Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39913025›Full record

SynthesisJournal of religion and health2025

Religion and Emotion Regulation: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies.

Tânia Brandão

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of religion and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Tânia BrandãoWilliam James Center for Research, Ispa - Instituto Universitário, R. Do Jardim Do Tabaco 34, Lisbon, Portugal. tbrandao@ispa.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7865-2445

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The association between religion/spirituality and emotion regulation has been the subject of growing interest in the last years since studies have suggested that emotion regulation is likely to be shaped by religion/spirituality. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the quantitative empirical studies toward understanding the relationship between religion/spirituality and emotion regulation. Database searches were conducted in different databases from inception to March 2022 using relevant search terms. Quantitative studies exploring the role of religion/spirituality on emotion regulation were included in this review. Of 887 abstracts identified only 15 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Studies were organized in terms of associations between religion/spirituality and emotion regulation according to religious affiliation, associations between religion/spirituality and emotion regulation regardless of religious affiliation, and emotion regulation as a mediator between religion/spirituality and several psychological-related outcomes. Overall, the findings revealed small to moderate associations between religion and emotion regulation, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.13 to 0.50 for cognitive reappraisal, 0.08 to - 0.72 for expressive suppression, and - 0.09 to 0.56 for other emotion regulation dimensions. Furthermore, most studies highlighted emotion regulation as a key mechanism linking religion/spirituality to psychological outcomes across diverse contexts. Differences in emotion regulation strategies have been examined in a few religious affiliations and most of the studies explored the link between religion/spirituality and emotion regulation regardless of religious affiliation.

Indexed as

Emotional RegulationReligion and PsychologySpiritualityHumansEmotion regulationReligionSpiritualitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39913025
PMCPMC12134000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.