Religiosity and spirituality: Setting them apart, and mediating factors between them and

subjective well-being

By

Ruba Ali

A thesis presented to Trent University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Honours Bachelor of Arts in Psychology.

Proper acknowledgment must be made to Trent University on publication of this thesis or any

parts of it.

Date: April 2004

Table of Contents

Page No.

List of Tables …………...………………………………………………………………..iv

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..v

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….vi

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………1

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..2

Literature Review………………………………………………………………….2

Objectives………………………………………………………………………..11

Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………….12

Method…………………………………………………………………………………...12

Participants……………………………………………………………………….12

Measures…………………………………………………………………………14

Procedure………………………………………………………………………...17

Data Analyses……………...…………………………………………………….18

Results……………………………………………………………………………………19

Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………..19

Testing of Hypotheses……………………………………………………………21

Supplementary Analysis…………………………………………………………32

Qualitative Content Analysis…………………………………………………….37

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..44

References………………………………………………………………………………..53

Page No.

Appendices……..………………………………………………………………………...56

Appendix A: Questionnaire Package…………………………………………….56

Appendix B: Feedback Sheet…………………………………………………….57

Appendix C: Interview Structure………………………………………………...58

Appendix D: Statistical Analyses………………………………………………..59

List of Tables

Page No.

Table 1. Demographic Information on the Participants (N=12)...……………………….13

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Main Variables……………………………………20

Table 3. Table of Intercorrelations Among Variables…………………………………...22

Table 4. Multivariate and Covariate Effects……………………………………………..34

Table 5. Covariate Means (Standard Deviations) of Variables as a Function of

Category…………..…………………………………………………………….35

Table of Figures

Page No.

Figure 1. Personal meaning as a mediator of spirituality and self-concept

(Model 1)………………………………………………………………………24

Figure 2. Personal meaning as a mediator of spirituality and psychological well-being

(Model 2)……………………………………………………………………....25

Figure 3. Personal meaning as a mediator of spirituality and physical well-being

(Model 3)………………………………………………………………………27

Figure 4. Personal meaning as a mediator of intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and the

self-concept (Model 4)…………………………………………………………28

Figure 5. Personal meaning as a mediator between intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity

and psychological well-being (Model 5)………………………………………31

Figure 6. Personal meaning as a mediator of intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and

physical well-being (Model 6)…………………………………………………32

Acknowledgements

“Beggar that I am, I am even poor in thanks.”

Shakespeare, Hamlet – Act II. Sc. 2

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Trent University Psychology Department for providing

me with this great learning experience. Many thanks go to Professor Peter Watson, who was very

understanding throughout the year, and to Kathy Fife, who was always supportive with her cheerful ways

and solutions to the ‘technical’ problems I have met throughout this research experience.

Furthermore, I would like to extend my gratitude to Professor Gary Reker, who supervised this

study, and provided me with great character-building and constructive criticism. Without this criticism, the

final product of this thesis would not have come out to be what it is now. I would also like to express my

deep gratitude to Teresa DeCicco, who has helped me not only through this thesis, as my second reader, but

mostly for preparing me for it, as she taught me so much throughout an earlier research experience.

The utmost appreciation and thanks go to those who have made my life worth living – my friends,

who have provided me with the inspiration and motivation to do anything in life. Thank you for always

being there for me… Further gratitude goes to those who have shaped my life in every single way – my

family. You have taught me that knowledge is the best investment of time, effort, and everything else… and

this thesis is one of the best investments of the last four years of my life. Thank you for everything…

Last, but definitely not least, the ultimate gratitude and thankfulness go to Allah, Who has provided

me with the power to wake up everyday and work on this research project. It was Him who provided me

with the greatest and truest inspiration to study religiosity and spirituality.

Abstract

This study was designed to separate intrinsic from extrinsic religiosity and religiosity

from spirituality and to examine their relationship with measures of subjective well-being. A

total of 211 undergraduate students took part in the study. Participants completed self-report

questionnaires on spirituality, religiosity, self-concept, psychological well-being, physical well-

being, and personal meaning. A subset of participants (N=29) were invited to a follow-up

interview. Significant relationships were found between measures of intrinsic religiosity,

spirituality, and subjective well-being; extrinsic religiosity, however, did not correlate with

subjective well-being. Significant group differences on several measures of subjective well-

being were found between individuals high in religiosity and spirituality versus those low on

both. Personal meaning was found to be a significant mediator in the relation between

religiosity/ spirituality and some measures of subjective well-being. Furthermore, a qualitative

analysis of the interviews revealed that religiosity and spirituality are two different entities. The

use of both quantitative and qualitative methods provides strength to the findings, as in most

previous studies in this field were limited to just quantitative data analysis. A future study, using

a more diverse sample of individuals in terms of age, gender, ethnic mix, and religious

affiliation, should be conducted to assess different conceptions of religiosity and spirituality.

Religiosity and spirituality: Setting them apart, and mediating factors between them and

subjective well-being

Literature Review

Throughout their lives, people strive toward various objectives, such as intimacy with

others, emotional comfort, closeness with God, or personal growth. They seek these ends

through a variety of means - beliefs, practices, emotions, and relationships are all part of the

pathways to significant destinations. Closeness with God, or a non-material force or being, is a

significant destination sought by many individuals. This can be done by means of religiosity

and/or spirituality. Mattis and Jagers (2001) defined religiosity as an individual’s degree of

adherence to the beliefs, doctrines and practices of a religion, while they defined spirituality as

an acknowledgement of a non-material force that permeates all affairs, human and non-human.

There has been a recent trend to distinguish between religiosity and spirituality, two inter-

related but not identical concepts, as Zinnbauer, Pargament, Cole, Rye, Butter, Belavich, Hipp,

Scott, and Kadar (1997) described them. Religiosity, as Zinnbauer et al. (1997) defined it, is

adherence to a set of ideological beliefs, rituals, and practices associated with a particular

denomination, creed, or sect. On the other hand, Zinnbauer et al. (1997) defined spirituality as a

motivational-emotional construct reflecting a desire to seek and to maintain integration within

oneself (inner-connectedness), other persons and the world (human compassion), and a sacred

force outside oneself (connectedness with nature) (Zinnbauer et al., 1997).

Despite the obvious importance of religion for individuals and societies however, it is

said that psychologists have paid the topic surprisingly little attention over the last few decades.

Although the psychology of religion was a topic of interest for many leading scholars, including

William James and G. Stanley Hall, during psychology’s formative years, the study of religion

has never received much attention within any of the traditional sub-disciplines (e.g.,

developmental, social, personality) of research psychology (Paloutzian & Kirkpatrick, 1995).

The psychology of religion continues to lie outside the mainstream of psychology as illustrated

by the observation that religion receives remarkably little attention in introductory and other

psychology textbooks.

Although religiosity may be an outward manifestation of it, spirituality can exist in the

absence of religiosity, while religiosity does not guarantee a developed spirituality (Chandler,

Holden, & Kolander, 1992). While studies of religiosity abound, empirical investigation of

spirituality has been hampered by a lack of agreement among social scientists as to how one

should conceptualize spirituality and by a lack of reliable and valid measurement instruments.

The conceptual ambiguity surrounding the relationship between religiosity and spirituality

derives primarily from the multiplicity of meaning associated with the term ‘spirituality’ (Dillon,

Wink, & Fay, 2003).

Whether seen in a positive or negative light, the topics of religion and spirituality, and

their interactions with psychology and psychotherapy, are of great importance today. The

individual psychologist, for example, as a critical collaborator, provides a setting not only for

understanding religiously and spiritually oriented persons, but also for understanding the world

within which religionists orient themselves. Of special interest is the non-dualistic approach of

psychology that is compatible with that single reality within which both the religionist and

psychologist take stock of the world.

Schneiders (1998) referred to spirituality as, “the experience of consciously striving to

integrate one’s life in terms not of isolation and self-absorption, but of self-transcendence toward

the ultimate value one perceives” (p. 5). In this, she meant that striving emphasizes the growing

goals revolution in psychology. The task of integrating one’s life suggested both systemic and

psychodynamic theory, perhaps along the lines of Jung and the task of individuation (Schneiders,

1998). Value perception, as Schneiders (1998) argued, is a concept frequently discussed within

goals-oriented psychologies. The constructionist and narrative schools emphasize the importance

of a person’s developing values in his or her life around which he or she creates meaning. Self-

transcendence was a prominent theme within transpersonal psychologies, for example, though

adherents in other schools wrestle with it as well (Mansager, 2000). According to Mansager

(2000), it is in light of what Schneiders (1998) stated, that spirituality is the individual’s

conscious movement holistically experienced as a unifying factor not rooted in self-boundedness

but in a community feeling aimed at full participation in an apperceived perfect community.

On the other hand, Pargament (1999), a leading psychologist studying religiosity and

spirituality, acknowledged a de facto differentiation between religion and spirituality in academic

discussion. He noted that spirituality was often defined in contrast to religion that religion tends

to be seen as traditional and institutional and to be contrasted with more non-traditional and

individual spirituality. Pargament (1999) also saw potential dangers in considering spirituality as

a construct separate from religion. Besides the concern over ungrounded studies, Pargament

(1999) contended that if spirituality continues to be understood as an individual phenomenon and

opposed to religion as institutional, psychologists would tend to forget that the institution has a

relationship with the individual and that the individual always operates from a social context.

What is at risk, he asserted, is the opportunity to learn how people express their faiths within the

context of their lives. Another danger of polarization, according to Pargament, is that of

characterizing spirituality as good – oriented toward personal well-being – and religion being

characterized as bad – somehow being detrimental to human well-being. Pargament (1999)

objected that the acceptance of such a dichotomy foreshortens appropriate studies of both

phenomena. The most serious danger that Pargament believed should be avoided is that of losing

the sacred core of the psychology of religion. He expressed his concern that current definitions of

spirituality include the search for various non-sacred goals such as wholeness, truth, community,

meaning, and self. As a result, he explained that the psychology of religion is in danger of losing

‘what makes it unique.’

As it is supposed to be one of the most complicated fields of study, the field of

psychology is well-suited to deal with the study of religion, since it has to do with not only

observable behaviour such as prayer or reading a holy book, but also with subjective mental

states either rational or irrational, linked with God, deities, or holy beings. It is in light of this,

that one cannot help but feel some difficulty in defining a scope of future studies,

comprehensible enough to get them started, directed and guided to proper findings. Throughout

world religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and so

forth, it is commonly claimed that, by the grace of people’s devout faith in the respective religion

or religions, walking with love on the righteous way should lead to their true well-being or to

true worthiness of life, cultivating in the innermost heart, the deepest meaning of life and death

(Nishizawa, 1996).

Hathaway and Pargament (1990) had described the relationship between religion and

coping in three ways: religion can be part of every element of coping (e.g., appraisals, coping

activities, outcomes); religion can shape the coping process; and religion can be shaped in turn

by the coping process. What is clearly understood, however, is the part religion plays when

problems arise in coping. Typically, psychologists and religionists have evaluated religious

coping according to three different types of criteria: content criteria; pragmatic criteria; or

process/integration criteria (Pargament, Scott, Butter, & Zerowin, 1998). For psychologists, the

process/integration approach to evaluating coping parallels the process of psychological

assessment. In forming clinical judgments, a psychologist weighs and balances a number of

interrelated factors. Instead of focusing on a single trait or isolated element, the psychologist is

interested in the powerful interplay between interpersonal, intrapersonal, and situational

variables as they relate to adjustment and psychological health (Pargament et al., 1998).

On the relationship between the self and others, is the third perspective, entitled the

metapersonal self (the first and second being the independent and interpersonal self-construals)

(Stroink & DeCicco, 2003). This alternative model involves a view of the self as a being in unity

with all things, or with life. This type of self is therefore defined by its extension beyond the

body and beyond the specific social niche. The metapersonal self would often be associated with

the belief systems of religio-cultural groups such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism (Stroink

& DeCicco, 2003). Central to the beliefs of people who follow such unique and complex

philosophies, for example, would be that everything, including the self, other people, animals,

social hierarchies, and music, is encompassed within a sacred natural order. DeCicco and Stroink

(2003) argued that the spiritual self, unlike that of the independent or the interdependent self but

rather, a self that expands its boundaries to include all other things, such as the metapersonal

self-construal. Csikszentmihaly (1993) described a transcendent self, which is similar to the

metapersonal self; a self-orientation described as someone who has the ability to see his or her

place in the entire tapestry of life while seeing one’s part as tiny, but not insignificant.

After studying the literature related to the study of religion and spirituality, a crucial

question arises: Why has psychology done such a poor job in studying the role of religion and

spirituality in the lives of normal individuals? This question is crucial, because it provides us

with an opportunity to think clearly about psychology’s treatment of religious and spiritual life.

According to Mattis and Jagers (2001), it is in its efforts to establish itself as a ‘legitimate’

science, that psychology has reified the tendency to associate science with logic, and religion and

spirituality with irrationality. The rise of logical positivism and psychology’s narrow pursuit of

empiricism, as Mattis and Jagers (2001) described it, have led many scholars to conclude that

religion and spirituality are neither appropriate nor important fodder for scientific study.

Empirical research demonstrates that psychologists do not tend to be particularly religious

people, and in many cases tend to be antagonistic toward religion (Mattis & Jagers, 2001). As

such, many psychologists are said to neither understand nor value the profound ways in which

religion and spirituality shape the lives of those millions of individuals who do define themselves

as religious, spiritual, or simultaneously both (Mattis & Jagers, 2001). Mattis and Jagers (2001)

also argued that psychology had, with time, become increasingly and almost exclusively

concerned with the study of human pathology.

However, the re-emergence of scholarly attention to religion and spirituality represents an

exciting and important shift in psychology. This re-emergence occurs at a time when crucial

questions are being raised about the complex roles of culture, class, and other social positions in

human experience, and when efforts are being made to both explicate and ameliorate the effects

of mainstream control over the content and direction of scholarship. Although the field of

studying religion and spirituality stands against the mainstream of psychology, several

psychologists at the present attempt to understand and value the profound ways in which religion

and spirituality shape the lives of those individuals who define themselves as either spiritual or

religious, or perhaps even both. Like other commentators, Argyle (2000) argued that

psychology’s reluctance to engage in religion had evolved from the overarching relationship

between science and religion, and it is this overarching relationship that the current study

addresses.

Though there are similarities between religiosity and spirituality, it is often argued that

the two are very different, and have different correlates. For example, Reker and Reker (2003)

made two major findings in their study; one of which stated that spirituality and religiosity

loaded on two different factors in statistical analyses. This suggests that religiosity and

spirituality are two entirely different factors. Furthermore, Reker and Reker (2003) also found

that openness to experience was positively significantly correlated with spirituality, while it was

negatively significantly correlated with religiosity; suggesting that individuals higher in

spirituality than in religiosity are more open to changes and new experiences, but as all other

findings, it is subject to individual and personality differences.

Research into the psychology of religious personality seems to confirm the hypothesis

that religiosity corresponds to some individual differences. A series of studies using Eysenck’s

three-dimensional model (PEN; Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism), in a variety of

cultures and denominations, converge in that religion relates to low psychoticism (Saroglou,

2002). Very often, researchers working with this model conclude that regarding the other two

factors (E, N), findings from different studies are inconsistent or that simply these two factors are

unrelated to religion (Saroglou, 2002).

Despite the information currently available about the relationship between religiosity and

Eysenck’s Personality Model, the relationship between Eysenck’s personality theory aspects of

beliefs has not been examined in great detail (Maltby & Day, 2001). In Maltby and Day’s (2001)

study, for example, extraversion was found to be significantly positively correlated with

spirituality (Maltby & Day, 2001). This suggests that spirituality reflects sociable, excitement-

seeking, carefree, optimistic personality traits. The issue here is the validity of Maltby and Day’s

(2001) measures, when they described external/ritual behaviours as spiritual, while other

psychologists have described such behaviour as religious. Their finding that low psychoticism

and low neuroticism is associated with some aspects of spirituality, and echoes research that

suggests that low psychoticism underpins religiosity and that external and ritual aspects of

religiosity are related to the obsessive neurotic, while internal religiosity is not (Maltby & Day,

2001). Therefore it was suggested that future research include measures of religiosity to make

these comparisons when investigating these relationships further; and this was addressed in the

current study.

While religious attitudes may reflect the results of the process of individuals’

conditioning to established religious ideas and beliefs, some authors view the spiritual individual

as engaged in a more open and reflective dialogue in the development of their beliefs, seeking

new experiences, and attempting to establish a carefree and optimistic environment. Therefore,

spirituality would be expected to reflect extraversion traits, such as sensation-seeking, optimistic

and carefree behaviours.

As a part of the spiritual dimension, religiosity, spirituality, and hope, according to

Benzein, Norberg, and Saveman (1998), are often linked to various health-related outcomes,

such as physical health, spiritual well-being and experienced meaning in life. Hope, to them, is

considered to be essential for human life and is associated with meaning and value. The meaning

of hope related to human life has been highlighted in several studies. Studies have indicated a

positive link between hope and health, as well as its being as an essential factor for successful

coping (Benzein et al., 1998). Hope is often connected to the existential/spiritual dimension in

life, embracing both a secular and a religious conceptualization, according to Benzein et al.

(1998).

As hope is a self-experienced phenomenon, it should be viewed in its social context. It is

obvious that outlook on life and cultural affiliation influence people’s understanding of what is

happening to them, as several studies highlight this issue. There is a large number of studies

indicating a correlation between religiosity and/or spirituality and health and well-being. Benzein

et al. (1998) argue that spiritual well-being is a sense of harmonious interconnectedness between

self, nature, and ‘ultimate others.’ According to Mansager (2000), spirituality contributes to a

person’s well-being depending on several factors: a) whether the striving after his/her ultimate

concerns generally manifests on the contributing side of life rather than on the self-serving side

of life; b) the degree that his/her spiritual path is characteristically open, tolerant, and impartial

rather than closed, judgemental, and prejudiced; c) the degree that the individual’s spirituality

leads to connection with greater humanity rather than to isolation and self-absorption; and d) the

degree that his/her perceived ultimate value ratifies the wellness criteria of striving, integration

and self-transcendence. These factors could emerge during the content analysis of the interviews

conducted later in the current study.

Objectives

In light of the differences various psychologists have in defining religiosity, and

particularly spirituality, the current study, in part, was designed to distinguish between them.

Furthermore, the current study was designed to distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic

religiosity – something which was not addressed in previous studies. In previous studies, the

examination of church attendance was regarded as an ideal way of assessing religiosity.

However, the motivation for such attendance differed for those who attended church for the

social aspect of it, and those who attended it for religious purposes.

Therefore, the objective of the present study was to determine how personal meaning

mediates between each of intrinsic religiosity and spirituality, and subjective well-being.

Furthermore, the current study strove to determine why some individuals perceive

themselves as only highly spiritual and not religious, while others perceive themselves as highly

religious but not spiritual, and the grounds on which those perceptions are established.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. Based on previous empirical evidence, it was hypothesized that intrinsic

religiosity would be positively and significantly correlated with an individual’s self-concept and

sense of psychological and physical well-being.

Hypothesis 2. It was also hypothesized that spirituality would be positively and

significantly correlated with an individual’s self-concept and sense of psychological and physical

well-being.

Hypothesis 3. It was hypothesized that the construct of personal meaning would mediate

the positive relationship between each of religiosity and spirituality, and subjective well-being.

Method

Participants

A total of 225 participants volunteered to take part in the study. Due to missing data, the

sample of participants was reduced to 211. The participants were undergraduate students

attending Trent University. The majority were students enrolled in introductory psychology.

Participants were recruited through an in-class announcement, through emails sent to course lists,

through advertisements sent to academic departments, as well as through student associations

and groups. The sample varied in age from 16 to 49 (M=19.94), and was comprised of a

majority of single students (96%), who were mostly females (85%). Participants earned either 1

or 1.5 hours of research credit, which would contribute to the total hours of credit needed in

order to complete their course requirements. Additional demographic information about

participants in this study is reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic Information on the Participants (N = 211)

________________________________________________________________________

Characteristics N % M ± SD

Age (years) 19.94 ± 4.05

Sex

Female 180 85

Male 31 15

Marital Status

Never married 206 98

Married 5 2

Education

Part university 208 98

University graduate 3 1

Post-graduate 2 1

Physical Health

Poor 2 1

Fair 6 3

Good 90 43

Very good 87 41

Excellent 26 12

________________________________________________________________________

Measures

Personal Data Sheet (PDS). The questionnaire package included a Personal Data Sheet

(PDS) to gather demographic information. Participants stated their marital status, level of

education, level of physical health, age, sex, and grade point average (GPA).

Are You Spiritual (AYS)? The AYS (Reker, 2002a) was used to measure whether an

individual is spiritual, and his or her level of spirituality. This questionnaire provided participants

with a definition of spirituality, and in light of that, asked them directly whether they are spiritual

or not (yes = 3, not sure = 2, no = 1). Using a 5-point Likert scale, participants rated how

important spirituality is to them, as well as how often they participated in spiritual activities.

The alpha coefficient for the current sample was found to be .87 (see Table 2 in the results

section).

Are You Religious (AYR)? The AYR (Reker, 2002b) was used to measure whether an

individual is religious, and the level of his or her religiosity. The AYR provided a definition of

religiosity, and directly asked respondents whether they are religious or not (yes = 3, not sure =

2, no = 1). To assess level of religiosity, respondents rated how important religion is to them, as

well as how often they participated in organized religion, using a 5-point Likert scale. The alpha

coefficient for the current sample was found to be .88.

Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS). The STS is a 24 item, 7-point Likert scale

developed by Reker (2003). It measures the participants’ spirituality on three dimensions: inner-

connectedness, human compassion, and connectedness with nature. An example item of inner-

connectedness is, “When I am troubled I look to my spirituality for peace of mind,” rated from

“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. An example item measuring human compassion is,

“Human compassion is the core of my spirituality”. An example item of connectedness with

nature is, “I am spiritually touched by the peacefulness of nature”. The alpha coefficient of the

entire scale was found to be .97 in the current sample.

Age Universal I-E Scale (AU-IES). The AU-IES is a 19 item scale designed by Gorsuch

and Venable (1983) to measure participants’ level of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. Intrinsic

religiosity deals with subjective mental states and behaviour that are motivated by internal

reasons, such as a strong faith in God, deities, or holy beings. An example item of intrinsic

religiosity rated on a 5-point strongly disagree/strongly agree scale is, “It is important to me to

spend time in private thought and prayer.” Extrinsic religiosity, on the other hand, involves

observable behaviour, such as church attendance or reading a holy book, which is motivated by

external reasons. An example item of extrinsic religiosity would be, “I go to church (synagogue,

temple, or mosque) mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there.” The alpha coefficients

for the current sample were found to be .90 for intrinsic religiosity and .74 for extrinsic

religiosity.

Life Attitude Profile–Revised (LAP-R). The LAP-R is a 48 item, 7-point strongly

agree/strongly disagree Likert scale developed by Reker (1992) to assess an individual’s

opinions and feelings about life on six different dimensions including Purpose, Coherence,

Choice/Responsibility, Death Acceptance, Existential Vacuum, and Goal Seeking. For the

current study, only the Purpose and Coherence dimensions are of interest. Purpose refers to

having achieved life goals, having a mission in life, and having a sense of direction (e.g., “I have

a mission in life that gives me a sense of direction”). Coherence refers to having a sense of order

and reason for existence, and having a logically integrated and consistent understanding of self,

others and life in general (e.g., “My personal existence is orderly and coherent”). For the current

sample, the alpha coefficients for Purpose and Coherence were found to be .84 and .85,

respectively.

Metapersonal Self Scale (MSS). The MSS is a 10 item, 7-point Likert scale designed by

DeCicco and Stroink (2003) to measure the variety of feelings and behaviours related to the

metapersonal self in various situations, and hence to identify people with the metapersonal self.

This model involves a view of the self as a being in unity with all things, or with life. This type

of self is therefore defined by its extension beyond the body and beyond the specific social niche.

The MSS contains statements such as, “I feel a sense of kinship with all living things”. The alpha

coefficient for the current sample was found to be .87.

Perceived Well-Being Scale–Revised (PWB-R). The PWB-R is a 16 item scale developed

by Reker and Wong (1995) to assess an individual’s perceived psychological and physical well-

being. Psychological well-being is defined as the presence of positive emotions, such as

happiness, joy, and peace of mind as well as the absence of negative emotions such as fear,

anxiety, and depression. An example item is, “No one really cares whether I am dead or alive.”

Physical well-being is a measure of self-rated physical health and vitality, coupled with

perceived absence of physical discomforts. An example item is, “I am in good shape

physically.” Statements are rated on a 7-point strongly agree/strongly disagree Likert scale. For

the current sample, the alpha coefficients for Psychological and Physical Well-Being were found

to be .80 and .75, respectively.

Semantic Differential Scale–Revised (SDS-R). This 12-item scale was designed for this

study to assess an individual’s self-concept. It is composed of three sub-sections: the actual self

(the way I am), the ideal self (the way I would like to be), and the social self (the way I think

others perceive me). Bipolar adjectives were employed in this measure, such as sad vs. happy,

patient vs. impatient, and not lonely vs. lonely. Respondents described themselves using a

symmetrical scale, which ranges from “extremely” to “quite” on each end. People could also rate

themselves as “neutral.” Refer to Table 2 in the results section for descriptive statistics on the

participants’ scores in the measures.

Procedure

Participants were given individual questionnaire packages to complete in a group setting.

The order of the questionnaires throughout the packages was randomized, by having them

manually collated, in order that each package would be different from the others. Each package

took approximately 30-45 minutes to complete. Prior to completing the package each participant

read and completed a consent form. Participants were each assigned a subject number. A master

list of names and corresponding subject numbers was retained by the experimenter. This was

done for the purpose of facilitating the contact of some participants who would be invited to take

part in a follow-up interview.

On the basis of two questions, “Are you Religious?” and “Are you Spiritual?”

participants were classified into one of four groups: 1) highly religious and highly spiritual; 2)

highly religious and low in spirituality; 3) highly spiritual and low in religiosity; or 4) low in

both religiosity and spirituality. Participants classified as Group 2 “highly spiritual and low in

religiosity” and Group 3 “highly religious and low in spirituality” were invited back for a one-

on-one interview. Twenty-nine participants from these two groups were randomly selected,

contacted by telephone, and interviewed one month later.

Throughout the individual interviews, participants were asked questions that

encompassed their source of comfort and personal meaning in their lives. Questions such as,

“Who do you turn to for comfort – your inner self or others?” were asked to help determine

whether the participant communicates at a more intrapersonal or interpersonal level. Questions

that addressed the participants’ psychological well-being were also posed during the interview,

such as “How satisfied are you with your spiritual and/or religious beliefs?” The response

options ranged from “not at all” (1) to “extremely” (7). Moreover, direct and clear questions

were asked, such as “What is it that makes you think that you are more spiritual than religious?”

and “In your mind, what distinguishes religiosity from spirituality?” With the consent of the

interviewees, all responses were recorded in long hand for further qualitative analyses.

However, it should be noted that the first three interviews were audio-recorded (as originally

planned). Due to technical difficulties, note-taking was found to be more efficient.

Data Analyses

Correlational methodology was implemented as a primary tool for analyses throughout

the study. In order to examine the correlational findings in more detail, a multivariate

MANCOVA analysis was conducted with religious/spiritual group (4 levels) as the independent

variable, age as a covariate, and a number of psychosocial measures as the dependent variables.

Structural Equation Modelling (EQS) (Bentler, 1995) was used to measure the mediating

role of personal meaning in the relationship between intrinsic religiosity/ spirituality and

outcome measures of self-concept, psychological, and physical well-being. The model fit in EQS

was assessed by the following criteria: comparative fit index (CFI > .85), and root mean square

error of approximation (RMSEA < .10). Mediation was determined through EQS by evaluating

the indirect effects.

Finally, a qualitative content analysis of the participants’ responses and definitions of

religiosity and spirituality was performed on the interview data. The results uncovered a variety

of themes that help to distinguish spirituality from religiosity.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations, theoretical ranges, number of items, and the alpha

coefficients of the main variables are presented in Table 2. Inspection of Table 2 reveals that

there is no evidence of either a ceiling or a floor effect for any of the measured variables.

Furthermore, all variables have good to very good internal consistency reliability.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of the Main Variables

________________________________________________________________________

Variable Mean (SD) Theoretical Number alpha

Range of Items coefficient________________________________________________________________________

Age Universal I-E Scale (Intrinsic) 18.77 (7.66) 7 - 35 7 .90

Age Universal I-EScale (Extrinsic) 30.22 (7.51) 12 - 60 12 .74

Are You Religious? 7.50 (3.00) 3 - 13 3 .88

Are You Spiritual? 8.49 (2.83) 3 - 13 3 .87

Spiritual TranscendenceScale 106.77 (31.81) 24 - 168 24 .97

Metapersonal Self 46.63 (10.29) 10 – 70 10 .87

Semantic DifferentialScale (Actual Self) 61.96 (9.19) 12 - 84 12 .83

Semantic DifferentialScale (Ideal Self) 74.65 (6.39) 12 - 84 12 .81

Semantic DifferentialScale (Social Self) 62.80 (8.35) 12 - 84 12 .78

Psychological Well- 45.47 (6.85) 8 - 56 8 .80Being

Physical Well-Being 40.61 (7.05) 8 - 56 8 .75

Life Attitude ProfileRevised (Purpose) 40.16 (7.57) 8 - 56 8 .84

Life Attitude ProfileRevised (Coherence) 37.25 (8.07) 8 - 56 8 .85

Testing of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. The correlational results relevant to Hypothesis 1 (religiosity and outcome

variables) are presented in Table 3. As can be seen in Table 3, intrinsic religiosity was

significantly correlated with psychological well-being (r =.28) and actual self-concept ( r =.20).

However, extrinsic religiosity did not correlate significantly with psychological well-being (r

= .08) nor did it correlate with actual self-concept (r = .06). Intrinsic religiosity accounted for

8% of the shared variance with psychological well-being, whereas extrinsic religiosity accounted

for only 1%. Regarding the actual self-concept, intrinsic religiosity accounted for 4% of the

shared variance, whereas extrinsic religiosity accounted for less than 1%. Thus, intrinsic

religiosity accounted for 8 times the variance in psychological well-being and 4 times the

variance in actual self-concept compared to extrinsic religiosity. The hypothesized associations

of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity with physical well-being, ideal self, and social self were not

found to be statistically significant.

Hypothesis 2. The correlational results of Hypothesis 2 (spirituality, as measured by the

STS, and outcome measures) are also presented in Table 3. Spirituality was significantly

correlated with psychological well-being (r = .35), physical well-being (r = .21), actual self (r

= .26), and social self (r = .15). The association with ideal self was not statistically significant.

Hypothesis 3. The results of personal meaning as a mediator in the relationship between

religiosity/spirituality and the self-concept, physical, and psychological well-being are presented

in Figures 1 through 6. Mediation was tested separately for spirituality (Models 1 through 3) and

for intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity (Models 4 through 6).

Spirituality models. Model 1 (see Figure 1) displays the results of the mediating role of

personal meaning between spirituality and the self-concept. The data were found to be

adequately fit to the model (CFI = .96; RMSEA = .11). As Model 1 indicates, personal meaning

was found to be a significant mediator between spirituality and self-concept (unstandardized

coefficient = 3.40; z = 5.76, p < .05). The path coefficients from spirituality to personal meaning

and from personal meaning to the self concept were both statistically significant (.55 and .68,

respectively), whereas the direct path coefficient from spirituality to the self concept was not

significant (-.11, n.s.).

Model 2 (see Figure 2) displays the results of the mediating role of personal meaning

between spirituality and psychological well-being. The data were found to be a satisfactory fit to

the model (CFI = .94; RMSEA = .24). As this model indicates, personal meaning was also found

to be a significant mediator between spirituality and psychological well-being (unstandardized

coefficient = 2.51; z = 5.86, p < .05). The path coefficients from spirituality to personal meaning

and from personal meaning to psychological well-being were both statistically significant (.54

and .68, respectively), whereas the direct path coefficient from spirituality to physical well-being

was not significant (-.02).

Figure 1. Personal meaning as a mediator of spirituality and self-concept (Model 1).

Figure 2: Personal meaning as a mediator of spirituality and psychological well-being (Model 2).

Model 3 (see Figure 3) displays the results of the mediating role of personal meaning

between spirituality and physical well-being. The data were found to be a good fit to the model

(CFI = .98; RMSEA = .08). As Model 3 indicates, personal meaning was found to be a

significant mediator between spirituality and physical well-being (unstandardized coefficient =

2.51; z = 2.59, p < .05). The path coefficients from spirituality to personal meaning and from

personal meaning to physical well-being were both statistically significant (.55 and .30,

respectively), whereas the direct path coefficient from spirituality to physical well-being was not

significant (.14).

Intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity models. Model 4 (see Figure 4) displays the results of the

mediating role of personal meaning between intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and the self concept.

The data were found to be adequately fit to the model (CFI = .93; RMSEA = .13). As Model 4

indicates, personal meaning was found to be a significant mediator between intrinsic religiosity

and the self concept (unstandardized coefficient = 2.77; z = 4.37, p < .05). The path coefficients

from intrinsic religiosity to personal meaning and from personal meaning to the self concept

were both statistically significant (.47 and .65, respectively), whereas the direct path coefficient

from intrinsic religiosity to the self concept was not significant (-.04).

On the other hand, personal meaning was not found to be a significant mediator between

extrinsic religiosity and the self concept (unstandardized coefficient = -.027; z = -.386, p > .05).

The path coefficient from extrinsic religiosity to personal meaning was not significant (-.03),

while the path coefficient from personal meaning to the self concept was significant (.65). The

direct path coefficient from extrinsic religiosity to the self concept was also not significant (-.07).

Figure 3: Personal meaning as a mediator of spirituality and physical well-being (Model 3).

Figure 4: Personal meaning as a mediator of intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and the self-concept

(Model 4).

Finally, Model 5 (see Figure 5) displays the results of the mediating role of personal

meaning between intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and psychological well-being. The data were

found to be satisfactorily fit to the model (CFI = .91; RMSEA = .23). Model 5 indicates that

personal meaning was found to be a statistically significant mediator between intrinsic religiosity

and psychological well-being (unstandardized coefficient = 1.78, z = 3.81, p < .05). The path

coefficients from intrinsic religiosity to personal meaning and from personal meaning to

psychological well-being were both significant (.38 and .68, respectively), whereas the direct

path coefficient from intrinsic religiosity to psychological well-being was not significant (.09).

On the other hand, the same model indicates that personal meaning was not found to be a

significant mediator between extrinsic religiosity and psychological well-being (unstandardized

coefficient = -.007; z = -.133, p >.05). The path coefficient from extrinsic religiosity to personal

meaning was not significant (-.01), while that from personal meaning to psychological well-

being was significant (.68). The direct path coefficient from extrinsic religiosity to

psychological well-being was also not significant (-.12).

Model 6 (see Figure 6) displays the results of the mediating role between

intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and physical well-being. The data were found to be adequately fit to

the model (CFI = .95; RMSEA = .13). As Model 6 indicates, personal meaning was found to be a

significant mediator between intrinsic religiosity and physical well-being (unstandardized

coefficient = 1.08; z = 3.30, p < .05.). The path coefficients from intrinsic religiosity to personal

meaning and from personal meaning to physical

Figure 5: Personal meaning as a mediator between intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and

psychological well-being (Model 5).

Figure 6: Personal meaning as a mediator of intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and physical well-

being (Model 6).

well-being were both statistically significant (.52 and .36, respectively), whereas the direct path

coefficient from intrinsic religiosity to physical well-being was not significant (.04, n.s.).

On the other hand, as indicated in the same model, personal meaning was not found to be

a significant mediator between extrinsic religiosity and physical well-being (unstandardized

coefficient = -.15, z = -.685, p > .05). The path coefficient from extrinsic religiosity to personal

meaning was not significant, while that between personal meaning and physical well-being was

(-.05 and .36 respectively). The direct path coefficient from extrinsic religiosity to physical well-

being was also not significant (-.08).

Supplementary Analysis: Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA)

In addition to the primary correlational analyses, a more fine-grained and detailed

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was carried out. The independent variable

was the category/class in which participants were oriented: Religious/Spiritual, Religious/Non-

Spiritual, Non-Religious/Spiritual, and Non-Religious/Non-Spiritual. Since age significantly

correlated with a number of the dependent variables, it was treated as a covariate in the analysis.

The dependent variables included physical health, metapersonal self, actual self, ideal self, social

self, psychological well-being, physical well-being, and personal meaning.

The overall multivariate and covariate effects are presented in Table 4. The multivariate

effect for groups was highly significant [Wilks’ lambda (24, 577) = .749, p < .000]. The age

covariate effect was also statistically significant [Wilks’ lambda (8, 199) = .913, p < .05].

Univariate main effects stemming from the MANCOVA analyses are presented in Table

5. Significant effects were found for physical health [F (3, 206) = 3.66, p < .01], metapersonal

self [F (3, 206) = 10.99, p < .001], psychological well-being [F (3, 206) = 3.72, p < .01, and

personal meaning [F (3, 206) = 8.37, p < .001]. No significant differences were found for the

three self-concept measures and for physical well-being.

Subsequent Tukey HSD post-hoc analysis of the significant univariate effects revealed a

significant difference between the Religious/Spiritual and Non-religious/Non-spiritual

participants on physical health (p < .05), metapersonal self (p < .01), psychological well-being (p

< .05), and personal meaning (p < .001). Highly spiritual/religious participants reported better

physical health, a higher metapersonal self, greater psychological well-being and higher personal

meaning compared to those low in spirituality/religiosity. In addition, a significant difference

was found between the Non-Religious/Spiritual and Non-religious/Non-spiritual groups on

metapersonal self (p < .01). The non-religious but spiritual participants reported a higher

metapersonal self compared to those low in religiosity and spirituality. The religious/non-

spiritual and the non-religious/spiritual groups could not be differentiated on any of the

dependent variables examined in this study.

Table 4

Multivariate and Covariate Effects

________________________________________________________________________

Effect Wilks’ Rao’s R df 1 df 2 p-level

Lambda

_______________________________________________________________________

Multivariate .749 2.53 24 577 .000095

Age Covariate .913 2.36 8 199 .019

Table 6

Qualitative Content Analysis

A content analysis of the participants’ responses and definitions of religiosity and

spirituality, derived from the interviews, was performed. This content analysis was carried out,

via a careful examination of the notes taken during the interviews. The results uncovered a

variety of themes that distinguish spirituality from religiosity. Four main themes arose out of the

content analysis that differentiated religiosity from spirituality, namely 1) Structured vs. Fluid, 2)

Affiliated vs. Individualized, 3) External vs. Internal, and 4) Following vs. Believing.

Throughout the following reportage of the results, quotes from the interviews will be followed

by the subject number assigned to the participant, as well as the category, under which the he or

she was classified (i.e. religiosity, spirituality).

Structured vs. Fluid. A recurrent theme found in many of the interviews was the tendency

to describe religiosity as based on a “set” of beliefs that are organized into dogma, rules,

doctrines, and guidelines. Most participants referred to religiosity as more organized than

spirituality. When asked about what makes her consider herself as more religious than spiritual, a

participant said:

Being religious means being brought up in the structure of religion - the structure of an organized set of rules and values (51; R, NS).

Another participant stated:

I don’t think you need to be religious to be spiritual – but I guess they are kind of interrelated. They both relate to a higher power, but religion is more structured (52; S, NR).

A spiritual/not religious participant went as far as describing religiosity as being

institutionalized:

I guess I consider religion as an institution, which spirituality is not (49; S, NR).

Spirituality, on the other hand, was described most often as fluid, with “no specific set of

rules.” Spirituality was described to be unstructured, and not based on a particular doctrine. With

spirituality, there were no guidelines to follow. When asked to discuss the differentiating factors

between religiosity and spirituality, a participant said:

Spirituality is a belief in what’s out there – with no specific set of rules (144; R, NS).

Another participant stated that spirituality is the

…belief in a higher power, but in which you don’t follow a set religion like Judaism, or Catholicism (136; R, NS).

Affiliated vs. Individualized. Another recurrent theme found throughout the interviews

was the tendency participants had in perceiving religiosity as being a member of a church or

mosque community, or as being a follower of one of the world religions. This conformity to a

world religion is perceived to be the factor that makes a person a member or part of a “group.”

When asked about religiosity, one participant said:

I identify it with a more formal structure, more mainstream, consisting of one of the five main world religions and others, as well. Religiosity is more established, with a sense of commitment, and more widely accepted; not very deviant (55; S, NR).

The same participant went on to say that spirituality, on the other hand, is seen as

… sort of indefinable, indescribable group of heterogeneous beliefs. These beliefs are less rigid, less fixed, and allow opposite [religious] movements to exist.

A different participant described religion as:

…a group of people you belong with that shares a set of beliefs…where you are expected to participate in all rituals… (96; S, NR).

Another participant described religiosity as

… a set of beliefs that everyone believes in, in a culture… it involves being a member of a cultural group. Meanwhile, when it comes to spirituality, everyone has their own spirituality (42; S, NR).

On the other hand, spirituality was more likely to be described as more of a personal

belief that comes from within an individual. A spiritual individual was reported to be “more in

tune” with oneself, and not affiliated with, or a member of a specific or world religion.

According to different reports from interviewees, spirituality was found to be personalized. A

few participants went on to say that spirituality was more about a person’s own interpretation of

faith and beliefs. A participant described being spiritual as:

…being more in tune with yourself, and maintaining spirituality within yourself (92; R, NS).

Another participant said that spirituality is

…being happy - happy with oneself (175; S, NR).

External vs. Internal. Throughout the interviews, several participants stated that

religiosity was based on an external source of beliefs, such as a holy book, like the Bible or

Quran. Some participants maintained that in the case of religion, people are told what to believe,

by the higher authorities of the “church” or religious institution. One participant spoke of her

disapproval of the hierarchical system within the Catholic Church:

The institutionalization of organized religion makes me angry as a misrepresented person [woman] – a patriarchal institution frustrates me (49; S, NR).

Furthermore, some participants have described religion as very tangible and spirituality as

otherwise. A participant described religion as:

...more tangible…stuff you can touch, which you can present (74; R, NS).

On the other hand, spirituality had been described as more internal. It was neither

tangible, nor fixed, according to many participants. Furthermore, spirituality was found to arise

from within. With spirituality, there is no authority or hierarchical structure within a “spiritual

system” to tell an individual what to believe. One participant described spirituality as involving:

…a connectedness with yourself, nature and what your heart tells you to do (39; S, NR).

A different participant said that spirituality involves:

…your mind, body and soul, and meditation for the self (44; R, NS).

Another participant stated clearly that spirituality is:

…more individual, and internal (51; R, NS).

Following vs. Believing. The fourth recurrent theme found during the content analysis is

that, which reflects the tendency that people view religiosity more as following an external,

structured set of beliefs, as discussed throughout the last three recurrent themes. As such, a

participant stated in an interview that religion

…is more organized, in which you are told what to believe (48; S, NR).

Another participant was direct, by saying:

Religiosity is about following a certain set of disciplines, book, person, sect, specifics, and laws…it’s about following set things [with emphasis] (30; S, NR).

In comparison, spirituality more so involves having one’s own beliefs and understanding

them, while being in tune with oneself. A participant compared religiosity and spirituality by

saying:

With spirituality, you have a belief in something – while with religiosity, you have beliefs and follow something, and you act on it! (65; R, NS)

When asked about religiosity, a participant said:

Religiosity involves going to church, and following all the commandments and rules (23; S, NR).

Another participant went as far as to say:

Religiosity is more conformed; guidelines for you to follow. When you’re too young, you just follow your parents, if you’re born into a religion (99; S, NR).

Spirituality, on the other hand, was referred to as involving a sense of belief in

something, more than simply following one in behaviour. A participant said in an interview:

I believe that religion is very tangible and existent. You can see religion, but cannot see spirituality. Spirituality is more about believing (224; R, NS).

A different participant added by saying,

Spirituality means to actually believe in something. You might not know what it is – it could be a higher being or thought or… We are all striving to be spiritual – to care about the spirit and so forth… (30; S, NR).

Another participant said:

Spirituality is a belief in what’s out there… (144; R, NS).

Furthermore, a number of participants stated that spirituality involved a sense of

connectedness within oneself and with others around the individual. A number of participants

stated that religiosity involved having faith in a higher being, using the term “God”, while they

stated that spirituality is about belief in a higher being, as well, perhaps, which may not be God.

One participant said:

With spirituality, you are feeling you are more in touch with yourself than with God (22; R, NS).

Another participant said:

In spirituality, you believe in a higher power, but you don’t follow a set religion like Judaism, and Catholicism – it’s more about your beliefs than joining a religion (136; R, NS).

One other participant stated that spirituality

…is being a good person, having good morals and values (164; S, NR).

Another participant elaborated by saying:

The reality is that spirituality is absolutely pure to me – has nothing to do with outside issues, such as funding – it’s about morality (49; S, NR).

An additional participant said that

…spirituality is something each person can experience for themselves – to be out in the world, and experience a sense of connectedness, and sense of spirituality (99; S, NR).

Additional Themes. Throughout the interviews, participants were asked about the source

of comfort which they turn to, when experiencing crises or problems – whether it would be the

inner self, or significant others. Participants generally sought comfort from significant others, yet

those who are more spiritual preferred to seek comfort from the inner self, prior to approaching

significant others with their troubles. It is interesting to note that in addition to significant others,

such as family and friends, a participant who stated that she is more spiritual than religious

indicated that she seeks comfort from God.

I don’t call it my inner self [God], but I do not know where to put that in (117; S, NR).

Another interesting case to note is that of a participant who indicated that she came from

a Hindu background. When asked about the source of comfort sought by her in times of crisis,

she said:

In Peterborough, there is no temple, so if in a time of need, I would go to the nearest church, and that helps… the environment helps you strengthen (224; R, NS).Throughout the interviews, participants were also asked to rate the importance of making

significant contributions to the lives of those around them, on a scale from 1 to 7, with one being

“not at all” and 7 being “extremely”. A general trend found was that those participants who

described themselves as more spiritual than religious rated themselves the highest. Those less

spiritual rated the importance of such contributions to the lives of those around them as of less

importance than those more spiritual.

Furthermore, when asked if they would describe themselves as forgiving persons, all

participants, except for two, replied, by saying yes. However, a number of participants did

indicate that they would be forgiving only to a certain extent or depending on the seriousness of

the situation. The responses to this question could indicate a bias in the results, as participants

would not want to indicate that they are not forgiving, and would want to maintain a pleasant

impression in the interviewer’s perspective. Moreover, as this question about forgiveness was

asked after a question, whose answer was rated on a scale, two participants asked if there was a

scale for this question, as well. One of those two participants rated her forgiveness, as if

presented with a scale, regardless of the confirmation, on the interviewer’s behalf, that no scale

was assigned to this question.

In addition, participants were asked throughout the interviews about how satisfied they

are with their spiritual and/or religious beliefs. It is interesting to note that those who were more

spiritual tended to rate their satisfaction with their beliefs as lower than those who were more

religious. It is also worth noting that one participant expressed her surprise about the “clumping”

of religiosity and spirituality in one question, indicating:

I am very dissatisfied with my religious beliefs, while very satisfied with my spiritual beliefs (49; S, NR).

Discussion

The findings of the current study are rather significant, and vary in importance. All three

hypotheses designed for this study were supported by the findings. The first hypothesis claimed

that intrinsic religiosity would be positively and significantly correlated with an individual’s self-

concept and sense of psychological and physical well-being. As intrinsic religiosity was found to

be positively and significantly correlated with psychological and physical well-being, as well as

the actual self-concept, the first hypothesis was fully supported. These findings indicate that

intrinsic religiosity is, in fact, inter-related with an individual’s psychological well-being, and the

actual self concept. However, extrinsic religiosity was not found to be significantly associated

with psychological well-being and the actual self. Moreover, the hypothesized associations of

extrinsic religiosity with physical well-being, ideal self, and social self were not found to be

statistically significant. These findings implicate a difference between extrinsic religiosity and

intrinsic religiosity, which had not been addressed in earlier studies. Since extrinsic religiosity

refers to attending church per se for superficial and insincere reasons, personal meaning is not

gained from the experience. Hence, it would not mediate between extrinsic religiosity and

psychological and physical well-being, or with self-concept, where in the case of intrinsic

religiosity personal meaning played a mediating role. Personal meaning is gained from

experience, arising out of intrinsic religiosity rather than extrinsic, which is where religious

sensations are sincere. Thus, religiosity leads to greater psychological well-being only when

individuals find meaning in their religious experience.

The second hypothesis addressed spirituality in the same context. It claimed that

spirituality would be positively and significantly correlated with an individual’s self-concept and

sense of psychological and physical well-being. Results from the study indicated that spirituality

is significantly correlated with psychological well-being and the actual self. Unlike religiosity,

spirituality was found to be significantly correlated with the social self and physical well-being.

Yet similarly, spirituality was not found to be significantly correlated with the ideal self. This

indicates that the second hypothesis was partially supported by the study’s findings.

Furthermore, these findings imply that religiosity and spirituality are unrelated to the ideal self

concept. Thus, in order to assess self-esteem, a close examination of the actual self concept

would be the best possible way, given that the ideal self is independent of spirituality and

religiosity, and unaffected by them.

In addition, more eminent findings supported the third hypothesis, which claimed that the

construct of personal meaning would mediate the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic

religiosity and spirituality and psychological and physical well-being, as well as the self-concept.

First, personal meaning was found to be a significant mediator between spirituality and

the actual and social self-concepts. This means that as more personal meaning is gained from

spiritual experiences in life, the actual and social selves are more influenced. In addition, this

means that spiritual experience also helps an individual develop a better understanding of the

perception people hold of him or her.

Second, personal meaning was found to be a significant mediator between spirituality and

psychological well-being. This finding indicates that spirituality is associated with psychological

well-being only if personal meaning mediates between them. Thus, spirituality leads to greater

psychological well-being only when individuals find meaning in their spiritual experiences.

Third, personal meaning was also found to play a significant mediating role between

spirituality and physical well-being. This denotes that there is an association between spirituality

and physical well-being only when personal meaning plays a mediating role between them. In

other words, only when personal meaning is gained from spiritual experience, would there be an

association between spirituality and physical well-being. Given that a direct relationship between

spirituality and physical well-being is not present, an implication could be made here. Since

psychological well-being and physical well-being are positively and significantly correlated to

each other, it could be implied that as personal meaning significantly mediates between

spirituality and psychological well-being, psychological well-being, in turn, mediates between

personal meaning and physical well-being. Given that spirituality is not directly associated with

physical well-being, the suggestion of having two mediating factors, such as personal meaning

and psychological well-being in between, could be examined in future research.

Regarding religiosity, personal meaning was found to be a significant mediator between

intrinsic religiosity and self-concept. This means that only when personal meaning is gained

from religious experience, would an individual have a better understanding of his or her actual

and social selves. Moreover, given that personal meaning is gained from experience arising out

of intrinsic religiosity, self-concept is affected, in turn, by intrinsic religiosity. However, personal

meaning’s role as a mediator between extrinsic religiosity and self-concept was not found to be

significant. This finding supports the idea that intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity are

different, and suggests further examination of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity as two separate

entities in future research for a better understanding of religiosity.

Moreover, the significant role personal meaning plays when mediating between intrinsic

religiosity and psychological well-being was demonstrated in the findings. In contrast, personal

meaning was not found to be a significant mediator between extrinsic religiosity and

psychological well-being. This denotes that an individual would enjoy a higher level of

psychological well-being, when gaining personal meaning from religious experiences –

particularly those arising out of intrinsic religiosity, which is where personal meaning is gained,

as discussed earlier. Once again, evidence is found in support of the separation between the two

concepts, intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. Furthermore, the association that each of intrinsic

and extrinsic religiosity has with psychological well-being is a critical one, since it arrives at the

origin of why these two concepts should be separated. Participation in religion, with the purpose

of gaining personal meaning from it, is what is referred to throughout this study as intrinsic

religiosity. Extrinsic religiosity, on the other hand, is participation in religion with the purpose of

serving other needs; superficial and insincere, rather than seeking personal meaning. This finding

suggests future research, which would examine the role of personal meaning in setting intrinsic

and extrinsic religiosity apart in more detail, and further examine why these two entities should

be treated separately.

Last, but not least, it was found that personal meaning is a significant mediator between

intrinsic religiosity and physical well-being. In addition to that, personal meaning was not found

to be a significant mediator between extrinsic religiosity and physical well-being. These findings

convey that extrinsic religiosity and physical well-being are unrelated to each other. This finding

is rather interesting, given that personal meaning was found to be a significant mediator between

intrinsic religiosity and physical well-being. Therefore, this provides more evidence in support of

the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity as two separate entities.

Major findings also indicated that significantly varying across the classified groups of

subjects were physical health, the metapersonal self, psychological well-being, and personal

meaning. Those high in both religiosity and spirituality gained personal meaning from their

experiences, and in turn, enjoyed better physical health, psychological well-being, and a higher

metapersonal self, in comparison to those low in both religiosity and spirituality. In addition,

more spiritual participants scored higher on the metapersonal self scale, than those less spiritual.

This implies an association between spirituality and the characteristics of the metapersonal self –

i.e. the connectedness found with others and the world around them, as well as within

themselves. However, the religious/non-spiritual and the non-religious/spiritual groups could not

be differentiated on any of the dependent variables in this study. This implies that the most

significant differences lay between the two poles: people high in both religiosity and spirituality,

and those low in both religiosity and spirituality. This implies that people have to be on either

pole to experience a significant difference in physical health, psychological well-being, self-

concept, personal meaning and the metapersonal self. Those who were characterized as being in

one of the two middle classes (R/NS & NR/S) were less likely to experience a significant effect

of religiosity and spirituality on physical and psychological well-being, as well as self-concept,

personal meaning and the metapersonal self.

Aside from the quantitative analyses conducted throughout the current study, the

qualitative analysis was found to be more distinctive, as it established the differences between

religiosity and spirituality, as reported by the subjects themselves. Four main differences were

found between religiosity and spirituality. First, participants reported that they perceive

religiosity as more structured, organized, and set on certain beliefs and rules, while they

perceived spirituality as more fluid, and not based on a set of guidelines and beliefs. As such,

participants secondly referred to religiosity as being affiliated with a world or particular religion,

and being part of a group that shares the same beliefs and values. Spirituality, on the other hand,

was referred to as the opposite – having individualized beliefs, which are more so personalized,

and depending on the individual’s own perceptions of his or her surroundings. In relation to this,

participants thirdly referred to spirituality as an internal experience, which revolves around

beliefs that come from within. This may explain the association between spirituality and

psychological well-being. In contrast, religiosity was regarded as more external and institutional,

arising from external sources, such as religious institutions and their hierarchical authorities, as

well as holy books, such as the Bible or Quran. This may relate to the stronger association

spirituality has with self-concept, in comparison with religiosity’s association to it. Since

spirituality comes mostly from within, an individual can be more secure, confident, and self-

reliant, as he or she can trust oneself. Trusting an external source, on the other hand, would be

more difficult, and the preoccupation with following it may deter an individual from being

confident enough to trust oneself as much. This can be seen in the last pattern arising from the

interviews. Participants interviewed referred to religiosity as following the set of rules, set by a

religious institution, holy book, or doctrines set in a religion, and not deviating from them.

Spirituality, on the other hand, was referred to as believing, rather than acting. Belief was

considered to be more central to spirituality, while acting on beliefs was more central to

religiosity.

Furthermore, some subjects reported their perception of religiosity as belief in God, while

spirituality did not necessarily involve a God or deity in particular. However, many interviewees

saw that connectedness with others was more central to spirituality, rather than religiosity, albeit

connectedness was also present in the latter, to a certain extent. These findings, which

distinguish religiosity from spirituality, support Zinnbauer et al.’s (1997) definitions of those two

entities, which were mentioned earlier in the introduction. They also support Chandler et al.’s

(1992) argument that spirituality and religiosity can exist in the absence of each other.

Limitations and Strengths of the Study

The current study has a number of limitations, which need to be addressed in future

research. The number of participants interviewed was small, due to the time constraints of the

academic year. Future research should look into a larger sample for interviews, from which more

themes on religiosity and spirituality could be found. Furthermore, a wider sample would be

more interesting to examine. The current study aimed at examining an undergraduate sample,

comprised of students from different disciplines, and in different years of study. However, the

majority of the participants were first-year students enrolled in the Introductory Psychology

course. As their participation in the study would earn them research credit, which was a course

requirement, they were more motivated to partake in the study, in comparison to other subjects.

In future studies, a much wider sample could be targeted, such as a sample of undergraduate,

graduate and post-graduate students. The age range in such a study would most likely be

interesting to examine, as its effects on religiosity and spirituality could be significant. More so,

a wider sample could be studied, by examining a general population of adults and youth, aside

from university students. In future research, using a more diverse sample of individuals in terms

of age, gender, ethnic mix, and religious affiliation, should be conducted to assess different

conceptions of religiosity and spirituality. In addition, a longitudinal study assessing religiosity

and spirituality would be rather interesting, as it would examine them across the life span, and

how they may change with time. Finally, it should be noted that qualitative analyses were coded

just by the experimenter, which may have led to experimenter bias.

The use of qualitative, in addition to quantitative methods was a great strength to the

current study, as previous studies on this topic had the tendency to rely on quantitative methods

almost entirely. As quantitative analyses were only able to inform us of associations between

certain variables, such as religiosity and spirituality with personal meaning, qualitative analysis

expanded the findings to those more detailed. For example, quantitative analyses indicated the

association between religiosity, spirituality and psychological well-being, whereas qualitative

analysis further demonstrated how personal meaning mediated between them. In other words,

quantitative methods only stated the findings, while qualitative methods also explained them.

Furthermore, interviews allowed a more elaborate discussion of religiosity and spirituality, while

quantitative methods only allowed limited answers to questions. Interviews allowed individual

comments to be made on the question being discussed, while questionnaires did not. Those

individual comments made in the interviews provided this study with rationalizations to the

findings stated in the quantitative analyses.

Furthermore, with extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity being treated separately in the present

study, more doors are open to future research on religiosity. A participant quoted earlier

expressed her surprise with reference to being asked of her satisfaction with her “spiritual and/or

religious beliefs” both in one question. With the distinction between them being established in

the current study, religiosity and spirituality can now be examined separately in future research.

As stated earlier, the field of psychology is well-suited to deal with the study of religion, since it

has to do with not only observable behaviour such as prayer or reading a holy book, but also with

subjective mental states either rational or irrational, linked with God, deities, or holy beings. A

sub-field of study that has not maintained much interest and attention from psychologists is now

ready to re-launch with more potential for future research.

References

Argyle, M. (2000). Psychology and religion: An introduction. London: Routledge.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate

Software, Inc.

Benzein, E., Norberg, A., & Saveman, B.I. (1998). Hope: Future imagined reality: The meaning

of hope as described by a group of healthy Pentecostalists. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

28, 1063-1071.

Chandler, C., Holden, J., & Kolander, C. (1992). Counselling for spiritual wellness: Theory and

practice. Journal of Counselling and Development, 71, 168-175.

Csikszentmihaly, M. (1993). The evolving self. New York: Harper Collins.

DeCicco, T.L., & Stroink, M.L. (2003). A third model and measure of self-construal: The

metapersonal self. Manuscript under review.

Dillon, M., Wink, P., & Fay, K. (2003). Is spirituality detrimental to generativity? Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 427-443.

Gorsuch, R., & Venable, D. (1983). Development of an Age Universal I-E Scale. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 181-187.

Hathaway, W.L., & Pargament, K.I. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness, religious coping, and

psychosocial competence: A covariance structure analysis. Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, 29, 423-442.

Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2001). Spiritual involvement and belief: the relationship between

spirituality and Eysenck’s personality dimensions. Personality and Individual

Differences, 30, 187-192.

Mansager, E. (2000). Individual psychology and the study of spirituality. Journal of Individual

Psychology, 56, 371-389.

Mattis, J.S., & Jagers, R. (2001). A relational framework for the study of religiosity and

spirituality in the lives of African Americans. Journal of Community, 29, 519-539.

Nishizawa, S. (1996). The religiousness and subjective well-being of Japanese students: Part I.

XXVI International Congress of Psychology, August 16-21.

Paloutzian, R.E., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1995). The scope of religious influences on personal and

societal well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 1-11.

Pargament, K.I., Scott, A.B., Butter, E.M., Zerowin, J., & Stanik, P. (1998). Red flags and

religious coping: Identifying some religious warning signs among people in crisis.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 77-90.

Pargament, K.I. (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. The

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9, 3-16.

Reker, G.T. (1992). Manual of the Life Attitude Profile-Revised (LAP-R). Peterborough, ON:

Student Psychologists Press.

Reker, G.T., & Wong, P.T.P. (1995). Reliability and validity of the Perceived Well-Being Scale-

Revised (PWBS-R). Peterborough, ON: Student Psychologists Press.

Reker, G.T. (2002a). Are You Spiritual (AYS)? Unpublished scale. Trent University,

Peterborough, ON.

Reker, G.T. (2002b). Are You Religious (AYR)? Unpublished scale. Trent University,

Peterborough, ON.

Reker, G.T., & Reker, D.L. (2003). Assessment of spirituality: Development, reliability, and

validity of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS). Presented at the Annual Meeting of

the Canadian Psychological Association, Hamilton.

Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review.

Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.

Schneiders, S.M. (1998). The study of Christian spirituality: Contours and dynamics of a

discipline. Christian Spirituality Bulletin, 6, 1, 3-12.

Stroink, M.L., & DeCicco, T.L. (2003). Cultural belief systems and the metapersonal self:

Implications for cognition. Manuscript under review.

Zinnbauer, B.J., Pargament, K.I., Cole, B., Rye, M.S., Butter, E.M., Belavich, T.G., Hipp, K.M.,

Scott, A.B., & Kadar, J.L. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy.

Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 549-564.

Appendix A: Questionnaire Package

Trent University

Participation Consent Form

Project: Religiosity and spirituality: Setting them apart, and mediating factors between them and psychological well-being

Researcher: Ruba Ali, undergraduate student, Trent University Phone: (705) 748-9474, Email: raali@trentu.ca

Gary T. Reker, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Trent University Phone: (705) 748-1508, Email: greker@trentu.ca

I (print name) , agree to participate in a research study examining how religiosity and spirituality are different, and how personal meaning and the self mediate the relationship between them and psychological well-being.

As a participant, I consent to complete the 3-item Are You Spiritual(?), the 3-item Are You Religious(?), the 24-item Spiritual Transcendence Scale, the 19-item Age Universal I-E Scale, the 48-item Life Attitude Profile-Revised, the 10-item Metapersonal Self Scale, the 16-item Perceived Well-Being Scale-Revised, the 24-item Semantic Differential Scale-Revised, and a Personal Data Sheet that asks about age, sex, marital status, education, physical health, and grade point average. I also consent to return for a brief interview, in which I will be asked questions regarding my degree of religiosity and/or spirituality, and satisfaction in life, as well as to discuss the answers I provide in the questionnaires. Our experience suggests that it should take you no more than about 1 hour to complete all the scales. We feel that the findings of our research will have important implications for the understanding and scientific study of religion and spirituality. Thus, your personal reflections on this topic will help us pass your wisdom on to your peers and others, and promote the scientific study of religion and spirituality. First year students will receive 1.5 hours of research credit for their participation. I understand that as a volunteer, I am free to discontinue the research at any time before, during, or after the study. It has been made clear to me that my name is not required on the questionnaires. Although my name will be known to the researchers, no names will ever be attached to the data, except a code number, so that I could be contacted for the interview. I understand that all of the completed questionnaires and material used for the interviews will be kept strictly in confidence at all times, and stored in the researchers’ laboratory for 3 years and then shredded. It has been made clear to me that no scores or information on any single individual will ever be made available. I have been given a copy of this consent form to keep for my records. I, the undersigned, have been informed as to the nature of this study, and do hereby give my consent to participate. Date: Phone #: Participant Signature Would you like to receive a summary report of our findings? Yes No If yes, please provide a mailing Address:

Trent UniversityParticipant Feedback Sheet

Project: Religiosity and spirituality: Setting them apart, and mediating factors between them and subjective well-being

Researcher: Ruba Ali, undergraduate student, Trent UniversityPhone: (705) 748-9474, Email: raali@trentu.ca

Supervisor: Gary T. Reker, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Trent UniversityPhone: (705) 748-1508, Email: greker@trentu.ca_____________________________________________________________________________

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you again for your participation in this study, which examined how religiosity and spirituality are different, and how personal meaning mediates the relationship between them and well-being. Below is a brief explanation of what the questionnaire packages you had completed earlier in the study assessed.

The Are You Spiritual Scale (AYS)? was used to determine whether you consider yourself to be spiritual, in light of reading the definition of spirituality provided, and the extent to which your spirituality is important to you. Similarly, the Are You Religious Scale (AYR)? was used to determine whether you consider yourself to be religious, and the extent to which you are committed to your religion. Furthermore, the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS) was used to measure your beliefs and feelings about your spirituality in three dimensions: inner-connectedness, human compassion, and connectedness with nature. Moreover, the Age Universal I-E Scale (AUI-ES) was used to measure your level of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. In addition, the Life-Attitude Profile-Revised (LAP-R) was used to assess your opinions and feelings about life. The Metapersonal Self Scale (MSS) was used to identify whether you are characterized by a metapersonal self, according to the variety of feelings and behaviours related to yourself in various situations. Furthermore, the Perceived Well-Being Scale-Revised (PWBS-R) was used to assess your perceived mental and physical well-being. Finally, the Semantic Differential Scale-Revised (SDS-R) was used to assess the feelings and emotions that you held, when completing the questionnaire package.

After completing the questionnaire packages, some participants were called back for interviews. The interviews revealed that religiosity is perceived to be more about following organized, structure, and set beliefs, which come from external sources, such as a holy book, doctrine, or religious institution, and being affiliated with a religious institution or group. Spirituality, on the other hand, is perceived to be more about believing in fluid, unstructured beliefs, which come from internal sources, such as from within an individual, rather than acting on them, and not necessarily being affiliated with a particular religion or group. Spirituality and intrinsic religiosity were both positively and significantly correlated with an individual’s psychological well-being. It was also found that personal meaning acts as a significant mediator between each of intrinsic religiosity and spirituality, and well-being (physical and psychological well-being, as well as self-concept).

This research was conducted for partial fulfilment of my honours thesis degree. If you have any questions or concerns about the study, please feel free to contact my supervisor, Professor Gary Reker at Trent University, or myself. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ruba Ali

Appendix B: Feedback Sheet

Trent University

Participant Feedback SheetProject: Religiosity and spirituality: Setting them apart, and mediating factors

between them and subjective well-beingResearcher: Ruba Ali, undergraduate student, Trent University

Phone: (705) 748-9474, Email: raali@trentu.caSupervisor: Gary T. Reker, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Trent University

Phone: (705) 748-1508, Email: greker@trentu.ca_____________________________________________________________________________

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you again for your participation in this study, which examined how religiosity and spirituality are different, and how personal meaning mediates the relationship between them and well-being. Below is a brief explanation of what the questionnaire packages you had completed earlier in the study assessed.

The Are You Spiritual Scale (AYS)? was used to determine whether you consider yourself to be spiritual, in light of reading the definition of spirituality provided, and the extent to which your spirituality is important to you. Similarly, the Are You Religious Scale (AYR)? was used to determine whether you consider yourself to be religious, and the extent to which you are committed to your religion. Furthermore, the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS) was used to measure your beliefs and feelings about your spirituality in three dimensions: inner-connectedness, human compassion, and connectedness with nature. Moreover, the Age Universal I-E Scale (AUI-ES) was used to measure your level of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. In addition, the Life-Attitude Profile-Revised (LAP-R) was used to assess your opinions and feelings about life. The Metapersonal Self Scale (MSS) was used to identify whether you are characterized by a metapersonal self, according to the variety of feelings and behaviours related to yourself in various situations. Furthermore, the Perceived Well-Being Scale-Revised (PWBS-R) was used to assess your perceived mental and physical well-being. Finally, the Semantic Differential Scale-Revised (SDS-R) was used to assess the feelings and emotions that you held, when completing the questionnaire package.

After completing the questionnaire packages, some participants were called back for interviews. The interviews revealed that religiosity is perceived to be more about following organized, structure, and set beliefs, which come from external sources, such as a holy book, doctrine, or religious institution, and being affiliated with a religious institution or group. Spirituality, on the other hand, is perceived to be more about believing in fluid, unstructured beliefs, which come from internal sources, such as from within an individual, rather than acting on them, and not necessarily being affiliated with a particular religion or group. Spirituality and intrinsic religiosity were both positively and significantly correlated with an individual’s psychological well-being. It was also found that personal meaning acts as a significant mediator between each of intrinsic religiosity and spirituality, and well-being (physical and psychological well-being, as well as self-concept).

This research was conducted for partial fulfilment of my honours thesis degree. If you have any questions or concerns about the study, please feel free to contact my supervisor, Professor Gary Reker at Trent University, or myself. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ruba Ali

Appendix C: Interview Structure

INTERVIEW STRUCTURE

The interviewer will ask for the participant’s consent to have the interview audio-recorded for content analysis, which will be conducted later. If consent is not given, note taking will be sufficient. The interviewer will thank the participant for taking the time to attend the interview, and let him/her know that his/her participation is greatly appreciated, and that he/she can discontinue participation at any time before, during, or after the interview. The participant will be informed that the interview and its audio-recording will remain confidential at all times. The participant will also be informed that no name will ever be attached to the audio material, on which the interview will be recorded.

The interviewee will be shown his/her questionnaire package, which he/she had completed in the earlier stage of the study, and be reminded of how he/she had responded to particular questions, pertaining to how religious or spiritual he/she perceives him/herself to be (i.e. particularly Are You Spiritual? and Are You Religious?).

Questionnaire Package #:

Question #1: Sometime ago when you completed the set of questionnaires for our study, you had indicated that you are high/low in spirituality, and high/low in religiosity. What is it that makes you think that you’re more spiritual/religious than religious/spiritual?

Response:

Question #2: In your mind, what distinguishes religiosity from spirituality?

Response:

Question #3: When experiencing crises or problems, who do you turn to for comfort – do you reflect back to your inner self, or seek comfort from significant others (i.e. family, friends)?

Response:

Question #4: On a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being “not at all” and 7 being “extremely,” how important is it to you that you make significant contributions to the lives of those around you?

Response: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1= not at all2= not really3=slightly4=neutral5=moderately6=very7=extremely

Question #5: Would you describe yourself as a forgiving person?

Response: Yes No

Question #6: On a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being “not at all” and 7 being “extremely,” how satisfied are you with your spiritual and/or religious beliefs?

Response: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1= not at all2= not really3=slightly4=neutral5=moderately6=very7=extremely

Appendix D: Statistical Analyses