MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4231692631 · doi:10.36315/2020inpact051

DOES ATTACHMENT TO GOD PREDICT MINDFULNESS?

2020· article· en· W4231692631 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy A. Freeze, Lisa A. Best, Cecile J. Proctor, Enrico DiTommaso

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickHorizon Health NetworkCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessPsychologyAttachment theoryFacet (psychology)Construct (python library)Association (psychology)Multilevel modelScale (ratio)Social psychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistBig Five personality traitsPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade, a plethora of research has focused on examining the relationship between mindfulness and a variety of psychological constructs.In general, research has indicated that mindfulness is positively associated with health and well-being (see Nagy & Baer, 2017).Simply defined, mindfulness is attentiveness in the present moment (Baer, 2003).Further, Linehan (1993) noted that the object and the quality of attentiveness are essential components of mindfulness.Attachment to God is a construct that also has an "object" of the individual's attention (i.e., God) and individual differences in the "quality" of that attention (i.e., varying levels of attachment security).Given that individual differences in attachment to God have also been examined in relation to psychological constructs and were predictive of well-being (e.g., Freeze & DiTommaso, 2014, 2015), an association between attachment to God and mindfulness may be hypothesized.However, few, if any, studies have examined mindfulness in relation to either religious belief or attachment to God.The aim of the present study was to determine whether individual differences in attachment to God predict five facets of mindfulness (i.e., observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judgmental inner experience, and non-reactivity).It was hypothesized that insecure attachment to God would be negatively associated with mindfulness.Five hundred and sixty-nine undergraduate students at a secular university completed questionnaire packages that included demographics, questions about their religious belief, the Social Readjustment Rating Scale, the Attachment to God Scale, and the Five Facet Mindfulness Scale.Five Bonferroni-corrected hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted.After controlling for stress and belief in God, higher levels of anxious and avoidant attachment to God predicted lower levels of the describing facet of mindfulness.Higher levels of anxious attachment to God predicted lower levels of both acting with awareness and non-judgmental inner experience.Neither anxious attachment to God nor avoidant attachment to God significantly predicted the observing and non-reactivity facets of mindfulness.Implications of these findings and directions for future research will be discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions→French-language works237,207→