MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071881301 · doi:10.1080/10508619.2011.646565

Psychological Defensiveness as a Mechanism Explaining the Relationship Between Low Socioeconomic Status and Religiosity

2012· article· en· W2071881301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark J. Brandt, Patrick Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for the Psychology of Religion · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusChinaReligiosityDemographyGeographyCzechSocioeconomic developmentSocioeconomicsPolitical sciencePsychologySociologySocial psychologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract People who are low in socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to be religious than their higher status counterparts; however, little research has tested the mechanisms for this relationship. Using data from 90 diverse societies and multilevel path analysis, we replicated findings that individuals low in SES are more religious and furthermore found that in wealthy countries this relationship was mediated by a measure of psychological defensiveness even while controlling for participants' sense of financial insecurities. These results suggest that religious belief may play a psychologically protective role for low SES individuals, independent of realistic economic concerns. Notes 1List of regions and sample sizes in alphabetical order: Albania (n = 1,999), Algeria (n = 1,282), Andorra (n = 1,003), Argentina (n = 2,359), Armenia (n = 2,000), Australia (n = 3,469), Azerbaijan (n = 2,002), Bangladesh (n = 3,025), Belarus (n = 2,092), Bosnia and Herzegovina (n = 2,400), Brazil (n = 2,649), Bulgaria (n = 2,073), Burkina Faso (n = 1,534), Canada (n = 4,095), Chile (n = 3,200), China (n = 2,015), Colombia (n = 9,050), Croatia (n = 1,003), Cyprus (n = 1,050), Czech Republic (n = 1,147), Dominican Republic (n = 417), Egypt (n = 6,051), El Salvador (n = 1,254), Estonia (n = 1,021), Ethiopia (n = 1,500), Finland (n = 2,001), France (n = 1,001), Georgia (n = 3,508), Germany (n = 4,090), Ghana (n = 1,534), Great Britain (n = 1,041) Guatemala (n = 1,000), Hong Kong (n = 1,252), Hungary (n = 1,000), Iceland (n = 968), India (n = 6,043), Indonesia (n = 3,019), Iran (n = 5,199), Iraq (n = 5,026), Ireland (n = 1,012), Israel (n = 1,199), Italy (n = 1,012), Japan (n = 2,458), Jordan (n = 1,223), Kyrgyzstan (n = 1,043), Latvia (n = 1,200), Lithuania (n = 1,009), Luxembourg (n = 1,211), Macedonia (n = 2,050), Malaysia (n = 1,201), Mali (n = 1,534), Mexico (n = 5,459), Moldova (n = 3,038), Morocco (n = 3,464), Netherlands (n = 1,050), New Zealand (n = 2,155), Nigeria (n = 4,018), Norway (n = 2,152), Pakistan (n = 2,733), Peru (n = 4,212), Philippines (n = 1,200), Poland (n = 1,000), Puerto Rico (n = 1,884), Romania (n = 3,015), Russian Federation (n = 4,073), Rwanda (n = 1,507), Saudi Arabia (n = 1,502), Serbia (n = 1,220), Serbia and Montenegro (n = 3,780), Singapore (n = 1,512), Slovakia (n = 1,331), Slovenia (n = 1,037), South Africa (n = 8,923), South Korea (n = 2,400), Spain (n = 4,820), Sweden (n = 2,012), Switzerland (n = 2,453), Taiwan (n = 2,007), Tanzania (n = 1,171), Thailand (n = 1,534), Trinidad and Tobago (n = 1,002), Turkey (n = 7,860), Uganda (n = 1,002), Ukraine (n = 3,811), United States (n = 3,991), Uruguay (n = 2,000), Venezuela (n = 2,400), Vietnam (n = 2,495), Zambia (n = 1,500), Zimbabwe (n = 1,002). 2The data can also be conceptualized as three levels, with participants on the first level, waves on the second level, and countries on the third level. Unfortunately, the sample size on the second level is too small to effectively estimate these values (second level n ranges 1–3). To address this problem we analyzed the data using country-wave combinations as the level-2 unit of analysis, and the results produced identical conclusions as those reported here.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for the Psychology of ReligionSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207