修正

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY International Journal for the Psychology of Religion Pub Date : 2021-04-03 DOI:10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589
Anna R. George, E. Wesselmann, J. Hilgard, A. Young, I. Beest
{"title":"修正","authors":"Anna R. George, E. Wesselmann, J. Hilgard, A. Young, I. Beest","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(1) The second to last line: “Moreover, a mini-meta analysis of the original study and the current two studies added the novel insight that thinking about being included by God increased wellbeing relative to contemplating that God created the earth.” has been removed from the abstract. (2) The final line of the section “Mini meta-analysis on main effects” on page 8 has been corrected from “Moreover, the mini-meta analysis revealed a significant difference between the inclusion (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and control conditions (M = 59.87, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(520) = 5.45, p < .001, d = 0.58.” to “The mini meta-analysis revealed there was not a significant difference between the inclusion condition (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and the control condition (M = 67.47, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(348) = 0.23, p = 0.819, d = 0.02.” (3) The third paragraph on page 9 has been rewritten. It has changed from: ● While the individual studies, as well as the original study, showed no significant effect on the relation between the inclusion and control conditions on well-being, the mini-meta analysis showed there was a benefit to well-being when Christians read that God would always be with them compared to reading about God creating the Earth. Future research could examine this relation more closely to determine if it is a true effect. Both our studies, as well as the original study, may simply have been underpowered to detect this effect. The control conditions in all three studies were Bible verses, and thus future research could have a more neutral control condition that does not include religious scripture.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correction\",\"authors\":\"Anna R. George, E. Wesselmann, J. Hilgard, A. Young, I. Beest\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"(1) The second to last line: “Moreover, a mini-meta analysis of the original study and the current two studies added the novel insight that thinking about being included by God increased wellbeing relative to contemplating that God created the earth.” has been removed from the abstract. (2) The final line of the section “Mini meta-analysis on main effects” on page 8 has been corrected from “Moreover, the mini-meta analysis revealed a significant difference between the inclusion (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and control conditions (M = 59.87, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(520) = 5.45, p < .001, d = 0.58.” to “The mini meta-analysis revealed there was not a significant difference between the inclusion condition (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and the control condition (M = 67.47, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(348) = 0.23, p = 0.819, d = 0.02.” (3) The third paragraph on page 9 has been rewritten. It has changed from: ● While the individual studies, as well as the original study, showed no significant effect on the relation between the inclusion and control conditions on well-being, the mini-meta analysis showed there was a benefit to well-being when Christians read that God would always be with them compared to reading about God creating the Earth. Future research could examine this relation more closely to determine if it is a true effect. Both our studies, as well as the original study, may simply have been underpowered to detect this effect. The control conditions in all three studies were Bible verses, and thus future research could have a more neutral control condition that does not include religious scripture.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

(1)倒数第二行:“此外,对原始研究和当前两项研究的一项小型荟萃分析增加了一种新颖的见解,即相对于思考上帝创造了地球,思考被上帝包含会增加幸福感。”已从摘要中删除。(2)第8页“主效应的迷你元分析”部分的最后一行从“此外,迷你元分析显示纳入(M = 67.75, SD = 11.67)与对照条件(M = 59.87, SD = 11.69)在幸福感得分上存在显著差异,t(520) = 5.45, p < .001, d = 0.58。”迷你元分析显示,纳入条件(M = 67.75, SD = 11.67)与对照条件(M = 67.47, SD = 11.69)在幸福感得分上无显著差异,t(348) = 0.23, p = 0.819, d = 0.02。“第9页第3段已重写。●虽然个体研究以及原始研究显示,包容和控制条件对幸福感的关系没有显著影响,但迷你元分析显示,当基督徒阅读上帝将永远与他们在一起时,与阅读上帝创造地球相比,幸福感是有益的。未来的研究可以更仔细地检验这种关系,以确定它是否真的有效。我们的两项研究,以及最初的研究,可能只是没有足够的力量来检测这种影响。三个研究的对照条件都是圣经经文,因此未来的研究可以有一个更中性的对照条件,不包括宗教经文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Correction
(1) The second to last line: “Moreover, a mini-meta analysis of the original study and the current two studies added the novel insight that thinking about being included by God increased wellbeing relative to contemplating that God created the earth.” has been removed from the abstract. (2) The final line of the section “Mini meta-analysis on main effects” on page 8 has been corrected from “Moreover, the mini-meta analysis revealed a significant difference between the inclusion (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and control conditions (M = 59.87, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(520) = 5.45, p < .001, d = 0.58.” to “The mini meta-analysis revealed there was not a significant difference between the inclusion condition (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and the control condition (M = 67.47, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(348) = 0.23, p = 0.819, d = 0.02.” (3) The third paragraph on page 9 has been rewritten. It has changed from: ● While the individual studies, as well as the original study, showed no significant effect on the relation between the inclusion and control conditions on well-being, the mini-meta analysis showed there was a benefit to well-being when Christians read that God would always be with them compared to reading about God creating the Earth. Future research could examine this relation more closely to determine if it is a true effect. Both our studies, as well as the original study, may simply have been underpowered to detect this effect. The control conditions in all three studies were Bible verses, and thus future research could have a more neutral control condition that does not include religious scripture.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (IJPR) is devoted to psychological studies of religious processes and phenomena in all religious traditions. This journal provides a means for sustained discussion of psychologically relevant issues that can be examined empirically and concern religion in the most general sense. It presents articles covering a variety of important topics, such as the social psychology of religion, religious development, conversion, religious experience, religion and social attitudes and behavior, religion and mental health, and psychoanalytic and other theoretical interpretations of religion. The journal publishes research reports, brief research reports, commentaries on relevant topical issues, book reviews, and statements addressing articles published in previous issues. The journal may also include a major essay and commentaries, perspective papers of the theory, and articles on the psychology of religion in a specific country.
期刊最新文献
God, Can I Give Up?: The Diverging Effects of God-Related Thoughts on Task Persistence in Chinese Buddhists and Taoists The Role of Religion in the Mental Health of Single Adults: A Mixed-Method Investigation Effects of Participating in Religious Groups on Mental Health Issues: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study Enriching the Common Core of Mystical Experience: A Qualitative Analysis of Interviews with Daoist Monks and Nuns The Existential Challenge of Religious Pluralism: Religion, Politics, and Meaning in Life
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1