The Relationship Between Locus of Control and Religious Behavior and Beliefs in a Large Population of Parents: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine, in a large representative population, the association between self-reported religious beliefs, attitudes and behavior and locus of control (LOC) of reinforcement as defined by Rotter. Results of previous research have failed to clearly determine what, if any, associations existed. In this study, analyses showed individuals with an internal LOC were not only more likely to believe in a divine power, to admit a divine power helped them in the past, to ask for help from a divine power in the future, to attend places of worship more often than those who were external, but also that they were significantly more likely to maintain their religious beliefs and behaviors over a 6 year period compared to those with an external orientation. Additional exploratory analyses by gender revealed that compared to internal men, internal women were significantly more involved in all indicators of religious belief and action except for attending church weekly and obtaining help from religious leaders where internal men were higher. The present findings support the association between the generalized expectancy of LOC as defined by Rotter and religious beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".