ArticleEvolutionary human sciences2026
Target trial emulation shows that supported causal effects of religious attendance on well-being are selective.
Article in Evolutionary human sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How work hours affect well-being: A target trial emulation.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Religious service attendance is associated with better well-being, but observational associations do not establish causation. We analyse six annual waves of the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study () to estimate causal effects of monthly attendance on 24 well-being indicators using target trial emulation. Deterministic 'make everyone attend' contrasts fail positivity: only 2-3% of non-attenders initiate attendance per year. We therefore estimate supported stochastic interventions () among baseline non-attenders () using a sequentially doubly robust estimator with cross-validated machine learning. Effects are selective: small gains appear in meaning and purpose, forgiveness, and sexual satisfaction, with little movement in somatic health, psychological distress, social belonging, or perceived social support. A comparison exposure (+1 hour per week socialising with others) does not reproduce the pattern. We interpret the selective pattern through a prominent cooperative account of religion: gains concentrate in coordination-relevant domains rather than in direct health pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.