The Nature of Power: Elaborating the Association between Divine Control and Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, we have witnessed a resurgence of research on religious cognitions and mental health, including, most notably, perceptions of divine control. Although prior work on divine control tends to assume a loving or benevolent image of God, this is only one potential representation. Using nationwide data from the 2017 Baylor Religion Survey ( n = 999), we test whether the mental health benefits of perceived divine control vary according to various images of God (authoritative, benevolent, critical, and distant) and educational attainment. Results suggest that individuals with a college degree tend to report worse mental health if they also exhibit high levels of divine control beliefs and authoritative or critical God images. For those without a college degree, mental health was optimal when perceived divine control beliefs were low and their images of God were either authoritative or critical. For those with a college degree, the best mental health profiles were observed among those who reported high levels of divine control and a benevolent God image. By exploring the intersection of perceived divine control and God imagery, we may gain greater insight into novel processes related to religious cognitions and mental health.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 | 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".