↓ Skip to main content

Relationships Among Spirituality, Religious Practices, Personality Factors, and Health for Five Different Faith Traditions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Religion and Health, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 1,262)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Relationships Among Spirituality, Religious Practices, Personality Factors, and Health for Five Different Faith Traditions
Published in
Journal of Religion and Health, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10943-012-9615-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brick Johnstone, Dong Pil Yoon, Daniel Cohen, Laura H. Schopp, Guy McCormack, James Campbell, Marian Smith

Abstract

To determine: (1) differences in spirituality, religiosity, personality, and health for different faith traditions; and (2) the relative degree to which demographic, spiritual, religious, and personality variables simultaneously predict health outcomes for different faith traditions. Cross-sectional analysis of 160 individuals from five different faith traditions including Buddhists (40), Catholics (41), Jews (22), Muslims (26), and Protestants (31). Brief multidimensional measure of religiousness/spirituality (BMMRS; Fetzer in Multidimensional measurement of religiousness/spirituality for use in health research, Fetzer Institute, Kalamazoo, 1999); NEO-five factor inventory (NEO-FFI; in Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and the NEO-five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, Costa and McCrae 1992); Medical outcomes scale-short form (SF-36; in SF-36 physical and mental health summary scores: A user's manual, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, Ware et al. 1994). (1) ANOVAs indicated that there were no significant group differences in health status, but that there were group differences in spirituality and religiosity. (2) Pearson's correlations for the entire sample indicated that better mental health is significantly related to increased spirituality, increased positive personality traits (i.e., extraversion) and decreased personality traits (i.e., neuroticism and conscientiousness). In addition, spirituality is positively correlated with positive personality traits (i.e., extraversion) and negatively with negative personality traits (i.e., neuroticism). (3) Hierarchical regressions indicated that personality predicted a greater proportion of unique variance in health outcomes than spiritual variables. Different faith traditions have similar health status, but differ in terms of spiritual, religious, and personality factors. For all faith traditions, the presence of positive and absence of negative personality traits are primary predictors of positive health (and primarily mental health). Spiritual variables, other than forgiveness, add little to the prediction of unique variance in physical or mental health after considering personality. Spirituality can be conceptualized as a characterological aspect of personality or a distinct construct, but spiritual interventions should continue to be used in clinical practice and investigated in health research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 4%
Malaysia 3 1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 202 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 21%
Student > Master 31 14%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 9%
Researcher 14 6%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 39 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 77 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 11%
Social Sciences 25 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 4%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 43 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2024.
All research outputs
#316,082
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Religion and Health
#15
of 1,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,481
of 166,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Religion and Health
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 166,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.