The mediating role of flourishing on religious faith and psychological distress: a pilot survey

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic features of the participants (N = 267).

Variables			N (%)
Language	English		113 (42.3%)
	Chinese		154 (57.7%)
Gender	Male		57 (21.3%)
	Female		202 (75.7%)
	Other		5 (1.9%)
	Prefer not to say		3 (1.1%)
Age	18–35		162 (60.7%)
	36–55		95 (35.6%)
	56–65		6 (2.2%)
	65 +		4 (1.5%)
Country you currently	United Kingdom		49 (18.4%)
live in	Taiwan		165 (61.8%)
	Other		53 (19.8%)
		Australia	6
		Canada	2
		Estonia	1
		France	1
		Germany	4
		Hungary	1
		India	4
		Ireland	1
		Italy	1
		Malaysia	1
		Netherlands	2
		Philippines	2
		Poland	1
		Portugal	2
		Romania	1
		Russia	1
		Singapore	1
		South Korea	3
		Spain	1
		Thailand	1
		Ukraine	1
		USA	15
Education Level	Doctorate degree		4 (1.5%)
	Master’s degree		63 (23.6%)
	Bachelor’s degree		131 (49.1%)
	High diploma or equivalent		64 (24%)
	Primary school		1 (0.3%)
	Prefer not to say		4 (1.5%)
Marital Status	Single		106 (39.7%)
	Never married		32 (12%)
	Married, or partnership		106 (39.7%)
	Separated		5 (1.9%)
	Divorced		12 (4.5%)
	Widowed		3 (1.1%)
	Prefer not to say		3 (1.1%)
Employment Status	Employed		141 (52.8%)
	Unemployed		9 (3.4%)
	Self-employed		30 (11.2%)
	A homemaker		13 (4.9%)
	A student		66 (24.7%)
	Retired		3 (1.1%)
	Unable to work		3 (1.1%)
	Prefer not to say		2 (0.7%)
Income Level	Income insufficient to meet needs		89 (33.3%)
	Income sufficient to meet needs		155 (58.1%)
	Income more than sufficient		23 (8.6%)
Would you describe	Yes		155 (58.1%)
yourself a religious person?	No		112 (41.9%)
Religion	Christianity		84 (31.5%)
	Catholicism		7 (2.6%)
	Islam		5 (1.9%)
	Judaism		3 (1.1%)
	Buddhism		48 (18%)
	Taoism		45 (16.9%)
	Hinduism		3 (1.1%)
	Atheism		25 (9.4%)
	Agnosticism		26 (9.7%)
	Other		14 (5.2%)
	Prefer not to say		7 (2.6%)
How important is	Very important		91 (34.1%)
religion in your life	Somewhat important		79 (29.6%)
(if applicable)?	Not too important		61 (22.8%)
	Not at all important		36 (13.5%)

Table 2. Mann–Whitney U Test results for participants with weak faith versus strong faith on flourishing and CORE-10.

Measure	Weak Faith (n = 131) Mean (SD)	Strong Faith (n = 133) Mean (SD)	Significance level	Effect size
Total score on Flourishing	100.89 (28.83)	113.41 (26.36)	z = -3.983 p = .001	.25
Total score on CORE-10	13.92 (7.91)	12.32 (7.12)	z = -1.502 p = .133	.09

Table 3. Model summary of the regression analysis on predictors of CORE-10.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.651^a	.424	.419	5.75864

^a Predictors: (Constant), Total score on Santa Clara Scale, Total score on Flourishing.

^b Dependent variable: Total score on CORE-10.

Table 4. Coefficients table looking at predictors of CORE-10.

Model	B	SE	β	t	Sig.	Collinearity tolerance	Collinearity VIF
Total score on Flourishing	−.177	.013	−.662	−.13.469	.001	.940	1.064
Total score on Santa Clara Scale	.040	.038	.051	1.043	.298	.940	1.064

^a Dependent variable: Total score on CORE-10.

Figure 1. A Path model of flourishing, religious faith and psychological distress.

Table 5. Spearman’s rho correlations coefficient between flourishing score, Santa Clara score, and CORE-10 score.

Measure		Flourishing total	SCSRFQ total	CORE-10 score
Flourishing Total	r =	1.000	.271**	−.621**
CSRFQ Total	r =	.271**	1.000	−.090
CORE-10 score	r =	−.621**	−.090	1.000

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 6. Results for mediation analyses (N = 257).

	Path	B	SE	β	95% CI (LLCI, ULCI)
Religious faith → Flourishing → Psychological distress	Religious faith → Flourishing (Path a)	.68**	.18	.24
	Flourishing → Psychological distress (Path b)	−.18**	.01	−.66
	Religious faith → Psychological distress (Direct effect)	.03	.04	.04
	Boostrap results for indirect effect
	Indirect effect of Flourishing (a x b)	−.12	.03	−.16	−.19, −.06

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).