Religious Versus Nonreligious Socialization: Does Religious Background Have Implications for Adjustment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were carried out to assess possible links between religious and nonreligious socialization and adjustment. In Study 1, three questionnaires were administered to 216 students, before and during their first year at a small Canadian university. Comparisons were made among those raised in (a) "no religion," (b) mainline Protestant, (c) conservative Protestant, and (d) Catholic families. Our 11 measures of mental health and adjustment exhibited strong psychometric properties and were intercorrelated as expected, but they did not distinguish among our 4 groups. Nor were these adjustment scores correlated with self-reports of religious emphasis in the childhood home. Study 2 involved 2 questionnaires administered to 615 Canadian senior high school students. Again, measures had strong psychometric properties and were intercorrelated as expected. But again, there was no indication that students from "no religion" backgrounds differed from students from religious backgrounds on our primary measures of adjustment: depression, self-esteem, dispositional optimism, and social support. Nor were these measures related to a Religious Emphasis scale. In this study we were also able to control for the possibly contaminating effects of socioeconomic status and current religiosity as covariates, and we included gender as an independent variable, although results indicated that its effects were minor. In combination, these 2 studies offer very little support for claims that religious socialization has positive implications for adjustment among youth, although there was limited evidence that current religiosity was weakly related to some measures of adjustment in Study 2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".