Associations of personality traits and degree of religiosity in Judaism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research in the field of personality and religion has either focused on common North American religions (e.g., Christianity) or compared personality traits across religions. Although Judaism has been included in these comparisons, our study is the first to investigate personality differences across sects of Judaism with increasing degrees of religiosity (ranging from Non-Practicing, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, to Lubavitch) using the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Considering the prevalence of Judaism, it is important to acknowledge differences among individuals who practice it, as has been done with other major religions. In this study, we asked the following two research questions; (1) Do individuals who self-identify with certain sects of Judaism differ in personality? (2) Is the size of the city of residence associated with the degree of religiosity in Judaism? We used various social media outlets to administer the HEXACO Personality Inventory, the Religious Orientation Scale, and the Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism to 186 self-identified Jewish individuals. Participantsranged in age from 18 to 74 and lived in different cities across North America. There were no significant differences in any of the personality scores across sects of Judaism, a result that is not consistent with previous research. We found no significant correlation between city size and degree of religiosity in Judaism. Future research could include a greater selection of sects within Judaism for participants to identify with, as well as the creation of a more accurate measurement of religiosity in relation to Judaism. * Indicates faculty mentor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".