The relationship between spiritual health, spiritual dissonance and positive mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his doctoral work, Fisher (1998) developed a definition of spiritual health inspired by positive psychology. He described four domains of spiritual health, namely the personal, communal, environmental, and transcendental domains. He then defined spiritual health as “a fundamental dimension of people’s overall health and well-being, permeating and integrating all the other dimensions of health (i.e., physical, mental, emotional, social and vocational)” (Fisher, 1998, p. 191). Although most of the scientific literature has found that religion and spirituality are negatively correlated to mental illness, the relationship between spiritual health, proposed by Fisher’s four domain model, and mental health has yet to be explored. Furthermore, in later writings, Fisher introduced the novel concept of spiritual dissonance which he defines as the difference between one’s actual spiritual lived-experience and one’s spiritual ideals. His model theoretically implies that spiritual dissonance would have a similar relationship to mental health as spiritual health; however, to this author’s knowledge, this has yet to be tested (Fisher, 2008). \nMental health, as defined by Keyes, is not the mere absence of disease, but optimal emotional, psychological, and social functioning (Keyes, 2006b, 2007). Those three dimensions of positive mental health resemble the three dimensions that Fisher beleives would be permeated by spiritual health and spiritual dissonance. \nThe present thesis explored the relationship between spiritual health, spiritual dissonance, mental illness, and positive mental health in a convenient sample of undergraduate students from a Canadian university. The findings suggest that mental health is positively correlated to spiritual health (r = .40, p < .001) and negatively correlated to spiritual dissonance (r = -.39, p < .001). Furthermore, even though 22% of mental health variance was accounted for by psychological distress, an additional 13 % of variance was accounted for by spiritual health or 8% of variance by spiritual dissonance. Both spiritual health and spiritual dissonance were significantly related to mental health and significant predictors of 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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".