psychological resilience: an integrative framework for the study of individuals, families, and communities. Psychol. Inq. 26 (2), 139–169 (2015)."). Empirical evidence indicates that IR is positively associated with social and community resilience, hope, and well-being, and negatively associated with perceived danger and psychological distress[23]( "Kimhi, S. et al. Prediction of societal and community resilience among Ukrainian and polish populations during the Russian war against Ukraine. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 93, 103792 (2023)."),[24]( "Kaim, A. et al. Predictors of societal and individual resilience across two and a half years of varied adversities. Sci. Rep-Uk. 15 (1), 18112 (2025)."). ### Societal resilience (SR) SR reflects the belief that society is strong enough to endure and overcome a disaster and will bounce back quickly to its pre-adversity level of functioning. The broad SR concept refers to sustainability and strength in diverse faith realms. SR is composed of four factors: trust in the government and its leader, trust in the national institutes, a sense of patriotism, and perceived social solidarity[25]( "Kimhi, S. & Eshel, Y. Measuring national resilience: A new short version of the scale (NR-13). J. Community Psychol. 47 (3), 517–528 (2019)."). However, it is common practice to compute an overall mean score for the entire scale, as was done in the current study[24]( "Kaim, A. et al. Predictors of societal and individual resilience across two and a half years of varied adversities. Sci. Rep-Uk. 15 (1), 18112 (2025)."),[26]( "Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., Kimhi, S. & Adini, B. Hope and fear of threats as predictors of coping with two major adversities, the COVID-19 pandemic and an armed conflict. Int. J. Env Res. Pub He. 19 (3), 1123 (2022)."),[27]( "Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H. & Adini, B. Impact of the war in Ukraine on resilience, protective, and vulnerability factors. Front. Public. Health. 11, 1053940. (2023)."). SR is positively associated with hope, well-being, and morale and negatively related to anxiety, depression, and a sense of danger[26]( "Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., Kimhi, S. & Adini, B. Hope and fear of threats as predictors of coping with two major adversities, the COVID-19 pandemic and an armed conflict. Int. J. Env Res. Pub He. 19 (3), 1123 (2022)."),[27]( "Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H. & Adini, B. Impact of the war in Ukraine on resilience, protective, and vulnerability factors. Front. Public. Health. 11, 1053940. (2023)."). ### Perceived social cohesion According to the OECD, social cohesion is defined as society that works towards the well-being of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalization, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and offers its members the opportunity of upward social mobility[28]( "OECD, Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting World & Publishing, O. E. C. D. Preprint at (2011). "). Social cohesion has been found to correlate with community resilience several months after a flood disaster in Malaysia, serving as an important pointer for the development of future sustainable community disaster resilience and recovery plans[29]( "Ludin, S. M., Rohaizat, M. & Arbon, P. The association between social cohesion and community disaster resilience: A cross-sectional study. Health Soc. Care Comm. 27 (3), 621–631 (2019)."). The generalizability of this finding is supported by similar results from a study conducted among flood survivors in England, where social cohesion was associated with greater resilience and reduced psychological distress[30]( "Greene, G., Paranjothy, S. & Palmer, S. R. Resilience and vulnerability to the psychological harm from flooding: The role of social cohesion. Am. J. Public. Health. 105 (9), 1792–1795 (2015)."). ### Hope Snyder’s theory conceives hope as a form of self-confidence or a sense of personal mastery acting in the service of goal pursuit, planning, and problem-solving[31]( "Snyder, C. R. et al. The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60 (4), 570 (1991)."). This theory conceptualizes hope as consisting of two components: pathways and agency. Pathways are a set of beliefs in the ability to generate one or more paths to desired goals while avoiding or defeating obstacles. Agency involves the perceived motivation to attain these goals. Hope correlates positively with optimism, self-efficacy, and problem-solving[32]( "Bowers, R. M. & Bowers, E. P. A literature review on the role of hope in promoting positive youth development across non-WEIRD contexts. Children 10 (2), 346 (2023)."), and was considered as the best and most consistent psychological predictor of SR[26]( "Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., Kimhi, S. & Adini, B. Hope and fear of threats as predictors of coping with two major adversities, the COVID-19 pandemic and an armed conflict. Int. J. Env Res. Pub He. 19 (3), 1123 (2022)."). ### Distress symptoms Distressful experiences incite distress symptoms that indicate either psychological impairment or clinically significant distress[33]( "Phillips, M. R. Is distress a symptom of mental disorders, a marker of impairment, both or neither? World Psychiatry. 8 (2), 91–92 (2009)."). The most prevalent symptoms pertain to enhanced feelings of depression and anxiety that indicate, in extreme cases, a mental disorder[34]( "Mulder, R. T. An epidemic of depression or the medicalization of distress? Perspect. Biol. Med. 51 (2), 238–250 (2008)."),[35]( "Wetherell, J. L., Gatz, M. & Pedersen, N. L. A longitudinal analysis of anxiety and depressive symptoms. Psychol. Aging. 16 (2), 187 (2001)."). Distress symptoms negatively correlate with SR, community and individual resilience, well-being, hope, and morale[36]( "Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H. & Adini, B. A renewed outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study of distress, resilience, and subjective well-being. Int. J. Env Res. Pub He. 17 (21), 7743 (2020)."). The following hypotheses were examined: 1. 1. The religious and the government supporter groups will score significantly higher than their secular and government opponents’ counterparts on positive coping indicators (IR, SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope), and significantly lower on the negative coping indicator of psychological distress symptoms. 2. 2. The religious and the government supporter groups will exhibit a higher capacity to conserve resources during the war. Specifically, declines in IR, SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope will be less pronounced in these groups than among secular individuals and government opponents. In addition, increases in distress symptoms will be smaller for the religious and government-supporter groups; alternatively, if distress symptoms decrease, the reduction will be more pronounced in these groups. ## Methods ### Study design The present study constitutes part of a larger longitudinal research project that focuses on specific measurement scales. The broader longitudinal study includes additional measures that were not analyzed in the current paper, as reported in a separate publication presenting data from the first wave of measurement[37]( "Kimhi, S., Marciano, H., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Measuring national resilience: Israel in the first week of the Gaza war. Int. J. Intercult Rel. 102, 102018 (2024)."). The present study represents seven repeated measurements of coping indicators during the current Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza. The first measurement was collected a few days after the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 (October 11–15, 2023, with 2,000 participants). The first-wave sample was designed to be demographically representative of the Israeli population in terms of age, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographic distribution, based on data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics[37]( "Kimhi, S., Marciano, H., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Measuring national resilience: Israel in the first week of the Gaza war. Int. J. Intercult Rel. 102, 102018 (2024)."). The second longitudinal measurement was conducted one month later (November 10–15, 2023). The third and the fourth questioning took place three months and half a year after the Hamas attack (January 14–21, 2024 and April 15–21, 2024, correspondingly). The fifth and sixth measurements occurred on August 25–29, 2024 and December 16–22, 2024. The seventh longitudinal measurement was conducted on June 13–17, 2025 during the 12-day war with Iran. Due to an attrition rate of approximately 6% between two successive measurements, the sample size gradually decreased. Nevertheless, in the current study, which includes data from participants who completed all seven measurement waves, the sample remained sufficiently large, although less representative. ### Participants 745 participants responded to the research questionnaire on each of its seven repeated administrations. These respondents constitute a sample of the adult, Hebrew-speaking Israeli population. An Internet panel company (Sekernet company; [ distributed the research questionnaire. This company possesses a depository of over 65,000 people representing all the groups and sectors of the population. A stratified sampling method was employed for the first measurement, aligned with the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics data. The Tel Aviv University Ethics Committee granted ethical approvals (approval number 0005146-2 from November 30, 2023). Informed consent was secured from all participants before their participation. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Table[1]( presents the demographic characteristics of the participants stratified by two grouping variables: religiosity (secular vs. religious individuals) and government support (opponents, neutral, and supporters). The sample reflects a wide range of ages (19 to 87 years) and includes participants with low, medium, and high levels of income and education. In addition, all three government-support groups included participants from all four levels of religiosity. However, the opponents group consisted predominantly of secular participants (70%), a distribution that largely reflect population patterns. Due to attrition of participants over time, the number of men exceeds the number of women. **Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the participants (based on the seventh measurement; _N_ = 745).** [Full size table]( ## Demographic groups ### Religiosity The religiosity scale included four categories: ‘secular’, ‘traditional’, ‘religious’, and ‘orthodox religious’ (Table[1]( However, in the present study the participants were divided into two groups (Table[2]( The first group included secular individuals (n = 384), and the second, the religious group, comprised the other three categories (n = 361). ### Support of the government A five-point support of the government scale was employed. The participants were asked to indicate their level of support for the government, selecting from: 1=’Very much opposes’, 2=’Opposes’, 3=’Neither supports nor opposes’, 4=’Supports’, 5=’Very much supports’. Three-group classification employed in the present study. Categories 1 to 2 were combined and named government opponents (_n_ = 384), an intermediate group (category 3), was named neutrals (_n_ = 139), and categories 4 and 5 were combined and termed government supporters (_n_ = 222). Although religiosity and government support are moderately correlated (_r_ = .45, _p_< .0001), they do not fully overlap. As shown in Table[1]( individuals with varying levels of religiosity are represented across all three levels of government support. ## Study tools All the scales included in the study were employed in previous studies and showed good validity and reliability e.g.[37]( "Kimhi, S., Marciano, H., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Measuring national resilience: Israel in the first week of the Gaza war. Int. J. Intercult Rel. 102, 102018 (2024).") ### Societal resilience (SR, also known as National resilience - NR)[25]( "Kimhi, S. & Eshel, Y. Measuring national resilience: A new short version of the scale (NR-13). J. Community Psychol. 47 (3), 517–528 (2019)."). This scale includes 16 items, e.g. “I love my country and am proud of it”. The scale for each item ranges from 1=’strongly disagree’ to 6=’strongly agree’. A higher mean score indicates higher societal resilience. It is common practice to compute an overall mean score for the full scale, as was done in the present study[24]( "Kaim, A. et al. Predictors of societal and individual resilience across two and a half years of varied adversities. Sci. Rep-Uk. 15 (1), 18112 (2025)."),[26]( "Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., Kimhi, S. & Adini, B. Hope and fear of threats as predictors of coping with two major adversities, the COVID-19 pandemic and an armed conflict. Int. J. Env Res. Pub He. 19 (3), 1123 (2022)."),[27]( "Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H. & Adini, B. Impact of the war in Ukraine on resilience, protective, and vulnerability factors. Front. Public. Health. 11, 1053940. (2023)."). However, previous factor-analytic work has demonstrated that the scale can be partitioned into four distinct factors: trust in the government and its leader, social integration, attachment to the country, and trust in state institutions[25]( "Kimhi, S. & Eshel, Y. Measuring national resilience: A new short version of the scale (NR-13). J. Community Psychol. 47 (3), 517–528 (2019)."). In the current study, we report analyses for each of these factors separately in the Appendix. It should also be noted that, although some items in the scale overlap conceptually with related constructs (e.g., support for government and social cohesion), the SR scale as a whole is designed to capture a broader, multidimensional construct. The current Cronbach alpha reliabilities of SR were high in all seven measurements (α values ranging between 0.86 and 0.88). ### Individual resilience (IR) Campbell-Sills et al.[38]( "Campbell-Sills, L. & Stein, M. B. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor–davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC): Validation of a 10‐item measure of resilience. J. Trauma. Stress. 20 (6), 1019–1028 (2007).") This scale includes 10-item questionnaire[39]( "Connor, K. M. & Davidson, J. R. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC). Depress. Anxiety. 18 (2), 76–82 (2003)."). An example of item: “I manage to adapt to changes”. The response scale ranged from 1=’Not true at all’ to 5=’True almost all the time’, and a higher mean score indicates higher IR. The current Cronbach alpha reliabilities of IR were high in all seven measurements (α values ranging between 0.91 and 0.93). ### Hope This scale is derived from previous scale[40]( "Jarymowicz, M. & Bar-Tal, D. The dominance of fear over hope in the lives of individuals and collectives. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36, 367–392 (2006)."). The scale includes five items, e.g., “I will emerge strengthened from the current crisis”. The response scale ranged from 1=’very little hope’ to 5=’very high hope’. A higher mean score indicates a higher level of hope. The current Cronbach’s alpha reliability of this measure was very high in all seven measurements (α values ranging between 0.93 and 0.95). ### Perceived social cohesion This variable was assessed by one question regarding the assessment of the sense of belonging and the connection between population groups: “How would you define social cohesion in Israel today?”. The scale ranged from 1=‘To a very small extent/Not at all’ to 5=’To a very large extent’. ### Distress symptoms This scale includes three items indicating anxiety and five referring to depression symptoms of the BSI scale[41]( "Derogatis, L. R. & Savitz, K. L. The SCL-90-R and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in primary care. In Handbook of Psychological Assessment in Primary Care Settings (Ed. (1999). Maruish, M. E.); 310–347. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates."). Example of anxiety items: “In the past days, how much were you distressed by nervousness”; example of depressive symptoms: “In the past days, how much were you distressed by feeling lonely”. The response scale ranged from 1=’not at all to’ 5=’to a very large extent’. A higher mean score indicates a higher distress level. The Cronbach alpha reliability of this measure in the current study was very high in all measurements (α values ranging between 0.91 and 0.93). ## Results To test the first hypothesis that the religious and the supporters of the government groups would score significantly higher than the secular and government opponents on all the investigated coping positive indicators and lower on distress symptoms, we performed independent sample t-test analyses comparing these groups, separately for each measurements time. Note that participants selecting the neutral option (“3”) were excluded from the analyses of the support of the government variable. Table[2]( which presents these comparisons, mostly supports this hypothesis. Supporters of the government scored consistently and significantly higher than government opponents on all positive coping indicators (IR, SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope) and lower on distress symptoms, across all measurements. Likewise, across all measurements, religious participants scored consistently and significantly higher than secular participants on most positive coping indicators (SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope) and lower on distress symptoms, although this latter effect was only significant in measurements 2, 4, 5, and 7. Regarding IR, the difference was in the same direction, but relatively small and did not reach significance. Appendix 1 presents similar data for each of the four factors of the SR scale separately. **Table 2 T-tests comparing mean scores of religious (_n_ = 361) vs. Secular (_n_ = 384), and Government supporters (T1: _n_ = 204; T2: _n_ = 215; T3: _n_ = 188; T4: _n_ = 196; T5: _n_ = 192; T6: _n_ = 208; T7: _n_ = 222) vs. Government opponents (T1: _n_ = 352; T2: _n_ = 369; T3: _n_ = 396; T4: _n_ = 397; T5: _n_ = 393; T6: _n_ = 387; T7: _n_ = 384), on Seven Repeated Measurements during the Gaza War.** [Full size table]( To test the second hypothesis, that the religious and the supporters of the government groups will exhibit a higher capacity to conserve resources during the war, ten repeated measures GLMs were conducted. Specifically, for each alternative group division, five separate two-way repeated measures GLMs were performed, with the group variable (“religious vs. secular” or “government supporters vs. government opponents”, as determined by the numerical cutoff applied in the seventh measurement) as the between-subjects factor, and measurement time (T1-T7) as the within-subjects factor. The five dependent variables analyzed were: SR, IR, perceived social cohesion, hope, and distress symptoms. As expected, the majority of analyses revealed a significant interaction between the group variable and measurement time in both comparisons (Table[3]( with four exceptions that did not yield significant interactions: IR and distress symptoms in both analyses. Figures[1]( and [2]( present these ten interactions. As shown in Fig.[1]( and c, and d, as well as Fig.[2]( and c, and d, three positive coping indicators - SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope - were consistently higher among the religious and government supporter groups across all measurement waves. Moreover, these positive coping indicator showed either no reduction or a less pronounced decline in these groups compared with the secular and government opponent groups, particularly between T2 and T5. This resulted in a visible gap between the two groups, which widened across these four measurements. This pattern of results largely supports Hypothesis 2. Conversely, Figs.[1]( and [2]( as well as Figs.[1]( and [2]( show mainly a comparable trend in IR and distress symptoms, respectively, for the religious group compared to the secular group and for the government supporter group relative to the government opponent group. Appendix 1 presents similar data for each of the four factors of the SR scale separately. **Table 3 Data on the interaction group × ‘measurement time’ of mean scores of Religious (_n_ = 361) vs. Secular (_n_ = 384), and Government supporters (_n_ = 222) vs. Government opponents (_n_ = 384).** [Full size table]( **Fig. 1** Five interactions of group × ‘measurement time’ comparing Religious (_n_ = 361) vs. Secular (_n_ = 384) on the mean scores of: **a**. SR; **b**. IR; **c**. perceived social cohesion; **d**. hope; **e**. distress symptoms.‘*’ denote simple significant effect of two successive measurements (_p_< .05). An asterisk below the line indicates a significant simple effect of reduction; an asterisk above the line indicates a significant simple effect of increase. **Fig. 2** Five interactions of group × ‘measurement time’ comparing Government supporters (_n_ = 222) vs. Government opponents (_n_ = 384) on the mean scores of: (**a**). SR; (**b**). IR; (**c**). perceived social cohesion; (**d**) hope; (**e**) distress symptoms.‘*’ denote simple significant effect of two successive measurements (_p_< .05). An asterisk below the line indicates a significant simple effect of reduction; an asterisk above the line indicates a significant simple effect of increase. ## Discussion The current study examined the assumption that religiosity and support for the government function as anxiety buffers or resource systems (protective factors), promoting positive coping indicators (IR, SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope) while reducing negative coping outcomes, namely psychological distress symptoms. In line with Hypothesis 1, supporters of the government exhibited significantly higher levels of IR, SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope, as well as significantly lower distress symptoms, compared with government opponents across all seven measurement waves. Comparable findings have previously been reported in the Israeli context of political crisis[20]( "Marciano, H., Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Impact of prolonged social crisis on resilience and coping indicators. PLoS One. 19 (8), e0305542 (2024)."). Similarly, and consistent with Hypothesis 1, religious participants demonstrated significantly higher levels of SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope than secular participants across all measurement waves. Prior research has identified similar results[42]( "Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H. & Adini, B. Prediction of hope and morale during COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 12, 739645 (2021)."),[43]( "Marciano, H., Kimhi, S. & Eshel, Y. Predictors of individual, community and national resiliencies of Israeli Jews and Arabs. Int. J. Psychol. 55 (4), 553–561 (2020)."),[44]( "Sarid, M., Kalman-Halevi, M., Tutian, R., Gilat-Yihyie, S. & Sarid, A. Uncovering resilience disparities among religious groups in Israel’s mass COVID-19 vaccination drive: Lessons learned to the post-Covid era. Behav. Sci. 13 (5), 398 (2023)."). However, although religious participants showed slightly higher levels of IR than secular participants, these differences did not reach statistical significance at any measurement waves. Likewise, religious participants reported slightly lower levels of distress than secular participants; however, this difference reached statistical significance in only four of the seven measurement waves. Accordingly, Hypothesis 1 was fully corroborated with respect to the government support variable, but only partially supported with respect to religiosity. In addition, consistent with Hypothesis 2, religious individuals and supporters of the government demonstrated a greater capacity to conserve resources during the protracted war. This pattern was reflected in the more moderate declines, or even relative stability in some cases, observed in SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope among these groups, compared with secular and government opponent groups, respectively. Previous studies have identified a similar protective role of religiosity[45]( "Shannonhouse, L. R. et al. Conserving resources during chronic disaster: Impacts of religious and meaning-focused coping on Botswana drought survivors. Psychol. Trauma-Us. 11 (2), 137 (2019)."),[46]( "Aten, J. D. et al. The psychological study of religion and spirituality in a disaster context: A systematic review. Psychol. Trauma-Us. 11 (6), 597 (2019)."). and support for the government[20]( "Marciano, H., Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Impact of prolonged social crisis on resilience and coping indicators. PLoS One. 19 (8), e0305542 (2024)."). However, the differences in the current study appear to reflect group-level rather than individual-level responses. Specifically, contrary to Hypothesis 2, no significant interactions were found between group membership and measurement wave for IR or distress, indicating that changes in these coping variables over the course of the war were independent of participants’ religiosity or government support. These findings, suggest that neither IR nor levels of distress function as coping indicators influenced by religiosity or government support as anxiety buffers or conserve resources during the protracted war. Taken together, these findings provide empirical support for both TMT and COR theories. According to TMT, cultural worldviews, such as religious beliefs and political orientations, serve to reduce death-related anxiety by imbuing life with meaning, reinforcing personal value, and offering assurances of literal or symbolic immortality[9]( "Rhodes, N. Terror management theory: Mortality salience. Int. Encycl Media Psychol. 1–9. (2020)."). Heightened mortality salience, which may be intensified by exposure to horrific wartime events, increases individuals’ reliance on such cultural worldviews as defenses against existential threat[47]( "Leung, H. T., Chew, P. K. & Caltabiano, N. J. Mortality salience effects of critical incidents - A systematic literature review and research agenda. Omega-J Death Dying. 90 (1), 73–119 (2024)."). In parallel, COR theory posits that religious, perceived social support, and forms of communal or national solidarity constitute resource gains that can interrupt loss spirals and buffer against depressive symptoms[2]( "Gür, C. G. Psychological impacts of the 2023 Turkey earthquake within the framework of the conservation of resources theory: Relationships between earthquake exposure, depression, posttraumatic growth, social support, and religious coping. Psychol Trauma-Us. Advance online publication. (2025)"),[18]( "Hobfoll, S. E., Tirone, V., Holmgreen, L. & Gerhart, J. Conservation of resources theory applied to major stress. In Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior. 65–71. (2016)."). From this perspective, religious participants and supporters of the current government may draw on these cultural assets as an integrated resource system that enhances resilience and coping. The convergence of these perspectives helps explain the observed pattern of results. Specifically, greater reliance on cultural worldviews, as described by TMT[9]( "Rhodes, N. Terror management theory: Mortality salience. Int. Encycl Media Psychol. 1–9. (2020)."),[49]( "Anson, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. & Greenberg, J. Political ideology in the 21st century: A terror management perspective on maintenance and change of the status quo. Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification, 210–240. (2009)."), combined with their function as resource systems, as emphasized by COR theory[18]( "Hobfoll, S. E., Tirone, V., Holmgreen, L. & Gerhart, J. Conservation of resources theory applied to major stress. In Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior. 65–71. (2016)."), may account for why individuals with higher support for the government and higher levels of religiosity reported greater SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope across all measurement waves. Moreover, these same theoretical processes help explain why these groups were better able to conserve these psychological resources throughout the course of the war, consistent with the resource-protective mechanisms proposed by COR theory. Still, the current findings may also support the assumptions of system justification theory (STJ), which posits that individuals are motivated, to varying degrees, to defend and legitimize prevailing social, economic, and political systems. This motivation serves a palliative function by increasing acceptance of the status quo and addressing epistemic, existential, and relational needs that help mitigate uncertainty, threat, and social discord[48]( "Jost, J. T. A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. Brit J. Soc. Psychol. 58 (2), 263–314 (2019)."). TMT and SJT differ in their predictions regarding responses to threat. Whereas TMT predicts polarization and intensification of preexisting beliefs, SJT emphasizes a preference for preserving the existing system under conditions of threat[49]( "Anson, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. & Greenberg, J. Political ideology in the 21st century: A terror management perspective on maintenance and change of the status quo. Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification, 210–240. (2009)."). In the present study, however, the first measurement was conducted during the initial week of the war, precluding direct comparison of participants different scales - particularly SR, used as an indicator of attitudes toward the country’s leadership and institutions[25]( "Kimhi, S. & Eshel, Y. Measuring national resilience: A new short version of the scale (NR-13). J. Community Psychol. 47 (3), 517–528 (2019).")- with pre-adversity levels. Nevertheless, given that the war and its associated threats (e.g., escalating regional tensions) remain ongoing, continued longitudinal assessment may help clarify whether subsequent measurements reveal patterns more consistent with belief polarization or with system-preserving responses. A cautious interpretation of the present findings suggests that religiosity and support for the government may function not only as buffers against existential anxiety or as sources of resource systems or gains, but potentially also as conditions that facilitate processes of “bouncing forward”. Research on individual responses to traumatic stress indicates that coping does not invariably result in a return to pre-trauma levels of functioning, but may, under certain circumstances, be associated with growth beyond prior baselines, commonly referred to as post-traumatic growth (PTG)[50]( "Schuler, E. R. & Boals, A. Shattering world assumptions: A prospective view of the impact of adverse events on world assumptions. Psychol. Trauma. -US. 8 (3), 259–266 (2016)."). However, traumatic experiences are often encountered collectively, thus an exclusively person-centered approach may be insufficient to capture their broader social impact, therefore extending the PTG framework to include collective post-traumatic growth (CPTG) at the societal level was proposed[51]( "Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K. & Calhoun, L. C. Routledge,. Posttraumatic growth: Theory, Research, and Applications. eBook at ISBN9781315527451, (2018)."). Collective trauma has been conceptualized as a disruption to the fundamental fabric of social life, weakening interpersonal bonds and diminishing the overall sense of community[52]( "Erikson, K. T. Collective trauma: Loss of communality. In (ed Erikson, K. T.) Everything in its Path (186–245). Simon and Schuster Inc., (1976)."). At the same time, exposure to shared adversities, such as those experienced by participants in the current study during a prolonged war marked by repeated life-threatening events, may, in some contexts, be accompanied by increased communal cohesion and strengthened community or national resilience[53]( "Wlodarczyk, A., Basabe, N., Páez, D., Villagrán, L. & Reyes, C. Individual and collective posttraumatic growth in victims of natural disasters: A multidimensional perspective. J. Loss Trauma. 22 (5), 371–384 (2017)."). Consistent with this possibility, Israeli civil society has been described as exhibiting indicators of CPTG following the October 2023 Hamas invasion, including heightened patriotism, stronger social cohesion, and extensive volunteering activities[54]( "Almog-Bar, M., Bar, R., Barkai, R. & Marmus, H. Civil Society Engagement in Israel during the Iron Swords War: Emerging Trends and Preliminary Insights. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem release, (2023)."). From this perspective, the relatively stable trends observed across most measures among religious participants and government supporters in the present study may tentatively reflect an early or emerging process that could, under more stable conditions, contribute to CPTG. However, this interpretation remains speculative. Clarifying whether such processes indeed culminate in CPTG would require additional longitudinal data and the direct assessment of collective growth processes. Although validated instruments exist for measuring PTG at the individual level[55]( "Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J. Trauma. Stress. 9 (3), 455–471 (1996)."), to our knowledge no standardized measure is currently available for assessing PTG at the collective level. Accordingly, the development of such a measure is warranted and would enable future research to more directly examine this proposed explanation within the present context. Special attention should be given to the differences between measurements T6 and T7, as T7 was collected during the initial days of Israel’s attack on Iran in the so-called “12-Day War.” Several positive coping indicators showed significant increases between these two waves, including SR and perceived social cohesion across all groups, as well as hope among government opponents and secular participants. These findings align with previous studies showing that collective traumas (such as the 2015 Paris terror attacks) trigger intense collective emotions, which can lead to increased solidarity, social cohesion, and prosocial behavior in the aftermath of the event[59]( "Garcia, D. & Rimé, B. Collective emotions and social resilience in the digital traces after a terrorist attack. Psychol. Sci. 30 (4), 617–628 (2019)."). At the same time, psychological distress increased significantly within these latter groups. Although these patterns are not the primary focus of the present study, they merit brief consideration. The following interpretation is speculative and should not be taken as a documented fact: Despite the substantial challenges characterizing the period of the seventh measurement wave, the event may have been experienced by some Israelis as a source of collective emotional relief, as both Israel and the US claimed that they had substantially damaged Iran’s nuclear capacity[60]( "Dolatabadi, A. The June 2025 Israeli War: Iran’s Assessment and Regional Consequences. Middle East. Policy. 32, 16–35 (2025)."). After years in which the Iranian threat had been framed as an imminent existential danger, Israel’s military action, demonstrating operational reach and superiority far beyond its borders, could have fostered a perception that the threat might be contained and that meaningful regional change was possible, even amid heightened security concerns on the home front. ## Limitations One limitation of longitudinal studies is the attrition of participants over time and the lack of specific information on the reasons for this phenomenon. This attrition is acceptable as long as it does not significantly change the structure of the initial sample. Furthermore, this method is very popular in psychological research, and several studies demonstrate its feasibility and validity e.g.[56]( "Arrow, K. et al. Evaluating the use of online self-report questionnaires as clinically valid mental health monitoring tools in the clinical whitespace. Psychiatr Q. 94 (2), 221–231 (2023)."),[57]( "Powers, J. & Loxton, D. The impact of attrition in an 11-year prospective longitudinal study of younger women. Ann. Epidemiol. 20 (4), 318–321 (2010)."),[58]( "Gustavson, K., Von Soest, T., Karevold, E. & Røysamb, E. Attrition and generalizability in longitudinal studies: findings from a 15-year population-based study and a Monte Carlo simulation study. BMC Public. Health. 12 (1), 918 (2012).") An additional limitation is the use of self-report questionnaires, which may introduce response bias. Additionally, the specific nature of the trauma investigated, responses to a prolonged war, limits the generalizability of the findings. Finally, the first measurement was conducted during the initial week of the war, which prevents direct comparison of participants’ responses with pre-adversity levels. ## Conclusions The present study underscores the central role of religiosity and support for the government as salient socio-cultural orientations shaping psychological adaptation during prolonged collective threat. Across seven measurement waves, these orientations were consistently associated with higher levels of SR, perceived social cohesion, and hope, as well as with a greater capacity to preserve these resources over time. Although not all coping indicators were equally affected, the overall pattern of findings supports the view that cultural worldviews operate as powerful psychological anchors under conditions of sustained adversity. By integrating insights from TMT and COR theories, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how collective belief systems and institutional alignment may promote resilience and coping during wartime. These findings highlight the importance of considering socio-cultural and political contexts in models of coping with mass trauma and point to the need for continued longitudinal research examining how such processes evolve as societies move from acute crisis toward stabilization and potential recovery, that may even result in CPTG processes. Future research may also benefit from the application of more advanced longitudinal analytic approaches to allow for a more nuanced examination of change over time. ## Data availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ## **References**‏ 1. Bickerton, G. R. & Miner, M. Conservation of resources theory and spirituality at work: When a resource is not always a resource. _Psychol. Relig. Spirit_. **15**, 241–250 (2023). [Google Scholar]( 2. Gür, C. G. Psychological impacts of the 2023 Turkey earthquake within the framework of the conservation of resources theory: Relationships between earthquake exposure, depression, posttraumatic growth, social support, and religious coping. Psychol Trauma-Us. Advance online publication. (2025) 3. Oreg, A. & Erel-Brodsky, H. Taubman–Ben-Ari, O. Embodied memories - Exploring memorial tattoos through the lens of terror management theory. _Death Stud._**50** (1), 89–102 (2026). [Article]( Scholar]( 4. Vail, K. E. et al. A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. _Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev._**14**, 84–94 (2010). [Article]( Scholar]( 5. Alparslan, K. & Kuşdil, M. E. A review of research on the role of different types of religiosity in terror management. _Curr. Psychiat_. **16**, 289–305 (2024). [Google Scholar]( 6. Chatard, A., Arndt, J. & Pyszczynski, T. Loss shapes political views? Terror management, political ideology, and the death of close others. _Basic. Appl. Soc. Psych_. **32** (1), 2–7 (2010). [Article]( Scholar]( 7. Sani, F., Herrera, M. & Bowe, M. Perceived collective continuity and ingroup identification as defence against death awareness. _J. Exp. Soc. Psychol._**45**, 242–245 (2009). [Article]( Scholar]( 8. Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. & Greenberg, J. Thirty years of terror management theory: From genesis to revelation. _Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol._**52**, 1–7 (2015). [Article]( Scholar]( 9. Rhodes, N. Terror management theory: Mortality salience. _Int. Encycl Media Psychol._ 1–9. (2020). 10. Burke, B. L., Martens, A. & Faucher, E. H. Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. _Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev._**14** (2), 155–195 (2010). [Article]( Scholar]( 11. Burke, B. L., Kosloff, S. & Landau, M. J. Death goes to the polls: A meta-analysis of mortality salience effects on political attitudes. _Polit Psychol._**34** (2), 183–200 (2013). [Article]( Scholar]( 12. Greenberg, J. & Kosloff, S. Terror management theory: Implications for understanding prejudice, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, and political attitudes. _Soc. Personal Psychol. Compass_. **2** (5), 1881–1894 (2008). [Article]( Scholar]( 13. Pyszczynski, T. & Kesebir, P. Anxiety buffer disruption theory: A terror management account of posttraumatic stress disorder. _Anxiety Stress Copin_. **24** (1), 3–26 (2011). [Article]( Scholar]( 14. Pyszczynski, T. & Taylor, J. When the buffer breaks: Disrupted terror management in posttraumatic stress disorder. _Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci._**25** (4), 286–290 (2016). [Article]( Scholar]( 15. Vail, K. E., Goncy, E. A. & Edmondson, D. Anxiety buffer disruption: Worldview threat, death thought accessibility, and worldview defense among low and high posttraumatic stress symptom samples. _Psychol. Trauma-Us_. **11** (6), 647–655 (2019). [Article]( Scholar]( 16. Taubman–Ben-Ari, O., Erel-Brodsky, H., Ring, L. & Mijalevich-Soker, E. Terror management theory in action during a realtime mortality salience experience: The case of parents’ and grandparents’ reactions to wartime. _Death Stud._ (2025). 17. Taubman–Ben-Ari, O., Erel-Brodsky, H. & Ben-Kimhy, R. Collapse and validation of terror management anxiety buffers - Therapists’ reactions to war. _Death Stud._ (2025). 18. Hobfoll, S. E., Tirone, V., Holmgreen, L. & Gerhart, J. Conservation of resources theory applied to major stress. In Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior. 65–71. (2016). 19. Abualigah, A., Koburtay, T., Syed, J., Arici, H. E. & Aboramadan, M. The interconnection between workplace incivility, religiosity and employees’ psychological well-being: An update of the conservation of resources theory. _J. Manag Spirit Relig._**21** (1), 42–62 (2024). [Google Scholar]( 20. Marciano, H., Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Impact of prolonged social crisis on resilience and coping indicators. _PLoS One_. **19** (8), e0305542 (2024). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 21. Bonanno, G. A. & Mancini, A. D. The human capacity to thrive in the face of potential trauma. _Pediatrics_**121** (2), 369–375 (2008). [Article]( Scholar]( 22. Bonanno, G. A., Romero, S. A. & Klein, S. I. The temporal elements of psychological resilience: an integrative framework for the study of individuals, families, and communities. _Psychol. Inq._**26** (2), 139–169 (2015). [Article]( Scholar]( 23. Kimhi, S. et al. Prediction of societal and community resilience among Ukrainian and polish populations during the Russian war against Ukraine. _Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct._**93**, 103792 (2023). [Article]( Scholar]( 24. Kaim, A. et al. Predictors of societal and individual resilience across two and a half years of varied adversities. _Sci. Rep-Uk_. **15** (1), 18112 (2025). [Article]( Scholar]( 25. Kimhi, S. & Eshel, Y. Measuring national resilience: A new short version of the scale (NR-13). _J. Community Psychol._**47** (3), 517–528 (2019). [Article]( Scholar]( 26. Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., Kimhi, S. & Adini, B. Hope and fear of threats as predictors of coping with two major adversities, the COVID-19 pandemic and an armed conflict. _Int. J. Env Res. Pub He_. **19** (3), 1123 (2022). [Article]( Scholar]( 27. Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H. & Adini, B. Impact of the war in Ukraine on resilience, protective, and vulnerability factors. _Front. Public. Health_. **11**, 1053940. (2023). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 28. OECD, Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting World & Publishing, O. E. C. D. Preprint at (2011). [ 29. Ludin, S. M., Rohaizat, M. & Arbon, P. The association between social cohesion and community disaster resilience: A cross-sectional study. _Health Soc. Care Comm._**27** (3), 621–631 (2019). [Article]( Scholar]( 30. Greene, G., Paranjothy, S. & Palmer, S. R. Resilience and vulnerability to the psychological harm from flooding: The role of social cohesion. _Am. J. Public. Health_. **105** (9), 1792–1795 (2015). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 31. Snyder, C. R. et al. The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. _J. Pers. Soc. Psychol._**60** (4), 570 (1991). [Article]( Scholar]( 32. Bowers, R. M. & Bowers, E. P. A literature review on the role of hope in promoting positive youth development across non-WEIRD contexts. _Children_**10** (2), 346 (2023). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 33. Phillips, M. R. Is distress a symptom of mental disorders, a marker of impairment, both or neither? _World Psychiatry_. **8** (2), 91–92 (2009). [PubMed]( Central]( Scholar]( 34. Mulder, R. T. An epidemic of depression or the medicalization of distress? _Perspect. Biol. Med._**51** (2), 238–250 (2008). [Article]( Scholar]( 35. Wetherell, J. L., Gatz, M. & Pedersen, N. L. A longitudinal analysis of anxiety and depressive symptoms. _Psychol. Aging_. **16** (2), 187 (2001). [Article]( Scholar]( 36. Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H. & Adini, B. A renewed outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study of distress, resilience, and subjective well-being. _Int. J. Env Res. Pub He_. **17** (21), 7743 (2020). [Article]( Scholar]( 37. Kimhi, S., Marciano, H., Eshel, Y. & Adini, B. Measuring national resilience: Israel in the first week of the Gaza war. _Int. J. Intercult Rel_. **102**, 102018 (2024). [Article]( Scholar]( 38. Campbell-Sills, L. & Stein, M. B. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor–davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC): Validation of a 10‐item measure of resilience. _J. Trauma. Stress_. **20** (6), 1019–1028 (2007). [Article]( Scholar]( 39. Connor, K. M. & Davidson, J. R. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC). _Depress. Anxiety_. **18** (2), 76–82 (2003). [Article]( Scholar]( 40. Jarymowicz, M. & Bar-Tal, D. The dominance of fear over hope in the lives of individuals and collectives. _Eur. J. Soc. Psychol._**36**, 367–392 (2006). [Article]( Scholar]( 41. Derogatis, L. R. & Savitz, K. L. The SCL-90-R and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in primary care. In Handbook of Psychological Assessment in Primary Care Settings (Ed. (1999). Maruish, M. E.); 310–347. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 42. Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H. & Adini, B. Prediction of hope and morale during COVID-19. _Front. Psychol._**12**, 739645 (2021). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 43. Marciano, H., Kimhi, S. & Eshel, Y. Predictors of individual, community and national resiliencies of Israeli Jews and Arabs. _Int. J. Psychol._**55** (4), 553–561 (2020). [Article]( Scholar]( 44. Sarid, M., Kalman-Halevi, M., Tutian, R., Gilat-Yihyie, S. & Sarid, A. Uncovering resilience disparities among religious groups in Israel’s mass COVID-19 vaccination drive: Lessons learned to the post-Covid era. _Behav. Sci._**13** (5), 398 (2023). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 45. Shannonhouse, L. R. et al. Conserving resources during chronic disaster: Impacts of religious and meaning-focused coping on Botswana drought survivors. _Psychol. Trauma-Us_. **11** (2), 137 (2019). [Article]( Scholar]( 46. Aten, J. D. et al. The psychological study of religion and spirituality in a disaster context: A systematic review. _Psychol. Trauma-Us_. **11** (6), 597 (2019). [Article]( Scholar]( 47. Leung, H. T., Chew, P. K. & Caltabiano, N. J. Mortality salience effects of critical incidents - A systematic literature review and research agenda. _Omega-J Death Dying_. **90** (1), 73–119 (2024). [Article]( Scholar]( 48. Jost, J. T. A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. _Brit J. Soc. Psychol._**58** (2), 263–314 (2019). [Article]( Scholar]( 49. Anson, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. & Greenberg, J. Political ideology in the 21st century: A terror management perspective on maintenance and change of the status quo. Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification, 210–240. (2009). 50. Schuler, E. R. & Boals, A. Shattering world assumptions: A prospective view of the impact of adverse events on world assumptions. _Psychol. Trauma. -US_. **8** (3), 259–266 (2016). [Article]( Scholar]( 51. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K. & Calhoun, L. C. Routledge,. Posttraumatic growth: Theory, Research, and Applications. eBook at ISBN9781315527451, (2018). 52. Erikson, K. T. Collective trauma: Loss of communality. In (ed Erikson, K. T.) Everything in its Path (186–245). Simon and Schuster Inc., (1976). 53. Wlodarczyk, A., Basabe, N., Páez, D., Villagrán, L. & Reyes, C. Individual and collective posttraumatic growth in victims of natural disasters: A multidimensional perspective. _J. Loss Trauma._**22** (5), 371–384 (2017). [Article]( Scholar]( 54. Almog-Bar, M., Bar, R., Barkai, R. & Marmus, H. Civil Society Engagement in Israel during the Iron Swords War: Emerging Trends and Preliminary Insights. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem release, (2023). 55. Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. _J. Trauma. Stress_. **9** (3), 455–471 (1996). [Article]( Scholar]( 56. Arrow, K. et al. Evaluating the use of online self-report questionnaires as clinically valid mental health monitoring tools in the clinical whitespace. _Psychiatr Q._**94** (2), 221–231 (2023). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 57. Powers, J. & Loxton, D. The impact of attrition in an 11-year prospective longitudinal study of younger women. _Ann. Epidemiol._**20** (4), 318–321 (2010). [Article]( Scholar]( 58. Gustavson, K., Von Soest, T., Karevold, E. & Røysamb, E. Attrition and generalizability in longitudinal studies: findings from a 15-year population-based study and a Monte Carlo simulation study. _BMC Public. Health_. **12** (1), 918 (2012). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 59. Garcia, D. & Rimé, B. Collective emotions and social resilience in the digital traces after a terrorist attack. _Psychol. Sci._**30** (4), 617–628 (2019). [Article]( Central]( Scholar]( 60. Dolatabadi, A. The June 2025 Israeli War: Iran’s Assessment and Regional Consequences. _Middle East. Policy_. **32**, 16–35 (2025). [Article]( Scholar]( [Download references]( ## Acknowledgements The current research was funded by Tel Aviv University and Tel Hai University of Kiryat Shmona in the Galilee. ## Funding The current research was funded by Tel Aviv University and Tel Hai Tel-Hai Academic College. ## Author information ### Authors and Affiliations 1. Stress and Resilience Research Center, Tel-Hai - University of Kiryat Shmona in the Galilee, Qiryat Shemona, Israel Hadas Marciano,Yohanan Eshel&Shaul Kimhi 2. The Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making (IIPDM), University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Hadas Marciano 3. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Yohanan Eshel 4. ResWell Research Collaboration, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Shaul Kimhi&Bruria Adini 5. Department of Emergency & Disaster Management, School of Public Health, Gray Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Bruria Adini Authors 1. Hadas Marciano 2. Yohanan Eshel 3. Shaul Kimhi 4. Bruria Adini ### Contributions HM and YE analyzed the data; HM and BA Financed the survey with their institution’s help (Tel Hai - University Kiryat Shmona in the Galilee and Tel Aviv University); SK, HM, YE, and BA designed the methods, HM and YE wrote the main manuscript text; HM prepared the figures; SK, HM, YE, and BA reviewed the manuscript; BA supervised the project. ### Corresponding author Correspondence to [Hadas Marciano](mailto:hadasmrc@telhai.ac.il). ## Ethics declarations ### Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. ## Additional information ### Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ## Rights and permissions **Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence 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. To view a copy of this licence, visit [ [Reprints and permissions]( ## About this article []( ### Cite this article Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., Kimhi, S. _et al._ Religiosity and political worldviews as protective factors during an ongoing national trauma. _Sci Rep_**16**, 17555 (2026). [Download citation]( * Received: 10 September 2025 * Accepted: 31 March 2026 * Published: 14 April 2026 * Version of record: 08 June 2026 * DOI: ### Keywords