MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385670032 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.2108

Dispositional Optimism in Christian Populations Compared to other Religious Groups: a Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4385670032 on OpenAlexaff
William W. L. Cheung, C. Liu, Vivian W. L. Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimismReligiosityPessimismPsychologyPsycINFOMental healthAttributionCoping (psychology)Social psychologyFaithClinical psychologyMEDLINEPsychotherapistTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction There are various ways people cope with life events. One can expect generalized positive or negative outcomes across various life domains, called dispositional optimism. This can be explained by attribution theory: how people explain past events, their causations, and outcomes. Understanding attribution styles is important to help people reframe current circumstances and improve mental wellbeing. Our hypothesis is that people of different religious groups may exhibit various levels of optimism and pessimism based on their values, teachings, and practices. Previous research has found that people of Christian faith, or those with a religious faith in general, look to their religion as a way of coping during life adversities. Certain religious practices such as prayers and Church gatherings have been found to improve mental health through increasing dispositional optimism. While the relationship between religiosity and mental health has been previously examined in different religious populations, there are few studies that focused on comparing this relationship across religions. Objectives The objective of this scoping review is to understand the link between religiosity and mental health, focusing primarily on how people of the Christian religion demonstrate dispositional optimism or pessimism when coping with adverse life events, compared to other religious groups or atheists. Methods This scoping review included original peer reviewed study articles that studied mental health in terms of dispositional optimism or pessimism in people of Christian religion compared to other religious groups. This review used online databases, Ovid MEDLINE and PsycInfo, and used extraction tables to analyze the results of past research. Results The results of this scoping review revealed that people of Christian religion, especially those high in religiosity, use their religion as a method of coping. This population also showed higher dispositional optimism compared to atheists or those that believe in other religions. However, when compared to other religions such as Buddhism and Muslim, Christian populations showed lower dispositional optimism. Conclusions It is evident that religious involvement is linked to aspects of mental health, but comparing the effects of different religions is still a topic of exploration that can be investigated further to allow deeper understanding of their similarities and differences, as well as the mechanisms by which religion can affect mental health. In this review, a gap in the body of knowledge regarding the relationship between religion and pessimism was revealed. Future research directions could include examining whether dispositional pessimism varies across religious groups, as it does not necessarily have a perfectly inverse relationship with optimism. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Psychiatry→Same topicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology→French-language works237,207→