Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 192–197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

Dimensions of Religious/Spiritual Well-Being and their relation to Personalityand Psychological Well-Being

H.-F. Unterrainer a,b,c,d,e,*, K.H. Ladenhauf c, M.L. Moazedi e, S.J. Wallner-Liebmann b,d, A. Fink e

a Grüner Kreis Society of Rehabilitation und Reintegration of Addicted Persons, Mönichkirchen, Austriab Addiction Research Society (ARS), Graz, Austriac Institute of Pastoraltheology and Pastoralpsychology, University of Graz, Austriad Institute of Pathophysiology and Immunology, Medical University Graz, Austriae Institute of Psychology, University of Graz, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 16 December 2009Received in revised form 14 March 2010Accepted 24 March 2010Available online 18 April 2010

Keywords:ReligiositySpiritualityBig FiveSense of CoherenceSubjective Well-BeingCoping

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.032

* Corresponding author at: Addiction Research SoKarl-Franzens-University Graz, Geidorfgürtel 20/4/10699 12377734.

E-mail address: human.unterrainer@uni-graz.at (H

This study aims at investigating the relationship between Religious/Spiritual Well-Being and indicators ofPsychological Well-Being (Global Religiosity, Hierarchy of Needs, Sense of Coherence) and the Big Fivepersonality dimensions (including ‘‘Piety”). Religiosity/spirituality was measured by means of the Multi-dimensional Inventory for Religious/Spiritual Well-Being which consists of six different subscales dealingwith different facets of religiosity and spirituality (e.g. General Religiosity, Forgiveness or Hope). Weobserved evidence that Religious/Spiritual Well-Being is substantially correlated with different aspectsof Psychological Well-Being and personality (e.g. Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness). Taken together,the findings of this study support the idea of a salutogenic function of religiosity/spirituality. In addition,this study provides evidence that religiosity and spirituality may represent important aspects of humanpersonality. We hope that this study contributes to the ongoing discussion concerning the considerationof religiosity/spirituality as an important personality trait in the context of Psychological Well-Being.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

An important prerequisite for the scientific study of religiosityand spirituality is the development and empirical investigation ofreliable and valid measures for the assessment of these constructs.Based on the initial concepts of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religiosity(Allport & Ross, 1967), several approaches have been suggestedin this context (e.g. Hill & Hood, 1999). Originally, Intrinsic Religi-osity was described as being more mature in comparison to Extrin-sic Religiosity – ‘‘the extrinsically motivated person uses hisreligion, whereas the intrinsically motivated lives his religion” (All-port & Ross, 1967, p. 434). The ‘‘Religious Orientation”-Scale, whichwas influenced by this very concept, shows appealing psychomet-ric properties and has been employed extensively in this field of re-search (e.g. Trimble, 1997). Moreover, research in the context ofmental health and quality of life has shown that Religious/SpiritualWell-Being is positively correlated with different parameters ofpsychological and physiological health (Koenig, McCullough, &Larson, 2001).

ll rights reserved.

ciety, Grüner Kreis Society,, 8010 Graz, Austria. Tel.: +43

.-F. Unterrainer).

Piedmont (1999) proposed an extension of the Big Five dimen-sions of personality by considering a sixth factor named ‘‘SpiritualTranscendence”. Saroglou (2002) reports positive correlationsbetween different parameters of religiosity and the Big Fivedimensions Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.Extrinsic Religiosity was found to be associated with higher scoreson the Neuroticism dimension. Most recently, Löckenhoff, Ironson,O’Cleirigh and Costa (2009) found similar results in a sample ofHIV-patients.

Based on varying theoretical backgrounds and different forms ofreligiosity/spirituality some scales have been also constructed forthe German-speaking area (e.g. Huber, 2003; Murken, 1998; Unter-rainer, 2007). Particularly the ‘‘Spiritual Well-Being”-Scale (Ellison,1983) became popular in this field (translated into German byUnterrainer (2006)). The instrument was originally developed byEllison and Paloutzian (Ellison, 1983; Ellison & Smith, 1991) aimingat measuring the quality of one’s spiritual health. In this context,Spiritual Well-Being is conceptualized as a two-dimensional con-struct. On the one hand, Religious Well-Being describes on a verti-cal dimension our well-being as it relates to God or even to atranscendent dimension. On the other hand, Existential Well-Beingaddresses on a horizontal dimension our well-being as it relates toa sense of life purpose and life satisfaction, without any specificreference to a higher power (Ledbetter, Smith, Vosler-Hunter, &Fischer, 1991). However, empirical research concerning this scale

H.-F. Unterrainer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 192–197 193

is comparatively rare. Existing studies suggest that this scale dis-plays a rather poor psychometric quality (ceiling effects), espe-cially when applied in non-clinical samples (e.g. Ledbetter et al.,1991). In the German adaption of this scale such problems didnot occur (Unterrainer, 2006).

Motivated by our positive experience with this scale in severalresearch projects we developed a multidimensional version of thisscale by additionally including a new concept of Religious/SpiritualWell-Being (Unterrainer, Huber, Ladenhauf, Wallner, & Liebmann,in press) covering several aspects of Psychological Well-Beingconcerning an immanent/transcendent area of perception. In thiscontext it is also important to note that the ‘‘Spiritual Well-Being”-Scale was originally developed in the United States whichprovides completely different religious/spiritual conditions ascompared with Europe. Hence, another important goal of thisproject was to develop a scale based on the European religious/spiritual background. In addition to this, psychology of religionhas some issues with respect to the definition of their constructsand particularly with respect to the question whether or to whichextent these constructs can be disentangled from similar psycho-logical constructs. When we talk about religious issues, we alsomight talk about spiritual issues or vice versa, but there are specificrealms, which might be better described with the term ‘‘religios-ity”, while others might be covered in using ‘‘spirituality” moreadequately. In considering recent literature in this field, a differen-tiation between religiosity and spirituality seems to be inevitable,for both the English- and the German-speaking research area, buton the other hand a strict distinction might be impossible, giventhat both concepts display (at least partly) contentual overlap(Miller & Thoresen, 1999; Pargament, 1997, 2007; Utsch, 2005).In order to find a good compromise, based on an interdisciplinarydiscussion, the scale was labeled ‘‘Multidimensional Inventory forReligious/Spiritual Well-Being” in order to consider both concepts(i.e. religiosity and spirituality) in equal shares. The concept mightbe also understood as a potential option to stimulate approaches,which only cover the immanent state of health, but leave thedoor open for the integration of a transcendent component (cf.Antonovsky’s (1997/1987) ‘‘Sense of Coherence” assumption asthe core of the Salutogenesis concept).

This study constitutes a reanalysis of several data sets obtainedin different research projects employing the MultidimensionalInventory for Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (Unterrainer, 2010;Unterrainer et al., in press; Unterrainer, Huber, Ladenhauf, Wallner,& Liebmann, submitted for publication). It addresses the researchquestion as to how different facets of religiosity/spirituality are re-lated to different indicators of Psychological Well-Being (includingpersonality).

It is hypothesized that there is a substantial correlation be-tween religiosity/spirituality and mental health which might bemore adequately described by pursuing a multidimensional ap-proach of Religious/Spiritual Well-Being.

Table 1Internal consistencies of the MI-RSWB in different studies: Total score/subscales.

Authors N Sample

Sorgo (2005) 100 StudentsBayer, Wallner, Ladenhauf, Liebmann, and Unterrainer (2009) 70 Addiction pUnterrainer (2010) 200 General poUnterrainer (2010) 120 Addiction pUnterrainer (2010) 100 General psLackner et al. (2009) 60 Addiction pUnterrainer et al. (in press) 263 General poUnterrainer et al. (submitted for publication) 1210 General po

Notes: a = Cronbach’s a.HI = Hope Immanent; FO = Forgiveness; BS = Experiences of Sense and Meaning; HT = HSpiritual Well-Being.

2. Method

2.1. Sample

As depicted in Table 1, the reanalyzed data were obtained inclinical (e.g. addiction patients) and in non-clinical samples (gen-eral population). The tested participants (norm sample: 1210 par-ticipants, cf. Table 1) were in the age range between 18 and91 years (M = 48.17, SD = 16.67), 604 were females and 606 weremales. The participants were recruited via announcements at sev-eral locations (e.g. University of Graz, public offices, event halls)offering the opportunity to receive information about different as-pects of psychological and Religious/Spiritual Well-Being.

2.2. The development of the Multidimensional Inventory for Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (MI-RSWB)

As a first step in the development of this scale five dimensionswere conceptualized on a theoretical level, based on the results ofrelevant research literature, expert interviews and interdisciplin-ary discussion groups: ‘‘Hope‘‘, ‘‘Forgiveness”, ‘‘Rituals and Sym-bols”, ‘‘Experiences of Sense and Meaning” and ‘‘Acceptance ofDeath and Dying”. In addition, a differentiation between an imma-nent and a transcendent field of perception was made. ‘‘Immanent”could be also described as ‘‘measurable using empirical methods”,while the ‘‘transcendent” area refers to non-measurable, super-natural, transpersonal realm of reality (for a more detailed descrip-tion of the development of this scale see Fig. 1). The first version ofthis scale (n = 65 items) was tested in a sample of 200 students ofthe University Graz (for further details see Unterrainer et al., inpress). To evaluate the psychometric quality of this scale item anal-yses and exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) wereperformed. Thirty-three items were eliminated due to poor psy-chometric quality. Finally, a five factor version (CFA) of the scalewhich accounted for 54.49% of the variance proved to be most suit-able. The factors were named ‘‘General Religiosity”, ‘‘Forgiveness”,‘‘Hope”, ‘‘Acceptance of Death and Dying” and ‘‘Experiences ofSense and Meaning” (see Fig. 1). In a next step the scale was ex-tended by constructing new items, resulting in a total of 15 itemsper factor. Analyses of this test version resulted in a six-factor solu-tion (n = 48 items) which accounted for 49.24% of the variance. Thefactors were named ‘‘General Religiosity”, ‘‘Connectedness” ‘‘For-giveness”, ‘‘Experiences of Sense and Meaning”, ‘‘Hope Immanent”,‘‘Hope Transcendent” (see Fig. 1; details from the author). The fol-lowing item examples are given in order to illustrate the meaningof the particular dimensions: ‘‘General Religiosity”: ‘‘My faith givesme a feeling of security”; ‘‘Connectedness”: ‘‘I have experiencedthe feeling of being absorbed into something greater”; ‘‘Forgive-ness”: ‘‘There are things which I cannot forgive”(coded reversely);‘‘Experiences of Sense and Meaning”: ‘‘I have experienced true

HI a FO a SM a HT a GR a CO a RSWB a

.80 .82 .75 .70 .92 .83 .88atients .83 .84 .74 .71 .92 .83 .89

pulation .81 .82 .73 .71 .94 .80 .89atients .82 .83 .77 .73 .92 .81 .88

ychiatric patients .83 .83 .72 .71 .93 .79 .89atients .85 .81 .76 .69 .94 .83 .88

pulation .81 .86 .73 .75 .94 .80 .89pulation .82 .84 .76 .72 .94 .78 .89

ope Transcendent GR = General Religiosity; CO = Connectedness; RSWB = Religious/

Fig. 1. Stages of the development of the MI-RSWB: path diagram for factor structure and factor weights (standardized regression weights) and relevant indices of model fit.Unterrainer et al. (in press) adapted from the German original.

194 H.-F. Unterrainer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 192–197

(authentic) feelings”; ‘‘Hope Immanent”: ‘‘I view the future withoptimism”; ‘‘Hope Transcendent”: ‘‘I often think about the fact thatI will have to leave behind” (coded reversely).

2.3. Psychometric tests

2.3.1. Global Religiosity Questionnaire (GRQ)The GRQ (n = 71 items) was developed by Grabner and Huber

(Grabner, 1998) and provides a score for ‘‘Global Religiosity” repre-senting a form of belief which is more strongly linked to institu-tions and also influenced by traditions. This scale displays aCronbach’s a of .98.

2.3.2. Scale for the ‘‘Hierarchy of Needs” (HON)The HON-Scale is based on Maslow’s concept of ‘‘Hierarchy of

Personal Needs” (Lester, 1990; Maslow, 1990/1968). The scale con-sists of five pyramidally arranged dimensions (e.g. physiologicalneeds, need for safety, need for belonging, need for self-esteem,need for self-actualization) which are measured by 10 items each.

2.3.3. Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC-13 Scale)The SOC-13 scale (short form of the 29-item Version) is based

on the concept of Salutogenesis by Antonovsky (1997/1987). Theconcept was introduced to describe whether or to which extent aperson finds his or her environment and life circumstances under-standable, manageable, and predictable (Kohls & Walach, 2008).

H.-F. Unterrainer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 192–197 195

Antonovsky describes ‘‘Sense of Coherence” in the context of theSalutogenesis process as a global orientation that expresses the ex-tent to which one has a pervasive, enduring though dynamic feel-ing of confidence that (1) the stimuli deriving from one’s internaland external environments in the course of living are structured,predictable and explicable; (2) the resources are available to oneto meet the demands posed by these stimuli; and (3) these de-mands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement.

2.3.4. Six-Factors-Test (SFT)The SFT (Schneider, 1997; Zerssen, 1994) is based on the Big

Five model of personality. The SFT provides scores for ‘‘Extraver-sion”, ‘‘Neuroticism”, ‘‘Openness” and ‘‘Conscientiousness”. Thedimension ‘‘Agreeableness” was modified into ‘‘Aggressiveness”.Additionally, a sixth dimension ‘‘Piety” was included. In the SFT,the phrasing of the items was simplified in order to be reasonablyapplicable in samples of psychiatric patients. The internal consis-tencies of these different scales (4–12 items) vary between .6and .8.

2.4. Procedure

The MI-RSWB was applied in several clinical and non-clinicalstudies (Unterrainer, 2010, Unterrainer et al., in press) focusingon different aspects of Religious/Spiritual Well-Being and health.The MI-RSWB was administered along with other scales assessingdifferent facets of personality and Psychological Well-Being. Thetotal duration of an individual test session was about 30–60 min.

3. Results

In order to provide an overview of the psychometric quality (i.e.internal consistency) of the MI-RSWB, Table 1 displays Cronbach’sa coefficients for the total scale and for the subscales obtained indifferent samples.

Table 2 shows the correlations between different facets ofReligious/Spiritual Well-Being and indicators of PsychologicalWell-Being (‘‘Global Religiosity”, ‘‘Hierarchy of Needs”, ‘‘Sense ofCoherence”) and the Big Five personality dimensions (including‘‘Piety”). Inspection of Table 2 reveals that the MI-RSWB subscalesare substantially correlated with different facets of PsychologicalWell-Being. For ‘‘Global Religiosity”, comparatively high correlations

Table 2Correlations between Religious/Spiritual Well-Being, Psychological Well-Being (Unterrainer2010).

HI FO SM

Psychological Well-Beinga

Global Religiosity .20** .41** .25**

Hierarchy of Needs .55** .40** .37**

Sense of Coherence .48** .42** .26**

Personality dimensionsb

Extraversion .48*** .17*** .32***

Neuroticsm �.38*** �.27*** .05Conscientiousness .29*** .03 .18***

Aggressiveness �.04 �.54*** �.02Openness .03 .19*** .20***

Piety .02 .19*** .01

Notes: HI = Hope Immanent; F = Forgiveness; SM = Experiences of Sense and MeaRSWB = Religious/Spiritual Well-Being.

a N = 263.b N = 420.* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001.

with ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being” (r = .72) and ‘‘General Religi-osity” (r = .92) were observed. Significant positive correlationswere found for all MI-RSWB subscales, whereas ‘‘Forgiveness”and ‘‘Connectedness” display somewhat stronger correlations(see Table 2). The score ‘‘Hierarchy of Needs” correlates positively(r = .46) with the global score of ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being”and comparatively high with the subscales ‘‘Hope Immanent”(r = .55), ‘‘Forgiveness” (r = .40) and ‘‘Experiences of Sense andMeaning” (r = .37). It appears to be worthy of note that ‘‘Hope Tran-scendent” and ‘‘Connectedness” were not correlated with ‘‘Hierar-chy of Needs” at all. ‘‘Sense of Coherence” is significantly associatedwith ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being” (r = .43) as well and the sub-scales ‘‘Hope Immanent” (r = .48) and ‘‘Forgiveness” (r = .42) againdisplay comparatively large correlations. ‘‘Connectedness” dis-played no significant correlation with ‘‘Sense of Coherence”.

With respect to the correlations with the Big Five personalitydimensions, ‘‘Extraversion” displays comparatively high positivecorrelations with the total score of ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being”(r = .33) and with the subscales ‘‘Hope Immanent” (r = .48) and‘‘Experiences of Sense and Meaning” (r = .32). Neuroticism was ob-served to be negatively correlated with ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being” (r = �.25), particularly with the ‘‘Hope Immanent” scale(r = �.38, see Table 2). ‘‘Conscientiousness” correlates positivelywith ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being” (r = .20), again most promi-nently with the ‘‘Hope Immanent” scale (r = .29). Interestingly,the ‘‘Hope Transcendent” scale displays a significant negative cor-relation (r = �.22) with ‘‘Conscientiousness”. ‘‘Aggressiveness” cor-relates negatively with ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being” (r = �.33),particularly with ‘‘Forgiveness” (r = �.54). Somewhat smaller butstill significant correlations were observed with respect to ‘‘Open-ness” (except for ‘‘Hope Immanent” and ‘‘Hope Transcendent”).And finally, ‘‘Piety” displays comparatively high correlations with‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (r = .47) and with ‘‘General Religi-osity” (r = .76), while ‘‘Hope Transcendent” was weakly negativelycorrelated with this factor (r = �.15).

Additional analyses suggest that the reported correlations arenot substantially influenced by participants’ age and sex. However,older people show a somewhat higher amount of ‘‘General Religi-osity”(r = .13; p < .05) and ‘‘Forgiveness” (r = .21; p < .05). Youngerpeople report more ‘‘Hope” concerning the immanent and the tran-scendent area (r = .18; p < .05). Women scored significantly higheron the total scale of ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being” (r = .17;p < .05) and on the subscale ‘‘General Religiosity” (r = .22; p < .05).

et al., in press; N = 263) and different dimensions of personality (N = 420; Unterrainer,

HT GR CO RSWB

.16* .92*** .38** .72***

.03 .17** .02 .46**

.34** .22** .07 .43**

.01 .04 .20*** .33***

�22*** �.02 .01 �.25***

�.22*** .20*** �.03 .20***

.02 �.01 �.01 �.33***

.01 .23*** .27*** .18***

�.15*** .76*** .38*** .47***

ning; HT = Hope Transcendent; GR = General Religiosity; CO = Connectedness;

196 H.-F. Unterrainer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 192–197

4. Discussion

This study aims at investigating the relationship betweenReligious/Spiritual Well-Being and indicators of PsychologicalWell-Being (including personality). The MI-RSWB consists of sixdifferent subscales, namely ‘‘General Religiosity”, ‘‘Connectedness”,‘‘Forgiveness”, ‘‘Experiences of Sense and Meaning”, ‘‘Hope Imma-nent” and ‘‘Hope Transcendent” (see Fig. 1). As described in detailelsewhere (Unterrainer et al., in press), these factors were con-firmed in a series of empirical studies employing a large numberof participants in clinical and non-clinical settings. In this particu-lar context it is worthy of note that ‘‘Hope” was established bothwith respect to the immanent and with respect to the transcendentarea of perception. ‘‘Forgiveness” and ‘‘Experiences of Sense andMeaning” refer to the immanent area of perception, while ‘‘GeneralReligiosity” and ‘‘Connectedness” relate to the transcendent area.These two dimensions might also be seen as two different formsof belief. On the one hand ‘‘General Religiosity” could be taken asthe expression of a belief system more orientated towards institu-tions and traditions. On the other hand, ‘‘Connectedness” might bea more free-floating form of religiosity and spirituality, which isnot that much adhered to institutional bindings.

This study yields several interesting correlations between religi-osity/spirituality and mental health and different dimensions ofpersonality. Substantial correlations were found with respect tosense of coherence and with respect to satisfied needs (see Table 2).This particularly holds true for the MI-RSWB subscales ‘‘Hope” and‘‘Forgiveness”. In addition to this, we also observed a large numberof significant correlations with personality variables. Specifically,positive correlations were found between different facets of religi-osity/spirituality and the more ‘‘positive” personality dimensions‘‘Extraversion” and ‘‘Openness”, while the MI-RSWB was negativelyassociated with ‘‘Neuroticism” (Table 2). ‘‘General Religiosity” and‘‘Connectedness” as two varying forms of belief were found to belinked to the Big Five factors in a different way (see Table 2). Whileboth dimensions were associated with a higher amount of ‘‘Open-ness”, only ‘‘General Religiosity” was found to be positively corre-lated with ‘‘Conscientiousness”. On the other hand, solely‘‘Connectedness” was associated with a higher amount of ‘‘Extra-version”. In contrast to metaanalytic findings (Saroglou, 2002)emphasizing the positive association between religiosity/spiritual-ity and ‘‘Agreeableness”, there was no correlation for ‘‘Aggressive-ness” in this study. However, in this particular context it remainsunclear as to how the dimension ‘‘Aggressiveness” could be consid-ered as a substitute for the classic Big Five personality dimension‘‘Agreeableness”. Further we found higher correlations with per-sonality for more ‘‘spiritual” scales (e.g. ‘‘Hope Immanent”, ‘‘For-giveness”) compared to more ‘‘religious” scales (‘‘GeneralReligiosity”, ‘‘Hope transcendent”). Basically this result underlinesthe findings of Saroglou (2002), but contrarily the coefficients aresubstantially higher for the correlation between spirituality andpersonality. This could be a point of further discussion concerningthe problem of defining spirituality. Taken together, the findings ofthis study appear to support the idea of a salutogenic function ofreligiosity/spirituality. However, it has to be emphasized that amuch more fine-grained analysis would be necessary in order tounderstand more deeply in which way religiosity and spiritualitycould contribute to the genesis of mental health and disease(Unterrainer, 2010). It could be seen as one of the major problemsin this field of research that ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being”, giventhat it is caused by the summation and mixing up of immanent andtranscendent dimensions, might be easily misunderstood or misin-terpreted as Psychological Well-Being (Koenig et al., 2001).Expanding the approach by the investigation of individual differ-ences in the relationship to God or even to a higher power, inde-

pendent of the amount of General Religiosity, might possibly leadto more appropriate insights (Huber, 2003; Murken, 1998).

To conclude, this study provides evidence that religiosity andspirituality may represent important aspects of human personality(see also Löckenhoff, Ironson, O’Cleirigh, & Costa, 2009; Piedmont,1999). By introducing the concept of ‘‘Religious/Spiritual Well-Being” we hope to contribute to the ongoing fruitful discussionconcerning the consideration of religiosity/spirituality as an impor-tant personality trait in the context of Psychological Well-Being.

References

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443.

Antonovsky, A. (1997). Salutogenese: Zur Entmystifizierung der Gesundheit(Unraveling the mystery of health – How people manage stress and staywell). Tübingen: DGVT.

Bayer, K. M., Wallner, S. J., Ladenhauf, K. H., Liebmann, P. M., & Unterrainer, H. F.(2009). The role of immanent and transcendent hope in addiction therapy – Hope asan antagonist? Paper presented at the Vienna IAPR-Conference.

Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement.Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 330–340.

Ellison, C. W., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward an integrative measure of health and well-being. Journal of Psychology & Theology. Special Issue: Spirituality: Perspectives inTheory and Research, 19, 35–48.

Grabner, A. (1998). Religiosität und psychische Gesundheit (Religiosity & mentalhealth). Unpublished master thesis Karl-Franzens-University Graz.

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. Jr. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham:Religious Education Press.

Huber, S. (2003). Zentralität und Inhalt. Ein multidimensionales Messmodell derReligiosität (Centrality and content A multidimensional measurement model ofreligiosity). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion andhealth. Oxford: Univ. Press.

Kohls, N., & Walach, H. (2008). Validating four standard scales in spirituallypracticing and nonpracticing samples using propensity score matching.European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 165–173.

Lackner, N., Bayer, K. M., Ladenhauf, K. H., Wallner, S. J., Liebmann, P. M., &Unterrainer, H. F. (2009). Religious/spiritual well-being and locus of control amongaddicts taking part in long-term therapy. Paper presented at the Vienna IAPR-Conference.

Ledbetter, M. F., Smith, L. A., Vosler-Hunter, W. L., & Fischer, J. D. (1991). Anevaluation of the research and clinical usefulness of the Spiritual Well-BeingScale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 49–55.

Lester, D. (1990). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and personality. Journal of PersonalIndividual Differences, 11, 1187–1188.

Löckenhoff, C. E., Ironson, G. H., O’Cleirigh, C., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (2009). Five-factormodel personality traits, spirituality/religiousness, and mental health amongpeople living with HIV. Journal of Personality, 77, 1411–1436.

Maslow, A. H. (1990/1968). Psychologie des Seins. Ein Entwurf (Toward a psychologyof being). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

Miller, W. R., & Thoresen, C. E. (1999). Spirituality and health. In W. R. Miller (Ed.),Integrating spirituality into treatment. Resources f. practitioners. Washington:American Psychological Association (S. 3–19).

Murken, S. (1998). Gottesbeziehung und psychische Gesundheit. Die Entwicklung einesModells und seine empirische Überprüfung (Spirituality and mental health. Thedevelopment of a model and its empirical validation). Münster, New York,München, Berlin: Waxmann.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping. Theory, research,practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding andaddressing the sacred. New York: Guilford Press.

Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality?Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67,985–1013.

Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analyticreview. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15–25.

Schneider, B. (1997). Persönlichkeit und Belastungs-bzw. Ressourcenfaktoren(Personality and stressfactors/resources). Unpublished master thesisUniversity of Konstanz.

Sorgo, I. M. (2005). Spiritualität & Magisches Denken (Spirituality & magicalthinking). Unpublished master thesis. Karl-Franzens-University Graz.

Trimble, D. E. (1997). The Religious Orientation Scale: Review and meta-analysis ofsocial desirability effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57,970–986.

Unterrainer, H. F. (2006). Spiritualität & Sucht. Glaube als Ressource in derAlkoholismustherapie (Spirituality & addiction. Belief as a resource in alcoholtreatment). Saarbrücken: VDM.

Unterrainer, H. F. (2007). Spiritualität und psychische Gesundheit-Glaube als Ressourcein der Krankheitsverarbeitung (Spirituality and mental health. Belief as aresource in coping with illness). Saarbrücken: VDM.

H.-F. Unterrainer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 192–197 197

Unterrainer, H. F. (2010). Seelenfinsternis? Struktur und Inhalt der Gottesbeziehungim klinisch-psychiatrischen Feld (Soul darkness? Structure and content ofspirituality in the clinical psychiatric field). Münster, New York, München,Berlin: Waxmann.

Unterrainer, H. F., Huber, H. P., Ladenhauf, K. H., Wallner, S. J., & Liebmann, P. M. (inpress). MI-RSB 48: Die Entwicklung eines multidimensionalen Inventars zumreligiös-spirituellen Befinden (MI-RSWB 48: The development of amultidimensional inventory for religious/spiritual well-being). Diagnostica, 2.

Unterrainer, H. F., Ladenhauf, K. H., Wallner, S. J., & Fink, A. (submitted forpublication). Normwerte für das Multidimensionale Inventar zum religiös-

spirituellen Befinden (MI-RSB 48) (Norms for the multidimensional inventoryof religious/spiritual well-being (MI-RSWB 48)).

Utsch, M. (2005). Religiöse Fragen in der Psychotherapie. Psychologische Zugänge zuReligiosität und Spiritualität (Religious questions in psychotherapy.Psychological approaches concerning religiosity and spirituality). Stuttgart:Kohlhammer.

Zerssen, D. v. (1994). Persönlichkeitszüge als Vulnerabilitätsindikatoren – Problemeihrer Erfassung (Personality features as indicators of vulnerability – Problems ofassessment). Fortschritte in Neurologie und Psychiatrie (Improvements inNeurology and Psychiatry), 62, 1–13.