Spiritual Well-Being, Dissociation, and Alexithymia: Examining Direct and Moderating Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study we surveyed 131 adults seeking psychotherapy and pastoral care in an intensive outpatient psychotherapy program for full-time religious workers. We sought to determine whether dissociation and alexithymia are associated with spiritual well-being. We utilized the Dissociative Experiences Scale-II (DES-II), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWB) as well as the subscales of these instruments in a series of linear multiple regression analyses. DES-II total scores were inversely related to SWB total scores. No association was found between alexithymia and SWB, nor did alexithymia moderate the relationship between dissociation and SWB. Subscale analyses revealed that lower SWB and Existential Well-Being (EWB) were associated with greater nonpathological dissociation (DES-NP), which was unrelated to Religious Well-Being (RWB). By contrast, lower RWB was predicted by higher pathological dissociation (DES-T), which displayed no relationship to SWB or EWB. We conclude with a discussion of some implications of these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".