quote: Women are less likely to be depressed if they attend church regularly and if their religiosity level is high. Johnson said she used a standardized depression scale to compare her results with the national findings.
Johnson's conclusions reject earlier studies that say Latter-day Saints have higher levels of depression than the nation's population as a whole, based on the above-average consumption of antidepressants.
"Statistically, it is impossible to determine causality," Johnson said. "We can only talk about possibility, but religion does increase mental and physical well-being."
Women across the nation have four times as many divorces as LDS women who did not serve LDS missions and eight times as many divorces as women who served missions, Johnson said.
Hmmm. This doesn't show the info my mom emailed me, that 11% of Mormon women reported themselves as unhappy compared with 7% nationally. But being unhappy is not the same as clinically depressed. I guess. A higher percent of Mormons reported very happy. So there were fewer Mormon women who felt "so so".
I guess that is grist for the mill. Is there a difference with being unhappy and depressed? I think that when I'm depressed, I'm often shutting off my emotions so I don't know how I really feel.
posted
Definitely a difference between being depressed and unhappy. In fact, I'd say there's a difference between being unhappy and not happy.
I went through about 6 years of existence without being happy but not realizing it. It wasn't until I looked back on that time period and compared it to now that I realized how sterile and blah that time was.
quote:eight times as many divorces as women who served missions
WoW! This is very encouraging for me.
My parents were happy and fine, but on my mother's side (and excluding my mom), there have been 8 divorces out of 10 total marriages in the last FOUR generations. So stuff like this is encouraging.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are also reporting issues. I don't know how this study was conducted but if it was a simple survey, I think you are going to end up with a lot of mormon women reporting they're happy, when they're not, because of the social stigma that they should be happy all the time.
Posts: 995 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think attending church makes you about as happy as staying at home. Read the bilble and things will be ok, as long as you get its true meaning. You don't have to attend church in order to feel your soul will be saved. It doesn't matter of what faith or religion you are, as long as you stick to basic principles of the bible, as long as you have faith.
posted
This looks like the article my mom sent: Deseret News
quote: When that category was combined with "unhappy," 11 percent of NM, 7 percent of RM and 6 percent of NSFH fell into that category. Additional research is necessary to determine why a larger percentage of LDS women are unhappy than the national group, she said. In measuring self-esteem, LDS women scored roughly 10 percent below their national counterparts in rating their ability to "do things as well as other people," with 86 percent of NSFH agreeing but only 75 percent of NM and 77 percent of RM agreeing with that characterization. She said the findings "could be a reflection of the higher standards that are espoused" by the church and some researchers claims that measures used in self-esteem research are biased against orthodox respondents because their language is contrary to religious ideals like humility. Measures of depression showed the LDS women experienced symptoms associated with depression — including feeling bothered, not eating, feeling blue, unable to concentrate, fearful, restless sleep, lonely, sad — on average about one day a week, while the national group experienced them 1.5 days per week. The largest difference in scores came in appetite, with national women having a loss of appetite about three-fourths of a day more per week than LDS women.
The idea that Mormon Women are more depressed is based mostly on "logic" about their oppression, and higher levels of antidepressant use in Utah. But I think that may be related to the socioeconomic makeup of the state, at least back in the 90's. Whites generally have better access to health care.
Utah also has a higher suicide rate than the national average. I think that when Mormons get unhappy, they tend to be very unhappy and are not as accepting of that lot as "normal" people.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[completely off topic] Pooka, did you get the email I sent you yesterday? Just checking. [\completely off topic]
Posts: 995 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Johnson surveyed 15,000 returned missionaries and 617 women who had not served missions and compared her findings to a 1992-94 national study of 3,075 non-LDS women in the National Survey of Families and Household.
Anyone else see an inconsistency here? 15,000 missionaries versus 617—less than a 15th—compared with an older unrelated study. In case you don't understand, the statistics that would be drawn from this would be seriously skewed, because the comparisons are way over-weighted to LDS who served missions.
quote:Women are less likely to be depressed if they attend church regularly and if their religiosity level is high. Johnson said she used a standardized depression scale to compare her results with the national findings.
Did the national findings use the same scale? Did she account for the over-weighted figures? I would bet not.
quote:Johnson's conclusions reject earlier studies that say Latter-day Saints have higher levels of depression than the nation's population as a whole, based on the above-average consumption of antidepressants.
As I'm sure they were meant to from the start. Or can someone provide a detailed description of not only the methodology used, but of the original hypothesis before the study?
quote:"Statistically, it is impossible to determine causality," Johnson said. "We can only talk about possibility, but religion does increase mental and physical well-being."
"It's impossible to determine causality, but I'm going to make a causal statement anyway." Golden.
Oh, and studies have already been done for over a century indicating that men and women who attend church regularly have lower instances of both depression and suicide. This is nothing new, except this "study" implies LDS women who go on missions are even less prone, even though the numbers they use are grossly imbalanced.
quote:Women across the nation have four times as many divorces as LDS women who did not serve LDS missions and eight times as many divorces as women who served missions, Johnson said.
The number of non-LDS women in the study was less than a fifth than the LDS women (unless the 617 who didn't serve a mission were not LDS), and yet this study is able to determine a national demographic from an unevenly weighted study—using more than 15,000 from one localized (to LDS) study and a fifth of that from a national one—exactly how? I'd love to see the formulas used to come to this conclusion.
quote:"My advice is just to follow the prophet," she said. "Things like studying scriptures, saying your prayers and living the commandments do bring us to a higher level of life satisfaction, they do increase our self-esteem and they do lower the depression levels. All these things have very positive effect in our lives."
This is what I mean about biased studies. This is why biased studies are horribly unreliable. Can someone honestly say that she entered this numbers game without a determination to "prove" what she did?
quote:Another aspect of the study involved self-esteem, and included scores that measure an ability to "do things as well as other people." The self-esteem scores were roughly 10 percent lower among Mormon women in comparison with their national counterparts.
Johnson said the measures used in self-esteem research become biased because religious people endorse principles of humility and forgiveness.
Yeah, play down the possible unsavory findings (if they are even reliable).
quote:Richard McClendon, an assistant professor of sociology, said Johnson's findings about women are consistent with the data he has collected for his dissertation on LDS men. He also said the employment rate is higher for returned missionaries than the national level.
"Men in church, especially returned missionaries, are much healthier in all aspects of their lives," McClendon said. "There is no question about it. They are better off in their educational levels. They have higher income levels and higher employment levels."
Come on, people, are you seriously going to say these "studies" are reliable in any sense of the word? Even if you belong to the faith, the obvious bias and poor statistical use of population (intentional bias) has to come off as weak and unreliable.
They more than quadrupled the number of LDS studied versus non-LDS. They comment that their findings were what they theorized all along. The comparisons are "four to one," "eight to one," and "twice as likely" and similar conclusions, even though this would directly correlate with the imbalance of the study samples taken. Do you really expect me to take this with anything but a grain of salt?
[ April 20, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think of the second article, John?
The first one was probably written by student reporters, and as you say, pretty seriously biased. Actually, I think you sarcastically said they would be unbiased.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks John for doing the legwork I was to lazy to do. This doesn't remotely surprise me. And I have a degree from the Family Science dept. at BYU.
posted
Pooka, I showed why the work done by the person who did the study was inaccurate, regardless of the article writer. Inflating numbers to get results is bad mathematical (well, statistical) science. Shame on them for doing so. The obvious bias of the people who conducted the study is also directly addressed. Having another article covering it makes it no less ridiculous.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
gah! every thread with John is like a game of mafia. Kind of thrilling but not good for my blood pressure. I mean, why look into anything that would flesh out the conclusion one has jumped to?
posted
Why delete the link? I'm just talking about the study. I really am not concerned with the writer of the article's bias, since that is often easy to determine. However, addressing the study's bias is important, as well as the inflated numbers.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I decided not to delete the link, you could just put it back. P.S. I'm ashamed for having even thought that, and chagrined that you managed to read it before I could take it back.
posted
The imbalance in numbers surveyed does not necessarily imply a problem with the results of the study. It is all too often impossible to study groups in ideal proportions. This is why we have statistics, so that we can express exactly how meaningful the numbers we obtain can be taken to be. If the results of the study are properly statistically analyzed, the difference in number of surveyed people in each group does nothing to invalidate them. Even the smaller group is large enough that given a properly obtained sample the results could be quite meaningful -- statistical meaning of a sample is respective only of sample size, not population size.
The study's results are not necessarily improper. However, it is correct to say that without knowing the methodology and the important statistics -- some measure of the certainty of the figures would be particularly useful -- we cannot ajudge this study correctly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was hoping for more detailed results somewhere. I guess it is more of local concern. I think part of the reason that LDS people seem to have a higher awareness of one another's mental problems is because we are tight knit communities. So if there were a statistical measure of "noseyness" we would probably do well on that.
This sort of study is in response to the anecdotal sense that there are a lot of clinical mental illnesses among church members.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a little surprised at this study. In my opinion, in Mormon culture (not necessarily the Church itself, but the culture often found in the Church) there is a greater stigma attached to depression than in the rest of American culture. It know that there are many Mormons who struggle with depression but are never treated for it. There seemss to be a comforting fallacy that if you attend your meetings, serve a mission, get married in the temple, have kids, etc. life will be happy and fairly trouble-free. So, if we are unhappy, that means there must be *something* that we're not doing (or something we're doing wrong). I think it means that Mormons often don't think that there can be chemical/hormonal imbalances causing the unhappiness/depression and so are not treated. So, I guess in a roundabout way, I think this study will only enforce this damaging stereotype.
And yes, pooka, I think there is a difference between unhappiness and depression. For me, my depression is irrational, while my unhappiness is rational. Meaning that when I am unhappy is is for a reason and it serves a purpose, while when I am depressed, my depression and despair are not based on reality and serve only to plunge me further into despair.
posted
ludosti, I agree totally. Talking to my bishop about my depression is the most difficult thing I've ever done.
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone else see an inconsistency here? 15,000 missionaries versus 617?less than a 15th?compared with an older unrelated study. In case you don't understand, the statistics that would be drawn from this would be seriously skewed, because the comparisons are way over-weighted to LDS who served missions.
There is an inconsistency in the numbers between the two articles. The desert news says 1519 missionaries. At any rate the statistics are percentages- unless the sample size is too small to be representative then it makes little difference what the sample size was. The only difference will be in the margin of error.
quote:Did the national findings use the same scale? Did she account for the over-weighted figures? I would bet not.
The study says: " Public religiosity was one measure used to contrast the respondents, and it showed both of the LDS groups scored significantly higher in church attendance than non-LDS women. It was the only religious factor that could be compared among the three groups, since the national study didn't measure private religious practices like prayer, scripture reading, repentance and the influence of inspiration." Since she was comparing directly to the national study she was using the same methodology, scales etc.
quote: As I'm sure they were meant to from the start. Or can someone provide a detailed description of not only the methodology used, but of the original hypothesis before the study?
She was working to examine a conclusion drawn by some which was apparently based on the number of anti-depressant drug prescriptions in utah.
quote: "It's impossible to determine causality, but I'm going to make a causal statement anyway." Golden.
Oh, and studies have already been done for over a century indicating that men and women who attend church regularly have lower instances of both depression and suicide. This is nothing new, except this "study" implies LDS women who go on missions are even less prone, even though the numbers they use are grossly imbalanced.
The causality thing is a standard psychology misconception if you ask me. At any rate, as I said the actual numbers don't make any difference- the conclusion about return-missionaries should be obvious even from the simple point of view that LDS missionaries have to learn how to work out interpersonal issues when they spend 24 hours a day with someone they may or may not like. (It didn't show in that first link, but the newspaper says that the happiness/unhappiness question was in regards to happy in your marriage or no)
quote: The number of non-LDS women in the study was less than a fifth than the LDS women (unless the 617 who didn't serve a mission were not LDS), and yet this study is able to determine a national demographic from an unevenly weighted study?using more than 15,000 from one localized (to LDS) study and a fifth of that from a national one?exactly how? I'd love to see the formulas used to come to this conclusion.
The national study was a survey of 3,075 women independent of religion. I think you may be mixing up the return missionary LDS vs non-missionary LDS here.
quote: Come on, people, are you seriously going to say these "studies" are reliable in any sense of the word? Even if you belong to the faith, the obvious bias and poor statistical use of population (intentional bias) has to come off as weak and unreliable.
Studies like these can at best claim correlation and are at worst useless. As far as the quote about male return missionaries, sure the first bit may be hyperbole, but the second part "They are better off in their educational levels. They have higher income levels and higher employment levels." logically follows from what LDS missionary service is like and from the likelihood that these folks will follow church council (such as getting as much education as you can which directly leads to higher income).
quote: The comparisons are "four to one," "eight to one," and "twice as likely" and similar conclusions, even though this would directly correlate with the imbalance of the study samples taken
Again, these are all based on percentages. The number of respondents is immaterial if one can assume a representative sample size (which is the assumption of pretty much all statistical sampling methods)
quote: Do you really expect me to take this with anything but a grain of salt?
No. Studies like these don't really mean anything if you ask me.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard before about the higher rate for anti-depressants in Utah. However, I have always wondered if that can partly be accounted for by the fact that Mormons do not generally self-medicate with alcohol or drugs, the way a lot of clinically depressed people in the general population do. (LDS may well self-medicate with food, however.) Does anyone know if studies have corrected for that?
I agree that Mormon culture is not good at allowing for chemical depression. 'The gospel is supposed to make you happy, and if you're not, then you must be doing something wrong' is a simplistic and unarticulated assumption that a lot of LDS have. However, I do think that it is starting to change, and more people are becoming accepting of a diagnosis of depression.
I also suspect that American LDS are in general very trusting of doctors, and very willing to turn to medicines/drugs for solutions. Where one person may take St. John's wort, a Mormon might go to the doctor and take a prescription. Any thoughts?
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"'They have higher income levels and higher employment levels.' logically follows from what LDS missionary service is like and from the likelihood that these folks will follow church council"
Well, no. This is only true if LDS missionary work occurs at roughly equivalent levels across all socioeconomic levels of LDS society. If the Mormon poor are as likely to go on missions as the Mormon wealthy, then you can make a cautious claim. Otherwise, you need to first adjust for pre-existing states.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:'The gospel is supposed to make you happy, and if you're not, then you must be doing something wrong' is a simplistic and unarticulated assumption that a lot of LDS have.
NOT unarticulated.
There's a scripture that says "despair cometh of iniquity" that I think encapsulates the attitude. While sometimes that is the cause (I'm sure someone else can explain the effects on a person's sense of well being if they are engaging in self-destructive behaviors), it is not the only cause.
I wonder why that is? My personal feeling is that it's easier to dismiss someone has not trying and deserving of what they have than to help someone. Also, it makes it less scary. If the cause is not living the gospel, then living the gospel will protect you from it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, no. This is only true if LDS missionary work occurs at roughly equivalent levels across all socioeconomic levels of LDS society. If the Mormon poor are as likely to go on missions as the Mormon wealthy, then you can make a cautious claim. Otherwise, you need to first adjust for pre-existing states.
In my experience the poor are more likely to go. At any rate, it is like I said before- one must assume that the sample is a representative cross section if these statistical studies are to mean anything.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Has it ever occured to anyone to compare divorce rates on a socieoeconomic scale? On the basis of their communities? I'd have to dig for the statistics, but divorce rates among poor urban blacks are significantly higher than among whites as a whole. (This is a statistical conclusion, please take it as such.)
I'd venture to say that the divorce rate of poeple who have no community -- or a seriously damaged community -- to turn to are much more likely to divorce, regardless of race or socioeconomic status.
If I had to guess, I'd say the difference in divorce rates has to do with the supportive community that surrounds you, and the relative support you offer to members who are in more difficult straits financially or emotionally. But this goes for any religion, any family, any tight-knit community.
Sorry, but these kinds of things infuriate me. As a non-religious person, it's really irritating when condescending "researchers" talk about how their religion makes their women oh so much better than the rest of us.
posted
Statistics can be used by anyone to back up anything. I learned that trying to follow the gun-rights issue (where I am pretty well disgusted with both sides). Be very, very careful about basing your values on "studies." I'm not saying scientific studies aren't great, I'm just saying that many studies aren't very scientific.
quote: In my opinion, in Mormon culture (not necessarily the Church itself, but the culture often found in the Church) there is a greater stigma attached to depression than in the rest of American culture. It know that there are many Mormons who struggle with depression but are never treated for it.
Several people seem to agree with this. I have to say that I have never seen any indication of this. I've been in Utah for 10 years, and have been treated for depression while out here, and I haven't seen this stigma. But then, I'm mostly oblivious.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Be very, very careful about basing your values on "studies." I'm not saying scientific studies aren't great, I'm just saying that many studies aren't very scientific.
I agree.
And fugu and jacare, they compared 15,671 LDS to non-LDS instead of other religions. For example, what if another study showed that Catholics had an even lower rate of depression and suicide, because they compared a 15,000 sample of Catholics to a mix of 3,000 various other people of various beliefs and social backgrounds, with the conclusion that Catholicism is obviously better than everything else, even though the study was not comparing "Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, atheist etc." but studying "Catholic, non-Catholic?" In other words, it's not discriminating accurately between different religions. The sample is skewed.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They didn't say it was better than anything else in what few quotes we have from the actual people doing the study, just that it was better than the national average. Which could certainly be borne out even with samples such as those. Its perhaps not the most useful study in the world, but there's nothing inherently "wrong" with it because they compared to the general populace.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that very similar to the study on divorce? They may have broke it down more amongst other groups also, I didn't read the study, but the part I hear mentioned is LDS verses non-LDS. That is a valid thing to study.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I think the phrase is "wickedness never was happiness". Just because wickedness and iniquity don't bring happiness does not mean that all unhappiness comes from wickedness. After all, the Lord himself wept. The meaning of this is hotly disputed. Some feel that it was because of the lack of faith of Lazarus' sister. But either way, he was apparently sad.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
P.S. I'm ashamed for having even thought that, and chagrined that you managed to read it before I could take it back.
