This study presents an integrated review of religious coping, comparing theocentric and non-theocentric mechanisms, and examining research trends. Combining a narrative review with a VOSviewer-based bibliometric analysis of 2403 Scopus-indexed articles (1982–2025), the study examines the conceptual differences and functional roles of coping strategies in various religious traditions. The study’s results highlight three main differences between theocentric and non-theocentric traditions. These encompass theological and existential meaning-making, surrendering to God and self-control, as well as spiritual renewal and personal transformation. Theocentric coping is typically based on a divine relationship and prayer, whereas non-theocentric approaches emphasize inner balance, rituals, and ethical self-improvement. It has been found that most research focuses on Western, monotheistic contexts, primarily Christianity and Islam, while non-theocentric systems such as Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism remain underrepresented. The peripheral use of terms such as mindfulness, meditation, and holistic care suggests that although these topics exist, they are still insufficiently studied in the field of research on religious coping. This study contributes to the theoretical enrichment of the thematic field of religious coping and promotes the development of empirical research aimed at in-depth examination of non-theocentric coping practices in crises, as well as the revision of conventional models for coping assessment, which do not sufficiently reflect the existing spiritual and philosophical diversity of non-theocentric traditions.

Researchers across disciplines often face biased regression model estimates due to endogenous regressors correlated with the error term. Traditional solutions require instrumental variables (IVs), which are often difficult to find and validate. This package provides flexible, alternative IV-free methods using copulas, as described in the practical guide to endogeneity correction using copulas (Yi Qian, Tony Koschmann, and Hui Xie 2025) &lt;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00222429251410844" target="_top">doi:10.1177/00222429251410844</a>&gt;. The current version implements the two-stage copula endogeneity correction (2sCOPE) method to fit models with continuous endogenous regressors and both continuous and discrete exogenous regressors, as described in Fan Yang, Yi Qian, and Hui Xie (2024) &lt;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00222437241296453" target="_top">doi:10.1177/00222437241296453</a>&gt;. Using this method, users can address regressor endogeneity problems in nonexperimental data without requiring IVs.