identity and spirituality

7/30/2019 Identity and Spirituality

1/21

International Journal of Transpersonal Studies86 MacDonald

Identity and Spirituality:Conventional and ranspersonal Perspectives

Douglas A. MacDonaldUniversity o Detroit Mercy

Detroit, MI, USA

Tough the relation o spirituality to sel has long been recognized in established spiritualand religious systems, serious scientic interest in spirituality and its relation to identity hasonly started to grow in the past 20 years. Tis paper overviews the literature on spiritualityand identity. Particular attention is given to describing and critiquing conventional andtranspersonal perspectives with emphasis given to empirically testable theories. UsingMacDonalds (1997, 2000) ve dimensional model o spirituality, a structural model ospirituality is proposed as is a model o spiritual identity ormation.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience

We are spiritual beings having a human experiencePierre eilhard de Chardin

Interest in spirituality within the scientic community

has grown sharply over the past three decades,

especially as it pertains to health, well-being, and

living the good lie. As a part o this swelling interest,

attention to the relation o spirituality to identity and

identiy ormation has also seen somewhat o a rise (e.g.,

Chae, Kelly, Brown, & Bolden, 2004; Cooney, 2006;

Goldstein, 2006; Juang & Syed, 2008; Kiesling, Sorell,

Montegomery, & Colwell, 2006; Lerner, Roeser, &

Phelps, 2008; Poll & Smith, 2003; Poll, 2003; empleton

& Eccles, 2006; ummala-Narra, 2009; Zinder, 2007).

o what extent does spirituality play a role in a

persons sense o sel ? Do we develop a spiritual identity

and, i so, what may its signicance be or understanding

human unctioning? Te primary aim o this paper is to

provide answers to these questions that will help promote

uture inquiry and theoretical development.

Beore we can enter into a discussion o spiritual

identity per se, however, there is a need to rst grapplewith questions o denition. What exactly is spirituality?

In order or meaningul science to proceed in this area,

there is a need to have a clear understanding o this

construct up ront.

What is Spirituality?

As noted by mysel and others over the past severalyears (e.g., Hoge, 1996; MacDonald, 2000;MacDonald & Friedman, 2002; Zinnbauer et al.,

1997) there is a considerable degree o variability in how

spirituality is dened in the literature. More particularly

and most pervasively, there have been and continue

to be our overlapping points o conusion regarding

spirituality, namely (a) its relation to religion and

religiousness, (b) its ontological status (i.e., is spirituality

real or merely a product o biopsychosocial processes?),

(c) its dimensionality (e.g., is it a single construct or is

it multidimensional?), and (d) its relation to and place

within personality psychology (i.e., is it best understood

to be a part o personality or is it something dierent?).

Following is a brie overview o each in turn, which

will lead to a denition o spirituality around which to

organize subsequent discussion concerning its relation

to, and relevance or, identity.

Spirituality and Religion

While a growing number o researchers proer

that religion and spirituality are related but dierent (e.g.,

George, Larson, Koenig, & McCullough, 2000; Hill et

al., 2000; MacDonald, 2000; MacDonald & Friedman,2001), examination o the extant research indicates that

the two terms are oten treated as synonyms and are used

interchangeably and/or are presented as a conceptual

usionreligion/spirituality (e.g., Fleck & Fleck, 2006;

Juang & Syad, 2008).

Notwithstanding the traditional conounding

and conuence o these two constructs1, a common

distinction now made between spirituality and religion

concerns the extent to which they are personal and

International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28, 2009, pp. 86-106


2/21

International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 87Identity and Spirituality

experiential versus learned and social, respectively.

Religion is generally seen as relating to belies, doctrines,

and practices associated with membership in a religious

institution (MacDonald & Friedman, 2001, p. 20; see

also Sharanske & Malony, 1990). Spirituality, in contrast,

is considered to entail an experientially grounded sense

o connection with, or participatory consciousness o, the

sacred, transcendent, numinous or some orm o

higher power or intelligence (Elkins, 1990; Gro & Gro,

1990). Within this distinction, while religion may be seen

as acilitating the emergence o spirituality, and could

even be thought o as a signicant agent o socialization

in things spiritual (e.g., it gives people the language,

concepts, and practices that can help them understand

and develop their spirituality), religion alone is not seen

as necessary or such emergence to occur (Gro & Gro,

1990).

Te Reality o Spirituality

Nested within this somewhat clear-cut delin-

eation resides another more subtle but very signicant

issue: Is the stu o spirituality (i.e., the sacred or

transcendent) real? Tat is, does it exist independent

o an experient or is it a quality o human experience

that can be explained in similar terms to other areas o

human unctioning and experience (e.g., it is a product o

biology, learning, socialization, and psychical dynamics)?

Tis issue is really a question o metaphysics (i.e., it

concerns whether or not the so-called transcendent is

supernatural and, as such, knowable)2 and, as has been

argued by Slie, Hope, and Nebeker (1999) as well as

mysel (MacDonald & Friedman, 2001), this issue

has not been adequately addressed in current scientic

approaches to spirituality. In act it has been essentially

ignored, with some prominent researchers (e.g.,

Pargament, 1997) advocating or the unctional study o

religious and spiritual phenomena in lieu o substantive

approaches aimed at testing the verdicality o claims o

the reality o the transcendent and the existence o a

higher power or intelligence.

Despite this undamental problem, and, in act,probably in response to it, many supposed non-religious

conceptualizations o spirituality can be biurcated into

two groupstheistic and existentialwith the ormer

typically being grounded in the Judeo-Christian

theological tradition (e.g., they assume in the existence

o a soul and a single deity which serves as the primal

causal principle o reality) and the latter in humanistic/

existential theory and philosophy (e.g., the transcendent

is a unction o the human mind that is concerned

with meaning-making). Examples o the ormer can

be ound in Richards and Bergin (1997) and Poll and

Smith (2003) while existential approaches are illustrated

by Elkins et al. (1988) and Wink and Dillon (2002).3

Consequently, notwithstanding eorts to dierentiate

the two constructs, the appearance o a conound with

religion (theology) continues to exist in many denitions

o spirituality.

Te Dimensionality o Spirituality

Given the manner in which spirituality

is dierentiated rom religion, it may appear that

spirituality may be understood as a relatively

straightorward construct (i.e., it is the extent to which

a person experiences and acknowledges the reality o the

numinous or transcendent either or both as something

that exists separately rom the person and/or aids the

person in ascribing meaning to existence). However,

a perusal o the available theory and research quickly

leads one to question such a simple conceptualization.

Examination o available measurement instrumentation

makes this issue quite salient; while there are many

measures o spirituality and related constructs currently

available (MacDonald, LeClair, Holland, Alter, &

Friedman, 1995; MacDonald, Kuentzel, & Friedman,

1999; MacDonald, Friedman, & Kuentzel, 1999), there

is an almost breathtaking variety o descriptive and

conceptual models, some o which treat spirituality

as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Kass et al., 1991;

Whiteld, 1984; Corrington, 1989) and others as a

multidimensional one (e.g., Elkins et al., 1988; Howden,

1992). Within the latter models, which, incidentally,

have become more prominent in spirituality research

since the 1990s, the number o dimensions included can

range rom two (e.g., Ellison, 1983) to nine (e.g., Elkins

et al., 1988) with only some obvious correspondence in

their content. o help the reader appreciate the range o

models, able 1 presents the dimensions o our dierent

tests.

Tough it may be contended that the availability

o a variety o models and associated measures is to thebenet o science since it permits or cross-examination

and verication o ndings across dierent models,

when researchers have reviewed the literature rom the

point o view o multidimensional models, it has been

observed that the relation o spirituality to such things

as health and well-being varies across dimensions. For

instance, using a ve dimensional model o spirituality

developed by MacDonald (1997, 2000), MacDonald

and Friedman (2002) examined the published research


3/21


concerning spirituality and health and ound dierent

patterns o association depending on the dimension o

spirituality used.4 Ostensibly, this raises questions about

the meaning o the available research and the claims that

spirituality is ubiquitously linked to health.

Spirituality and Personality

Te nal area o ambiguity concerns the

relation o spirituality to personality. For the sake

o this discussion, I am using the term personality to

reer to a broad construct domain that concerns those

aspects o human unctioning (e.g., biology, learning)

responsible or the consistency o behavior across time

and situations. In this context, identity or sel-concept

may be understood as being subsumed by personality

(and seen as at least partially a unction o it) but not the

other way around (i.e., a persons conscious sense o seldoes not account or all causal inuences on behavior

that might be attributed to personality).

Within the area o personality psychology,

with its general emphasis on causes o behavior that are

either endogeneous to the individual or, at best, are an

interaction o these internal actors with interpersonal

and social processes, spirituality has come to be viewed

as a component o personality that helps to account or

behavioral consistencies (e.g., Cloninger, Svrakic, &

Pryzbeck, 1993; Piedmont, 1999; Piedmont & Leach,

2002; Saucier & Skrzypinska, 2006). Tough this unto

itsel is not surprisingpsychology ater all concerns

itsel mostly with the scientic study o the mind,

consciousness, and behavior o individualswhat has

been more controversial is whether or not spirituality is

best understood as a unction o common personality

traits (e.g., is it an aspect o Openness to Experience

in the well-known Five Factor Model o personality?

[Costa & McCrae, 1992]), and/or neuroanatomical

structures and processes that are associated with known

personality traits, or i it represents an entirely new

domain o individual unctioning (MacDonald, 2000;

Piedmont, 1999). As I have argued elsewhere, in order

or spirituality to hold any import or science, it needs

to uniquely and incrementally account or dierencesin human behavior and experience above and beyond

conventional aspects o unctioning.

Even more controversial, however, is the

matter o whether or not personality (both in terms o

its psychological and biological causes) is best viewed

as the cause o spirituality. For example, though they

relate spirituality to personality and brain unctioning,

Gro (1985) and Levin (2001) suggested that

spirituality may involve nonphysical and nonmaterial

able 1. Examples o Multidimensional Models o Spirituality

___________________________________________________________________________________ Spiritual Psychomatrix Spirituality Spiritual

Orientation Spirituality Assessment AssessmentInventory Inventory Scale Inventory

___________________________________________________________________________________

Primary Elkins et al. (1988) Wolman (1997) Howden (1992) Hall & EdwardsCitation (1996)

___________________________________________________________________________________Dimensions (a) ranscendent (a) Awareness o (a) Uniying (a) Instability

Dimension a higher power interconnectedness (b) Deensiveness/(b) Meaning and (b) Spiritual (b) Purpose and disappointment

Purpose in Lie Activities Meaning in lie (c) Awareness(c) Mission in Lie (c) Use o healing (c) Innerness (d) Realistic(d) Sacredness in practices (d) ranscendence acceptance

Lie (d) Experience o (e) Grandiosity(e) Material Values trauma( ) Altruism (e) Body Awareness

(g) Idealism ( ) Religious history(h) Awareness o (g) Current religious

the tragic practices(i) Fruits o

spirituality


4/21


processes (e.g., psychic energy) which themselves may

not be wholly understood in terms o the brain and

individual personality. Even within more conventional

neurobiological approaches to spirituality there are

arguments oered that brain structures implicated in

spirituality may not be the cause but rather may only

be correlative expressions o it, expressions which, o

themselves, do not reduce spirituality to neurobiology

but instead suggest that spirituality can be meaningully

studied in a manner consistent with the assumptions o

naturalistic science (Joseph, 2000; Newberg, DAquili,

& Rause, 2001).

Spirituality Defned

As the reader can no doubt appreciate, dening

spirituality in a manner that is scientically sound is not

an easy task. In act, i one were to evaluate the success

o available eorts at dening the construct that also

give sucient attention to the issues and controversies

mentioned above, one might be quick to conclude that

little systematic progress has been made over the past

several years. One might in the end be tempted to agree

with Hoge (1996) who stated that the term spiritual

has such vague and unbounded meanings that it is

barely useul, and ts poorlyi at allwith prevailing

psychological theories (p. 21).

Fortunately, i one is discerning in reviewing

the literature, one will discover that there has been some

positive movement toward a better understanding o

what spirituality is, at least as it concerns some o the

various issues outlined above. For instance, there is some

empirical evidence supporting the distinction between

religiousness and spirituality, and between spirituality

and the ve actor trait model o phenotypic personality

(MacDonald, 2000; Piedmont, 1999; Saucier &

Skrzypinska, 2006; Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Further, and

perhaps most importantly, research strongly indicates

that spirituality is a complex multidimensional domain

o human unctioning (Elkins et al., 1988; Howden,

1992; MacDonald, 2000; Wolman, 1997).

What precisely are the dimensions comprisingthe content domain o spirituality? While many o the

existing multidimensional models are laudable attempts

to identiy the main components (e.g., both Elkins et al.,

1988 and Howden, 1992 completed exhaustive literature

reviews in an eort to identiy all the main acets), most

are ultimately o marginal value because they do not

bring order to the myriad o models already ound in

the literature. Instead, they simply add to the conusion

about what is and is not spirituality. What is needed is

research that examines the available models empirically

so as to uncover salient latent constructs that cut across

them and can be used as a ramework or organizing and

dening the content domain o spirituality.

Recognizing the value that multivariate

techniques have had in bringing order in the areas o

personality (e.g., ve actor model) and intelligence (e.g.,

hierarchical actor models), MacDonald (1997, 2000),

completed a large scale actor analytic study aimed at

identiying common latent traits underlying existing

spirituality measures. In particular, he completed a

series o actor analyses o about 20 available measures

o spirituality and associated constructs using data

obtained rom a total o 1400 participants and ound

evidence o the existence o ve robust actors. Tese

dimensions were labeled Cognitive Orientation toward

Spirituality (i.e., spiritual belies about the existence o

the transcendent and its relevance to sel and day-to-

day lie), Experiential/ Phenomenological Dimension

(i.e., spiritual experience), Existential Well-Being (i.e.,

sense o meaning and purpose and o being able to

cope with the existential uncertainties o lie, such as

the meaning o death), Paranormal Belies (i.e., belies

in the possibility that parapsychological phenomena

are real), and Religiousness (i.e., belies in the existence

o a higher power/intelligence and behavioral practices

consistent with religious traditions such as prayer

and meditation, similar to the well-known notion o

intrinsic religious orientationsee Allport & Ross, 1967).

MacDonald (2000) contended that these dimensions,

while not necessarily exhaustive o what may be

considered spirituality, reect the expressive modalities

o spirituality that orm core descriptive components o

the construct (p. 185-186).

Tere are several aspects o MacDonalds

(1997, 2000) work and model that make it particularly

appealing and potentially useul or the purposes o

understanding spiritual identity. First, he took care in

acknowledging many o the controversies surrounding

the measurement o spirituality and attempted to addressthem by generating a set o working assumptions that

guided his subsequent empirical work. For example,

in light o the act that it has been characterized as

undamentally ineable (MacDonald et al, 1995) he

recognized the limitations o language in adequately

and accurately capturing spirituality as it is directly

experienced; he also conceded up ront that spirituality

per se cannot be measured but that its expressions, as

maniest in thought, eelings, and behavior can be


5/21


in a manner consistent with conventional scientic

methods. As another example, MacDonald (1997, 2000)

maintained that spirituality is related to, but ultimately

not the same as, general religiousness. Nonetheless, he

argued that intrinsic religiosity (aka intrinsic religious

orientation, ultimate religion, esoteric religion) that

involves personal investment and involvement in religion

in order to acilitate genuine spiritual development

through the lived realization o the transcendent or the

sacred, should be treated as a component o spirituality.

Second, MacDonald (1997, 2000) took care

to ensure that the widest possible number o spiritual

constructs were considered and incorporated into his

actor analytic study, especially those represented within

the more rigorously developed multidimensional models

available at the time (e.g., Elkins et al., 1988; Howden,

1992). When explicit measures o an important aspect

o spirituality could not be ound, MacDonald devised

items to operationalize them (e.g., he could not nd any

instruments that directly measured spiritual identity

so he wrote several items or use in an experimental

measure to cover it). Tus, he made concerted eorts to

best guarantee that no signicant area o spirituality was

excluded in model development.

Tird, arising rom his actor analytic work,

MacDonald constructed a paper-and-pencil scale, called

the Expressions o Spirituality Inventory (ESI) to be used

in spirituality research. In examining its psychometric

properties, he has ound evidence indicating the ESI

has satisactory reliability, and excellent actorial,

convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity (e.g.,

all ve dimensions correlate in expected directions with

theoretically similar and dissimilar measures; dimensions

can dierentiate between people who are actively

religious versus non-religious and who report having

had a spiritual experience versus not having had such an

experience; minimal conound with age, sex, and social

desirability). Using this instrument, he has been able to

demonstrate that the dimensions dierentially relate to

several aspects o human unctioning including complex-partial epileptic-like signs (MacDonald & Holland,

2002a), boredom proneness (MacDonald & Holland,

2002b), and psychopathology (MacDonald, 1997;

MacDonald & Holland, 2003). As well, he has ound

that the ESI dimensions are related to, but conceptually

unique rom, the domains o the Five Factor Model o

personality (MacDonald, 2000) and six o the seven

components o the seven actor model o temperament

and character (MacDonald & Holland, 2002c).5

Based upon these considerations, MacDonalds

ve dimensional model will be used as the ramework

or discussing the relationship o identity to spirituality.

Identity and Spirituality

While this paper started with a statement thatinterest in spiritual identity has been on theincrease in recent times, the act o the matter is that

spirituality and identity or ones sense o sel have

been intimately linked in the spiritual, religious, and

psychological literature or many years. For instance,

within both Buddhism and Hinduism, two venerable

traditions, there is extensive discussion given to the sel

and how to attain an understanding o its true spiritual

nature (e.g., see Byrom, 1990; Cleary, 1989; Suzuki,

1957; Suzuki, Fromm, & DeMartino, 1960). Within

psychology, one can trace ideas regarding the relation

o identity to spirituality back to William James (1890,

1902) as well as to other prominent gures including

Erik Erikson (e.g., Erikson, 1958, 1969, 1996; Erikson,

Erikson, & Kivnick, 1986), Gordon Allport (e.g., Allport

1955), Carl Jung (e.g., Coward 1985; Jung 1967, 1969)

Abraham Maslow (e.g., Maslow 1970, 1971) and Carl

Rogers (e.g., Rogers, 1961, 1963, 1980; Cartwright &

Mori, 1988), to name just a ew. More recently, scholars

and practitioners in the subdiscipline o transpersonal

psychology6 have advanced sophisticated theoretical

models integrating spirituality and sel, oten within a

developmental ramework (e.g., Gro, 1985, 1988; Gro

& Gro, 1990; Washburn, 1988; Wilber, 1980, 2000;

Wilber, Engler, & Brown, 1986).

When examining the variety o perspectives

available concerning the relation and interplay o

spirituality and identity, it becomes readily apparent

that there is a distinction to be made based upon how

identity itsel is conceptualized. In most conventional

psychological theory, which or better or worse is heavily

inuenced o psychodynamic thought, identity is

typically dened in egoic terms. Tat is, a persons sense

o sel is generally seen as circumscribed (i.e., has dened

boundaries), is highly individualized, and is, or themost part, subjective. Tis applies not only to explicitly

psychodynamic theory (such as the ego psychology o

Erikson) but also to many humanistic and existential

views o the individual (e.g., see Schneider, 1987, 1989).

Within such conceptualizations, spiritual identity most

oten is dened as how the individual ego relates to and

incorporates spirituality into its personal sense o sel.

Stated dierently, insoar as spirituality relates to the

transcendent, then spiritual identity involves how one


6/21


experiences and integrates their sense o relationship to

the transcendent into their egoic sel-sense. Given this,

it might be said that spiritual identity involves the egoic

identication with aspects o experience considered

spiritual (i.e., it is the identication with specic contents

o experience that are dened as spiritual). As illustrative

o this perspective, Wink and Dillon (2002, p. 79) dened

spirituality, and by association spiritual identity, as the

sels existential search or ultimate meaning through an

individualized understanding o the sacred. In a similar

vein, Kiesling and coauthors (2006) considered spiritual

identity to be a role-related aspect o an individuals

overall sense o ego identity which maniests as a

persistent sense o sel that addresses ultimate questions

about the nature, purpose, and meaning o lie (p.

1270).

In contrast, there is another view, best represented

in the mystical, philosophical, and spiritual literature

but now ormalized most ostensibly in transpersonal

theory, that argues identity may not be delimited to ego

and egoic unctions but rather is undamentally spiritual

in nature. From this perspective, the boundaries that

demarcate the ego (i.e., sel rom not-sel), are not

absolute and immutable but rather are constructed,

malleable, and even arbitrary, capable o being modied

(e.g., expanded or contracted) or dissolved altogether.

Nowhere in the modern psychological literature is this

view better articulated than by Maslow (1968) who, ater

his studies o exceptional human unctioning inclusive

o religious and spiritual considerations said,

I should say also that I consider Humanistic,

Tird Force Psychology to be transitional, a

preparation or a still higher Fourth Psychology,

transpersonal, transhuman, centered in the cosmos

rather than in human needs and interests, going

beyond humanness, identity, sel-actualization, and

the like. (pp. iii-iv)

From this point o view, spiritual identity not only relates

to the extent to which the content o egoic identity maybe construed as spiritual, it also involves both an analysis

o the undamental nature o the structure (i.e., sel-not

sel boundary) and the processes (e.g., identication and

disidentication) through which identity is developed

and expressed. In the end, identity and spirituality

are seen as being ultimately the sameboth reect the

inherent true nature o reality as expressed in absolute

unitary consciousness where distinctions between sel

and not-sel cease to operate (Wilber, 2000).7

Te discussion will now turn to overviewing

some o the more substantive available theory and

research as they relate to these two broad approaches to

identity and spirituality.

Ego and Psychosocial Approaches

As noted by Kiesling et al. (2006), Erik

Eriksons liespan psychosocial model has served as a

catalyst or research and theoretical development on

identity development and, rom what can be ound in

the literature, provides much o the context in which

current studies o spiritual identity are done. According

to this model (Erikson, 1980), identity may generally be

understood as being the product o the interaction o

the individual (in terms o experiences and personality)

with socio-historical inuences which results in a sense

o continuity o ones sense o sel both subjectively and

interpersonally. More specically, however, Kiesl ing

and colleagues (2006) cited Marcia (1966) as being

among the rst to systematically explore how spirituality

(actually religion) relates to identity ormation and

credited him or stimulating subsequent work (e.g.,

Hunsberger, Pratt & Pancer, 2001; Marcia, 1993,

Markstrom, 1999; isdell, 2002). Tey also criticized

earlier research on the basis that it tended to ocus on

spirituality/religion in adolescent identity ormation.

Since spirituality is oten seen as something that is more

commonly expressed in later lie, they asserted that

there is a need to study spiritual identity in adults.

In their own study, Kiesling et al. (2006)

used an adaptation o Marcias (1966, 1993) identity

status model to study role salience (i.e., importance

o spirituality to sense o selseen as analogous to

Marcias notion o exploration) and role exibility

(i.e., extent to which consideration has been giving

to changing ones sense o spiritual identityseen as

an extension o Marcias concept o commitment) in

a sample o 28 adults identied as being spiritually

devout. Using a highly detailed interview schedule, they

obtained extensive inormation about the motivational,

emotional, ego-evaluative, and behavioral aspects oa variety o social roles related to dierent aspects o

identity, including spiritual identity. Tey also included

questions asking about the extent to which they have

considered changing each role.

Content analysis o the interview data led

Kiesling et al. (2006) to identiy three main themes

which they labeled salience and meaning, inuence and

investment, and reectiveness/continuity and change,

respectively. Participants were then categorized into


7/21


identity status categories o oreclosed, moratorium, and

achieved identities. Eleven participants were assigned to

the oreclosed group while our were placed in moratorium

and 13 in achieved. able 2 presents a summary o some

o their more salient qualitative ndings, organized

in terms o the three themes identied in the content

analysis. Based on their results, Kiesling et al. concluded

that role-related spiritual identity is an important part

o ego identity in adults. Further, they indicated that

(a) spirituality appears to oster a sense o connection

with either a higher power, a spiritual community, or

with highly valued aspects o sel, (b) interactions with

signicant others strongly inuences how spirituality

is used or meaning-making, (c) adults eorts to

realize their positive traits and avoid or deny negative

ones contributed to the creation o spiritual identity, (d)

spiritual identity appears to require conscious eort to

develop and maintain, and (e) spiritual identity seems to

embody patterns o continuity and change in a manner

similar to other aspects o identity seen in adulthood.

able 2. Summary o some key fndings o Kiesling et als (2006) study o spiritual identity (SI)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________Foreclosed Moratorium Achieved___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Salience/ Saw SI as inherited Motivated by Saw SI as aMeaning and a part o childhood. Psychological choice

benet or byReliance on authority intellectual and Highest ratingsand amily ethical considerations o motivation

intensity; reseachersSaw spirituality as No reliance on authority had diculty classiyingimportant role in to dene truth motivation quality.lie; could not Many reportednot oresee implications Mostly positive psychological beneto abandoning SI aect about SI o SI

with negativeMotivated to have intimate identity ragments Highest level oand secure relationship that prompted change aect intensity andwith higher power impact o SI on sel-

perception and worth

Could oresee consequenceso loss o SI

SI used to ascribe meaningto tragedy/trauma

Inuence/ SI had notable impact SI had variable impact SI seen as governingInvestment on sel-perception and and import on sel- behavior or most

sel-worth perception and sel-worth participantsLess ease in relating

Family, ethnicity, and to higher power

religious traditionstrong determinants o Variable investmentsel-evaluation and impact on daily

behaviorRole related SI organizeddaily behavior

Continuity/ Little to no questioning Serious doubts and High ratings orChange o SI extensive reectiveness reectiveness and

behavioral change


8/21


In contrast to Kiesling et al. (2006) who

contextualized their study entirely in terms o identity

status theory and utilized a somewhat simplistic existential

denition o spiritual identity, Poll and Smith (2003)

attempted to construct a new theory o spiritual identity

development though the integration o current theories

o identity (i.e., psychodynamic, cognitive, narrative,

and systems) as they relate to spirituality. Borrowing

the theistic assumptions o Richards and Bergin (1997),

which include belie in the existence o God and a soul,

they dened spiritual identity as an individuals belie

that she or he is an eternal being and connected to

God (p. 129), and proposed a our stage model o how

spiritual identity develops across the liespan. Tough

they maintained that spiritual development can and does

occur in childhood, they also suggested, based ostensibly

upon Christian doctrine (they even cite Biblical scripture),

that spiritual identity can emerge in adulthood as a result

o a second birth or rebirth. Consequently, they stated

that the development o spiritual identity may not occur

in a linear manner. As well, Poll and Smith contended

that the mechanism by which spiritual identity develops

is through the interaction o spiritual experiences and

the eorts o the individual to integrate such experiences

into a constructed sense o sel. Finally, they indicated

that the extent to which spiritual identity positively

impacts overall unctioning and well-being is a product

o the extent to which there is a match between a persons

experiences and behavior, and their God image.

Te our stage model o Poll and Smith begins

with the stage o Pre-awareness during which individuals

do not have any conscious awareness o themselves

as eternal beings in relationship to God. In this stage,

people do not think o themselves in spiritual terms,

despite the possibility that they may have had spiritual

experiences. Te second stage, Awakening, is said by Poll

and Smith to be activated by a period o crisis, conict,

and/or learning which prompts the individual to begin

thinking o themselves as a spiritual being. Te quality

o this awareness, however, is described as inconsistent,ragmented, and typically situationally specic (e.g., a

person only thinks o God when involved in a crisis).

Stage three, Recognition, involves the recollection o

earlier spiritual experiences which are then compared

to the experiences arising in stage two. Te individual

begins to generalize across situations and starts to develop

a more stable sense o spiritual identity. Te salience and

importance o this sense o sel, however, is still not

ully expressed (i.e., other more social aspects o identity

will typically be given more weight and attention). Te

ourth and nal stage, Integration, involves the using

o spiritual experiences with ones sel-concept and an

emergence o a sense o ones eternal spiritual identity.

For people in this stage, spirituality comes to occupy a

core place in their sense o identity.

Outside o these studies, a number o

publications have appeared examining the role o

spirituality in ones overall ethnic identity (e.g., Fukayama

& Sevig, 2002; Paranjpe, 1998), and in the identity o

women and adolescents, respectively. In the case o the

ormer, research indicates that dierent ethnic groups,

most notably Arican Americans, appear to consider

spirituality a more central part o their sel-concepts and

ethnic identities than White Americans (Chae, Kelly,

Brown, & Bolden, 2004; Markstrom, 1999; Zinder,

2007). With regard to adolescents, evidence suggests

that spirituality, religion, and ethnicity hold a air degree

o import to their sense o identity, and that this in turn

appears to be related to a variety o positive outcomes

(Juang & Syed, 2008).

Comment on the Ego and Psychosocial Approaches

Tough the available theory and research

provide an interesting starting point or exploration o

the spirituality-identity relationship rom an ego and

psychosocial theoretical ramework, the existing work

leaves much to be desired with regard to its conceptual and

methodological rigor. Tis is especially so with regards

to the manner in which spirituality and spiritual identity

are dened. In the case o the Kiesling et al. (2006) study,

spirituality is essentially treated as a unidimensional

construct and spiritual identity reduced to a mere social

role with existential overtones. As importantly, and as the

researchers admit, the use o a small non-representative

sample o adults which did not reect the entire range o

identity statuses (i.e., diused spiritual identity was not

included) constrains generalizability o ndings as does

the use o a narrative based qualitative methodology

requiring subjective interpretation o the data by the

researchers. Such methods are prone to conrmatorybiases.

While adopting a seemingly simplistic denition

o spiritual identity, Poll and Smith (2003), appeared

to explicitly acknowledge and incorporate a variety o

components o spirituality, most notably belies and

experiences as well as existential considerations, into their

model. Tey even attempted to address the metaphysical

problems related to the verdicality o the transcendent

(i.e., the existence o God and a soul). Unortunately,


9/21


their solution to the problem seems inadequate since it

amounts to the religionizing o spirituality. Tat is, by

adopting a clearly Judeo-Christian set o assumptions

about the existence and nature o God and the soul,

Poll and Smith end up marginalizing their theory

and limiting it, at best, to socio-cultural contexts and

populations or which the Judeo-Christian worldview is

the predominant way o understanding spirituality. Given

this, it is dicult to see how their model would apply to

people o diering religious and spiritual traditions.

ranspersonal Approaches to Spiritual Identity

While transpersonal theories acknowledge

the existence o ego and o the various inuences

on the ormation and maintenance o egoic identity

(e.g., socialization, relationships, social roles), unlike

conventional psychological theory, they also assert that

the content and structure o ones sense o sel can dier

rom typical ego-based identity. Tis assertion is largely

derived rom Eastern spiritual and philosophical traditions

(Buddhist and Hindu philosophy most specically)

which maintain that the ego or ones separate sel-sense

is illusory and that the undamental nature o sel is

synonymous with the insights garnered through the states

o enlightenment. In the case o Hindu-based philosophy,

this is understood in terms o the inherent sameness

between ones sel (Atman) and the causal principle o

the maniest universe (Brahman). In Buddhist thought,

this is articulated in terms o the realized non-reality o

any sense o sel (e.g., as can be seen in the notion o

nirvana or extinguishing o the sel). In either case, one

sees a signicant departure rom traditional Western

psychological views o sel and identity.

While there are a variety o theories available

that attempt to articulate a transpersonal perspective on

identity, two such wil l be overviewed here.8 Te rst is the

model o sel-expansiveness proposed by Friedman (1983)

which is a wholly transpersonal theory, and the second is

the concept o sel-transcendence proposed by Cloninger

as part o his seven actor model o temperament and

character (Cloninger, Svrakic, & Pryzbeck, 1993).Realizing the need or scientic investigation to

test the validity o transpersonal psychological theory,

Friedman (1983) attempted to develop a model o

identity that reconciles conventional views o sel-concept

with those o the great spiritual traditions. In his model,

he considered the Sel (i.e., the term used to denote

the undamental nature o identity, consciousness, and

reality as per some o those spiritual traditions) to be

inherently embedded in the universe and maintained that

the relation o sel to not-sel is arbitrary and potentially

unlimitedanything that is part o the universe may

serve as an object with which one might identiy and

consider part o ones personal identity. Consequently,

the Sel can be conceived o as the ground upon which

ones sel-concept is derived. While he asserted that the

Sel is invariant and unmeasurable (Friedman, 1983, p.

38), the sel-concept, dened as that which is experienced

as orming an individuals personal sense o identity, is

measurable. As an extension o this, Friedman adopted

the position o a psychological cartographer and advanced

a two-dimensional model o sel-concept expansiveness

which permits the understanding o the sel-concept in

terms o its boundaries in demarcating aspects o the Sel

that are, and are not, experienced by the individuals as

components o their personal identities. Te dimensions

themselves are a combination o Sampsons (1978) notion

o identity spatiality (i.e., locus o identity in space) and

Shostroms (1963) concept o temporality o sel-concept

(i.e., the degree o present-centeredness versus past or

uture orientedness o identity). In essence, Friedman

created a two dimensional ramework that can be used to

map the sel-concept onto the Sel. In this model, greater

expansiveness o sel-concept is viewed as representing

the degree o sel-realization, orspiritual development

(Friedman, 1983, p. 39).

Using this cartographical model, Friedman

then identied three general levels o sel-expansiveness

which he called the Personal (wherein the sel-concept

is experienced in terms o the here-and-now; seen by

Friedman as similar to typical conceptualizations o sel-

concept), the ranspersonal (where the sel-concept is

extended to include aspects o the universe that go beyond

the here-and-now into other times and places), and the

Middle (the area between the personal and transpersonal;

sel-concept goes beyond the here-and-now but not to

the point where there it would be considered as involving

a dissolution o a separate sel-sense; identication

with social roles, relationships, and groups might be

viewed as alling at this level). In addition, using onlythe personal and transpersonal levels, Friedman (1984;

Friedman & MacDonald, 1997) developed a matrix

wherein health is predicted based upon low versus high

identication with both levels. Low identication with

both the personal and transpersonal levels is viewed as

being reective o neurotic disorders. Low identication

with the Personal combined with high identication

with the ranspersonal is viewed as consistent with the

presence o psychotic processes. High identication with


10/21


the Personal level in conjunction with low identication

with the ranspersonal is seen by Friedman as indicative

o conventional egoic health. Finally, high identication

with both the Personal and ranspersonal levels is seen

as a sign o transpersonal health (i.e., expanded sel-sense

and conventional ego unctions are integrated).

Based on his theoretical model, Friedman (1983)

constructed an 18-item paper-and-pencil test called

the Sel-Expansiveness Level Form (SELF) which has

been ound to have satisactory reliability (both inter-

item and test-retest) and airly good validity (actorial,

criterion, discriminant) with American, Canadian, and

Indian samples. As well, the scale operationalizing the

transpersonal level o sel-expansiveness has been ound

to be uncorrelated to measures o normal personality

including the NEO Personality Inventory (a measure o

the ve actor model o personality) and the Myers-Briggs

ype Indicator (a measure o Jungian psychological types),

suggesting that it may represent a unique dimension o

identity not adequately captured in predominant trait

and type models o personality (MacDonald, sagarakis,

& Holland, 1994; MacDonald, Gagnier, & Friedman,

2000; Friedman, MacDonald, & Kumar, 2004; Pappas

& Friedman, 2007).

urning to the work o Cloninger and

colleagues (see Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993),

sel-transcendence is a dimension o character that

is included as a one o the seven actors in Cloningers

psychobiological model o personality. In this model, a

distinction is made between components o personality

that are biologically based (temperament) versus learned

(character).9 Character in this model may be understood

as those aspects o personality that relate explicitly to sel-

concept. In the researchers words, sel-concepts vary

according to the extent to which a person identies the

sel as (1) an autonomous individual, (2) an integral part

o humanity, and (3) an integral part o the universe as

a whole (Cloninger et al., 1993, p. 975). Te character

dimensions are viewed as maturing in adulthood and [as]

inuenc[ing] personal and social eectiveness by insightlearning about sel-concepts (p. 975). More specically,

the character dimensions are portrayed as reecting the

development o increasingly inclusive concepts o the

sel leading up to identication o sel as an integral

part o the universe (sel-transcendence) (p. 986).

Sel-transcendence is dened as identication

with everything conceived as essential and consequential

parts o a unied whole (Cloninger et al., 1993, p. 981)

and was included in the model in order to accommodate

the ndings and insights rom the humanistic and

transpersonal literature. In its original incarnation, the

character trait was made up o three subcomponents

which, in turn, were viewed as reecting a three stage

developmental process. Tese subcomponents were

labeled sel-orgetul versus sel-conscious experience,

transpersonal identication versus sel-dierentiation, and

spiritual acceptance versus rational materialism. However,

the number o subcomponents was subsequently revised

and expanded to ve (Cloninger, 1996). Te newer ve

are called sel-orgetulness and resh experience versus

sel-conscious experience, transpersonal identication

versus sel-isolation, spiritual acceptance versus rational

materialism, enlightened versus objective, and idealistic

versus practical.

o assess his seven actor model, Cloninger

developed the emperament and Character Inventory

(CI), a paper-and-pencil personality questionnaire that

now exists in a variety o orms ranging in length rom

125-items to 293-items. In a 1996 version o the ull test

(i.e., Cloninger, 1996), sel-transcendence was made up

o ve subscales corresponding to the subcomponents

mentioned above. However, another revision o the test

was made in 1999 (CI-Revised; Cloninger, 1999) and

the number o subscales was essentially returned to the

original three.

In general, empirical support or CI and

CI-R Sel-ranscendence has been mixed; while

there is evidence indicative o good reliability or the

dimension as a whole, interitem reliability coecients

or the subscales have been less satisactory. Moreover,

actor analytic work has not consistently supported the

subscale structure o Sel-ranscendence nor has it shown

that Sel-ranscendence is independent o the other

dimensions (Farmer & Goldberg, 2008ab; MacDonald

et al., 1995; MacDonald, Friedman, & Kuentzel, 1999;

MacDonald & Holland, 2002c). While Cloninger et al.

(1993) reported that Sel-ranscendence demonstrates

independence rom the Five Factor Model o personality,

other investigations have ound a moderately strongassociation between it and Openness to Experience

(De Fruyt, Van De Wiele, & Van Herringen, 2000;

MacDonald & Holland, 2002d). Nevertheless, the CI

has ound itsel used in an impressive amount o research

and Sel-ranscendence has been ound to demonstrate

some empirical relations with a variety o variables

related to health and pathology (see Cloninger, 2008;

MacDonald, Friedman, & Kuentzel, 1999; Farmer &

Goldberg, 2008a, 2008b).


11/21


Comment on transpersonal approaches

In general, both o the transpersonal approaches

described here tend to place greatest emphasis on

identication with aspects o reality beyond both the

ego and the social realm as the dening eature o

spiritual identity. Te centrality aorded to the process

o identication in identity ormation in these theories

seems to all in line with that seen in more traditional

ego and psychosocial approaches. Further, both theories

and their associated measurement tools are among

only a small number that exclude explicit religious

concepts and terminology, making them appropriate or

application to a wider variety o respondent populations

than most measures.10 With that stated, there are

some problems worth noting. For instance, while CI

Sel-ranscendence has been ound to be appreciably

correlated to our o the ve ESI dimensions (all but

Existential Well-Being, which was ound to be most

strongly associated with the traits o Harm Avoidance

and Sel-Directedness), its subscales have been ound to

lack actorial stability (MacDonald & Holland, 2002c).

Further, there are questions as to whether or not it

should be see as a character trait (Farmer & Goldberg,

2008a, 2008b). Te SELF, alternatively, has been ound

to produce surprisingly small correlations to measures o

spirituality (MacDonald, 2000; MacDonald, Gagnier,

& Friedman, 2000), raising questions as to whether or

not it should be viewed as a measure o spiritual sel-

concept at all.11

In sum, though available approaches ound in

conventional and transpersonal psychological literature

are certainly intriguing, they all appear to suer rom

problems with conceptualization and/or measurement,

especially with regards to how spirituality and spiritual

identity are dened. What appears to be needed is an

empirically testable model that takes what is known about

the multidimensionality o spirituality and incorporates

it with what is known about key psychosocial and

developmental inuences on the ormation o identity

rom both conventional and transpersonal perspectives.Using MacDonalds (1997, 2000) ve dimensional model

o spirituality as the basis, a proposal or such a model

will be put orward here.

A Proposal or a Structural Model

o Spirituality and Spiritual Identity

MacDonalds multidimensional model appears toprovide a good map o the content domain ospirituality; each o the dimensions seems to embody a

substantive and unique aspect o spirituality as represented

in existing standardized tests. However, given that it was

developed using exploratory actor analytic procedures,

it is not a theory-driven model but a data-driven one.

Tat is, it is an atheoretical descriptive model. In order

or this model to meet the needs o the current task,

something needs to be applied to the model so as to

organize the dimensions so their inuence on identity

can be more clearly delineated. Fortunately, the available

theory and research appears to provide guidance in this

regard. Specically, it appears that the dimensions lend

themselves to be organized along biopsychosocial lines.

Spiritual experiences, reerred to as the

Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension in MacDon-

alds model, have been ound in people drawn rom

both clinical and non-clinical populations to have

highly reliable neuroanatomical correlates in the rontal,

temporal, and parietal lobes, as measured through EEG

and various brain imaging techniques (Beauregard &

OLeary, 2007; Newberg et al., 2001; Persinger, 1984).

Te robustness o nding has led some investigators

to conclude that our nervous systems are hardwired to

create spiritual experiences and that such experiences

are essentially naturally occurring phenomena that

are amenable to scientic study (e.g., Beauregard &

OLeary, 2007; Newberg et al., 2001). Extending rom

this, and insoar as one may subscribe to the naturalistic

assumptions o conventional science that maintain that

mind and consciousness are the product o biology, it

could be argued that spiritual experiences are part o

innate human developmental potential and a potent

causal actor in the expression o spirituality in all its

orms.

Te dimension o Religiousness, in contrast, is

ostensibly much more linked to social organizational and

socialization processes concerning spirituality. Tat is,

religion in general appears to be best viewed the socially-

mediated vehicle through which individuals learn

the language and practices that not only acilitate an

understanding o things spiritual, but also contribute to

the urther unolding o spirituality experientially (e.g.,by learning meditation, a practitioner can volitionally

induce spiritual experiences). Tus, both religiousness

and spiritual experiences seem to interplay and interact

to acilitate spirituality as a whole.12

urning next to MacDonalds dimensions

called Cognitive Orientation toward Spirituality and

Paranormal Belies, respectively, one nds a shit rom

experiential and socialization inuences to expressions

o spirituality involving core belies and attitudes about


12/21


ones sel and how spirituality can maniest through

human cognition and behavior. Tese belies and attitudes

appear to be best viewed as internalized oundational

cognitive schema that serve to shape the perceptions a

person has regarding the validity o spirituality and its

relevance to day-to-day unctioning. Included here, as

part o the ormer dimension, are belies about ones sel

as a spiritual beingthat is, spiritual identity.13 aken

together, it might be argued that these dimensions serve

a structural unction. Tat is, these types o belies serve

to help dene the limits/parameters o egoic unctions

and identity.

Te last o MacDonalds dimensions, Existential

Well-Being, is similar to the dimensions o Cognitive

Orientation toward Spirituality and Paranormal Belies

in that it seems to deal with perceptions o sel. However,

it diers in one important way. While Cognitive

Orientation involves generalized belies about the place o

spirituality within a persons overall perceptual schema,

Existential Well-Being seems to more specically relate to

the evaluation o ones unctioning. It appears to involve

the extent to which individuals perceive themselves as

coping and adapting adequately to stressors and lie

events. Tis can be inerred rom the content o items

rom the Expressions o Spirituality Inventory (ESI), the

measure o MacDonalds actor model; within Cognitive

Orientation toward Spirituality there are items such

as Spirituality is an important part o who I am as a

person, while Existential Well-Being includes such

items as I seldom eel tense about things, and I tend

to make poor decisions.

aken together, it seems that MacDonalds ve

actors can be organized into three levels o spirituality

with spiritual experience and religiousness comprising

primary spirituality (i.e., core causal actors that extend

beyond the psychological sense o sel but inuence its

ormation and unctioning), spiritual and paranormal

belies making up ego structural spirituality (i.e., core

cognitive schema that dene the limits o ego structure

and unctions), and existential well-being contributing

to ego-evaluative spirituality (i.e., the evaluation o

sel in terms o perceived eectiveness in coping with

Religiousness

Paranormal

Beliefs

CognitiveOrientation(Spiritual Identity)

Spiritual

Experience

Existential

Well-Being

Potential

Moderators:Ethnicity

Age

Potential

Mediators:

Locus of Control

Ego Permeability

Extraversion

Optimism

Social Support

Primary

Spirituallity:

Biosocial factors

associated with its

emergence

Ego Structural

Spirituality:

Beliefs, attitudes,

schema associ-

ated with impact of

primary factors on

ego functions

Ego-evaluative

Spirituallity:

Perceptions of self

in terms of ego

readiness to deal

with existential

adversity

Figure 1. Graphic depiction o the ull structural model based upon MacDonalds (1997, 2000) dimensions o spirituality.


13/21


14/21


15/21


language is not adequate in eectively representing

and communicating spirituality as it is experienced

(MacDonald & Friedman, 2001).

3. Tere have been some eorts to integrate the theistic

and existential perspectives into a single model o

spirituality. Te best example comes rom Paloutzian

and Ellison (1982) and Ellison (1983) who dene

spiritual well-being as being composed o a horizontal

dimension (existential) and a vertical dimension

(theistic or religious).

4. As an interesting point o inormation, while

researchers in America have tended to claim a

positive association between spirituality and health

(e.g., Plante & Sherman, 2001), investigators and

health care proessionals in other parts o the world

(e.g., United Kingdom) have noted that such a

relationship has not been consistently observed (e.g.,

see Gilbert, 2007).

5. In a number o studies currently in progress,

MacDonald has evidence suggesting that the ESI

dimensions are airly reliable and stable across cultures

and languages (e.g., the actors have been generally

replicated in samples obtained rom India, Uganda,

Japan, Korea, Poland, and the United States). He

also has data indicating that the ESI dimensions

are dierentially related to measures o sel-esteem,

subjective well-being, psychological well-being,

happiness, and a variety o existential constructs.

Findings rom both o these studies are currently in

process o being prepared or publication.

6. ranspersonal psychology was ounded in the late

1960s by Maslow and others and may be generally

understood as the area o psychology concerned with

the study o human consciousness, especially non-

ordinary states and modes o consciousness, and their

implications or acilitating health and exceptional

human unctioning. While controversial because

o its subscription to the idea that the true nature

o sel and reality is essentially spiritual in nature

(e.g., our highest developmental potential exceedsthat generally seen as possible by conventional

psychology), transpersonal psychology has been

a urtile area o inquiry and theory development

or those interested in incorporating spirituality

into their thinking about human unctioning and

potential.

7. From this point o view, which is probably the most

clearly articulated in Buddhist philosophy, the ego

is seen as illusory and as having no substance. Te

interested reader is reerred to the Diamond Sutra

(Price & Mou-lam, 1990), to learn more about this

perspective.

8. Friedmans (1983) and Cloningers models are

presented here because o their accessibility to

empirical research- both models have associated

paper-and-pencil measures. However, there are some

very impressive theories within the transpersonal

literature which have substantial signicance to

identity theory and research. O particular note is the

work o Ken Wilber (Wilber, 1980, 2000; Wilber,

Engler, & Brown, 1986) who has proposed a complex

stage model o consciousness and development

which sees the sel and sel-system as undergoing

qualitative change in its content, structure, and

unctions as it progresses through developmental

levels leading up to the highest expressions o sel in

non-dual consciousness.

9. Cloninger originally started with a three actor

model o temperament comprised o dimensions

called Novelty Seeking, Harm Avoidance, and

Reward Dependence (Cloninger, 1987; Cloninger,

Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1991). Subsequent empirical

work led him and his colleagues to expand the model

to include an additional temperament dimension-

Persistence- and three character dimensions called

Cooperativeness, Sel-Directedness, and Sel-

ranscendence (Cloninger et al., 1993). Te model

was developed originally or use in the clinical

diagnosis o personality disorders. In act, Cloninger

et al. (1993) have hypothesized that subtypes o

personality disorders can be dened in terms o

temperament variables whereas the presence or

absence o personality disorder may be dened in

terms o the character dimensions (p. 979).

10. Tough not o the Judeo-Christian variety, it may be

argued that the very assumptions o transpersonal

psychology itsel draws rom religious systems, mostly

those o Eastern origin and, as such, are not any less

religious than other approaches to spirituality.11. More broadly, the models o Friedman and Cloninger

(and, in act o virtually all psychological theories o

spiritual identity) do not accommodate the place o

disidentication in the development o spirituality.

As noted by Vaughan (1977), Eastern spiritual

systems, especially Buddhism, put a lot o emphasis

on the importance o disidentication with the ego

or separate sel-sense to acilitate the emergence o

true spiritual awakeningthe transpersonal [i.e.,


16/21


spiritual] sel is paradoxically experienced only as

a result o disidentication with the ego or the sel

dened by ones roles, possessions, activities, or

relationships (Vaughan, 1977, p. 76-77). In act,

according to Vaughan and transpersonal psychology

as a whole, it is only through disidentication with

the ego that transcendence o ones sense o sel can

occur.

12. Te interaction o religion and spiritual experiences

appears to be supported not only by the brain imaging

research, but also by genetic research. Waller et al.

(1990) completed a twin study examining the genetic

and environmental actors contributing to religious

values, attitudes, and interests and ound that about

50% o the variance o ve religious measures was

genetically inuenced.

13. MacDonald (1997, 2000) deliberately constructed

items to explicitly tap spiritual identity when

developing his actor model and the Expressions o

Spirituality Inventory. He ound that all identity

items loaded appreciably and reliably on Cognitive

Orientation toward Spirituality (COS). Tis nding

makes sense since it can be readily argued that

identity, spiritual or otherwise, is based on deeply

held belies about who and what we are as human

beings.

14. ranspersonal and integral developmental models

such as that o Ken Wilber (2000) suggest that

cognitive structures undergo change as a person

moves upward developmentally, much along the

lines suggested by Piagetian cognitive developmental

theory, except to levels and structures not addressed

or even acknowledged by Piagetian theory.

Consequently, it would be reasonable to contend that

ego-structural spirituality undergoes transormation

as a unction o such development. Tis, in turn,

would result in undamental changes in how one

perceives spiritual experiences, spiritual and religious

concepts and practices, and, ultimately, ones sel as

a spiritual being.

Acknowledgements

Te author would like to thank Harris Friedman,

Catherine sagarakis, and Nore Gjolaj or their helpul

comments on an earlier version o this paper.

Reerences

Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations or

a psychology o personality. New Haven, C: Yale

University Press.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious

orientation and prejudice.Journal o Personality and

Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443.

Beauregard, M., & OLeary, D. (2007). Te spiritual

brain: A neuroscientists case or the existence o the soul.

New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Byrom, . (rans.). (1990). Te heart o awareness: A

translation o the Ashtavakra Gita. Boston, MA:

Shambhala Press.

Cartwright, D. & Mori, (1988). Scales or assessing

aspects o the person. Person-Centered Review, 3,

176-194.

Chae, M. H., Kelly, D. B., Brown, C. F., & Bolden, M. A.

(2004). Relationship o ethnic identity and spiritual

development: An exploratory study. Counseling and

Values, 49(1), 15-26.

Cleary, . (1989). Zen essence: Te science o reedom.

Boston, MA: Shambhala Press.

Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method or clinical

description and classication o personality variants.

Archives o General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588.

Cloninger, C. R. (1996). Te emperament and Character

InventoryVersion 1995a, Revised 4-2-1996. Unpub-

lished test: Washington University School o

Medicine.

Cloninger, C. R. (1999). Te emperament and

Character InventoryRevised. St Louis, MO: Center

or Psychobiology o Personality, Washington

University.

Cloninger, C. R. (2008). Te psychobiological theory o

temperament and character: Comment on Farmer

and Goldberg (2008). Psychological Assessment, 20(3),

292-299.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Pryzbeck, . R. (1991).

Te ridimensional Personality Questionnaire: USnormative data. Psychological Reports, 69, 1047-1057.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Pryzbeck, . R.

(1993). A psychobiological model o temperament

and character.Archives o General Psychiatry, 50, 975-

990.

Cooney, L. (2006). Finding and orming spiritual identity

through cooperative inquiry. Dissertation Abstracts

International: Section B: Te Sciences and Engineering,

67(6-B), 3480.


17/21


Corrington, J. E. (1989). Spirituality and recovery:

Relationships between levels o spirituality, contentment,

and stress during recovery orm alcoholism in AA.

Alcoholism reatment Quarterly, 6, 151-165.

Costa, P. ., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-

R Proessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Coward, H. (1985). Jung and Eastern thought. Albany, NY:

State University o New York Press.

De Fruyt, F., Van De Wiele, L., & Van Herringen, C. (2000).

Cloningers psychobiological model o temperament

and character and the Five Factor Model o personality.

Personality and Individual Dierences, 29, 441-452.

Elkins, D. (1990). On being spiritual without necessarily

being religious. Association or Humanistic Psychology

Perspective, 40, 4-5.

Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Lea, J. A.,

& Saunders, C. (1988). oward phenomenological

spirituality: Denition, description, and measurement.

Journal o Humanistic Psychology, 28(4), 5-18.

Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: conceptualization

and measurement.Journal o Psychology and Teology,

11(4), 330-340.

Erikson, E. H. (1958). Young man Luther. New York, NY:

Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1969). Gandhis truth. New York, NY:

Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the lie cycle. New York,

NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1996). Te Galilean sayings and the sense o

I. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Tought, 19, 291-

338.

Erikson, E. H., Erikson, J. M., & Kivnick, H. Q. (1986).

Vital involvement in old age: Te experience o old age in

our time. New York, NY: Norton.

Farmer, R. F., & Goldberg, L. R. (2008a). A psychometric

evaluation o the Revised emperament and Character

Inventory (CI-R) and the CI-140. Psychological

Assessment, 20(3), 281-291.

Farmer, R. F., & Goldberg, L. R. (2008b). Brain modules,personality layers, planes o being, spiral structures,

and the equally implausible distinction between CI-

R temperament and character scales: A reply to

Cloninger (2008). Psychological Assessment, 20(3), 300-

304.

Fleck, J. R., & Fleck, D. . (2006).A developmental model o

religious-spiritual identity ormation. Paper presented at

the Western Psychological Association Annual meeting,

April 27-30, Palm Springs, CA.

Friedman, A. . (2007). Resiliency in women with early

traumatic experiences: An examination o level o secure

attachment, optimism, spiritual well-being, locus o

control, psychological equilibrium, and social support as

potential predictors o successul outcomes. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section B: Te Sciences and

Engineering, 68(4-B), 2647.

Friedman, H. L. (1983). Te Sel-Expansiveness Level Form:

A conceptualization and measurement o a transpersonal

construct. Journal o ranspersonal Psychology, 15(1), 37-

50.

Friedman, H. L. (1984).A humanistic-transpersonal theory o

personality. Paper presented at the American Psychological

Association Annual Conerence, oronto, Canada.

Friedman, H. L., & MacDonald, D. A. (1997). oward a

working denition o transpersonal assessment.Journal o

ranspersonal Psychology,29(2), 105-122.

Friedman, H., MacDonald, D. A., & Kumar, S. K. (2004).

Validation o the Sel-Expansiveness Level Form with an

Indian sample. Journal o Indian Psychology, 22(Special

Issue), 44-56.

Fukuyama, M. A., & Sevig, . (2002). Spirituality in counseling

across cultures. In P. Pedersen, J. Draguns, W. Lonner,

& J. rimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures(5th ed., pp.

273-295). Tousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

George, L. K., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & McCullough,

M. E. (2000). Spirituality and health: What we know,

what we need to know. Journal o Social and Clinical

Psychology, 19(1), 102-116.

Gilbert, P. D. (2007). Spirituality and mental health: A very

preliminary overview. Current Opinion in Psychiatry,

20(6), 594-598.

Goldstein, S. N. (2006). Te exploration o spirituality and

identity status in adolescence. Dissertation Abstracts

International: Section B: Te Sciences and Engineering,

67(6-B), 3481.

Gro, S. (1985).Beyond the brain: Birth, death, and transcendence

in psychotherapy. Albany, NY: State University o New

York Press.

Gro, S. (1988). Te adventure o sel-discovery: Dimensions oconsciousness and new perspectives in psychotherapy and

inner exploration. Albany, NY: State University o New

York Press.

Gro, C., & Gro, S. (1990). Te stormy search or the sel. Los

Angeles, CA: Jeremy archer Press.

Haber, J. R., Jacob, ., & Spangler, D. J. C. (2007). Dimensions

o religion/spirituality and relevance to health research.

International Journal or the Psychology o Religion, 17(4),

265-288.


18/21


Hall, . W., & Edwards, K. J. (1996). Te initial

development and actor analysis o the Spiritual

Assessment Inventory. Journal o Psychology and

Teology, 24, 233-246.

Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries o the mind. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Heintz, L. M. & Baruss, I. (2001). Spirituality in late

adulthood. Psychological Reports, 88(3), 651-654.

Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., Jr., McCullough,

M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., & Zinnbauer, B.

J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality:

Points o commonality, points o departure. Journal

or the Teory o Social Behaviour, 30(1), 51-77.

Hoge, D. R. (1996). Religion in America: Te

demographics o belie and aliation. In E. P.

Sharanske (Ed.)., Religion and the clinical practice o

psychology (pp 21-41). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Houran, J., Talbourne, M. A., & Lange, R. (2003).

Methodological note: Erratum and comment on the

use o the Revised ransliminality scale. Consciousness

and Cognition, 12(1), 140-144.

Howden, J. W. (1992). Development and psychometric

characteristics o the Spirituality Assessment Scale.

Doctoral Dissertation. exas Womens University.

Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (2001).

Adolescent identity ormation: Religious exploration

and commitment. Identity: An International Journal

o Teory and Research, 1, 365-386.

Hunt, H., Dougan, S., Grant, K., & House, M. (2002).

Growth enhancing versus dissociative states o

consciousness: A questionnaire study. Journal o

Humanistic Psychology, 42, 90-106.

James, W. (1890). Te principles o psychology. Vol. 1. New

York, NY: Holt and Company.

James, W. (1902). Te varieties o religious experience: A

study o human nature. New York, NY: Modern

Library.

Joseph, R. (2000). Te transmitter to God: Te limbic

system, the soul, and spirituality. San Jose, CA:University Press Caliornia.

Juang, L., & Syed, M. (2008). Ethnic identity and

spirituality. In R. M. Lerner, R. W., Roeser, &

E. Phelps (Eds)., Positive youth development and

spirituality: From theory to research (pp. 262-284).

West Conshohocken, PA: empleton Foundation

Press.

Jung, C. G. (1967). Collected works, Vol. 5. Symbols o

transormation. Princeton, NJ: University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1969). Collected works, Vol. 11. Psychology and

religion (1928-1954). Princeton, NJ: University Press.

Kass, J. D., Friedman, R., Leserman, J., Zuttermeister, P.

C., & Benson, H. (1991). Health outcomes and a new

index o spiritual experience.Journal or the Scientifc

Study o Religion, 30(2), 203-211.

Kiesling, C., Sorell, G. ., Montgomery, M. J., & Colwell,

R. K. (2006). Identity and spirituality: A psychosocial

exploration o the sense o spiritual sel. Developmental

Psychology, 42(6), 1269-1277.

Levin, J. (2001). God, aith, and health: Exploring the

spirituality-healing connection. New York, NY: John

Wiley and Sons.

MacDonald, D. A. (1997). Te development o a

comprehensive actor analytically derived model

o spirituality and its relationship to psychological

unctioning. Doctoral Dissertation. University o

Windsor.

MacDonald, D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description,

measurement and relation to the Five Factor Model

o personality.Journal o Personality, 68(1), 153-197.

MacDonald, D. A., & Friedman, H. L. (2002). Assessment

o humanistic, transpersonal, and spiritual constructs:

State o the science.Journal o Humanistic Psychology,

42(4), 102-125.

MacDonald, D. A., Friedman, H. L., & Kuentzel, J.

G. (1999). A survey o measures o spiritual and

transpersonal constructs: Part oneResearch update.

Journal o ranspersonal Psychology, 31(2), 137-154.

MacDonald, D. A., Gagnier, J. J., & Friedman, H.

L. (2000). Te Sel Expansiveness Level Form:

Examination o its validity and relation to the NEO

Personality InventoryRevised. Psychological Reports,

86, 707-726.

MacDonald, D. A., & Holland, D. (2002a). Spirituality

and sel-reported complex-partial epileptic-like signs.

Psychological Reports, 91, 785-792.

MacDonald, D. A. & Holland, D. (2002b). Spirituality

and boredom proneness. Personality and Individual

Dierences, 32, 1113-1119.MacDonald, D. A. & Holland, D. (2002c). Examination o

the psychometric properties o the emperament and

Character Inventory Sel-ranscendence dimension.

Personality and Individual Dierences, 32, 1013-1027.

MacDonald, D. A., & Holland, D. (2002d). Examination

o the relations between the NEO Personality

InventoryRevised and the emperament and

Character Inventory. Psychological Reports, 91, 921-

930.


19/21


MacDonald, D. A., & Holland, D. (2003). Spirituality

and the MMPI-2. Journal o Clinical Psychology,

59(4), 399-410.

MacDonald, D. A., Holland, C. J., & Holland, D.

(2005). Musings on the psychological meaning o

openness.Australian Gestalt Journal, 8, 67-70.

MacDonald, D. A., Kuentzel, J. G., & Friedman, H.

L. (1999). A survey o measures o spiritual and

transpersonal constructs: Part twoAdditional

instruments. Journal o ranspersonal Psychology,

31(2), 155-177.

MacDonald, D. A., LeClair, L., Holland, C. J., Alter,

A. & Friedman, H. L. (1995). A survey o measures

o transpersonal constructs.Journal o ranspersonal

Psychology, 27(2), 171-235.

MacDonald, D. A., sagarakis, C. I., & Holland, C.

J. (1994). Validation o a measure o transpersonal

sel-concept and its relationship to Jungian and Five

Factor Model conceptions o personality.Journal o

ranspersonal Psychology, 26(2), 175-201.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation o

ego-identity status.Journal o Personality and Social

Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Marcia, J. E. (1993). Te ego identity status approach to

ego identity. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D.

R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, and J. L. Orloski (Eds.).

Ego identity: A handbook or psychological research

(pp. 3-41). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Markstrom, C. (1999). Religious involvement and

adolescent psychosocial development. Journal o

Adolescence, 22, 205-221.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). oward a psychology o being(2nd

ed.). Oxord, UK: D. Van Nostrand Co.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Religions, values, and peak

experiences. New York, NY: Viking Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1971). Te arther reaches o human

nature. New York, NY: Penguin.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. ., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and

correlates o openness to experience. In R. Hogan,

J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds). Handbook o Personality Psychology (pp. 825-847). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Migdal, L. (2007). Te structure o existential well-

being and it relation to other well-being constructs.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University o

Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI.

Newberg, A., DAquili, E., & Rause, V. (2001). Why god

wont go away: Brain science and the biology o belie.

New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1982). Loneliness,

spiritual well-being, and the quality o lie. In Peplau

and Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A source book o current

theory, research and therapy (pp. 224-237). New York,

NY: John Wiley.

Pappas, J. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2007). Te construct o

sel-expansiveness and the validity o the ranspersonal

scale o the Sel-expansiveness Level Form. Te

Humanistic Psychologist, 35(4), 323-347.

Paranjpe, A. C. (1998). Sel and identity in modern psychology

and Indian thought. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). Te psychology o religion and coping:

Teory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Guilord

Press.

Persinger, M. A. (1984). Striking EEG proles rom single

episodes o glossolalia and ranscendental Meditation.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 127-133.

Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth

actor o personality? Spiritual transcendence and the

ve actor model. Journal o Personality, 67(6), 985-

1013.

Piedmont, R. L. & Leach, M. M. (2002). Cross-cultural

generalizability o the spiritual transcendence scale

in India. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(12), 1886-

1899.

Plante, . G., & Sherman, A. C. (Eds.). (2001). Faith

and health: Psychological perspectives. New York, NY:

Guilord Press.

Poll, J. B. (2005). Te good, the spiritual, and the ordinary:

A ollow-up study o spiritual identity development,

psychological well-being, and altruism. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section B: Te Sciences and

Engineering, 66(5-B), 2859.

Poll, J. B., & Smith, . B. (2003). Te spiritual sel: oward

a conceptualization o spiritual identity development.

Journal o Psychology and Teology, 31(2), 129-142.

Price, A. F., & Mou-lam, W. (rans.). (1990). Te diamond

sutra and the sutra o Hei-Neng. Boston, MA: Shambhala

Press.

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (1997). A spiritual strategyor counseling and psychotherapy. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Roeser, R. W., Issac, S. S., Abo-Zena, M., Brittian, A.,

& Peck, S. C. (2008). Sel and identity processes in

spirituality and positive youth development. In R. M

Lerner, R. W. Roeser, & E. Phelps (Eds.). Positive youth

development and spirituality: From theory to research.

(pp. 74-105). West Conshohocken, PA: empleton

Foundation Press.


20/21


Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA:

Houghton-Mifin.

Rogers, C. R. (1963). Te concept o the ully unctioning

person. Psychotherapy: Teory, Research, and Practice,

1, 17-26.

Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way o being. Boston, MA:

Houghton-Mifin.

Sampson, E. (1978). Personality and the location o

identity.Journal o Personality, 46, 552-568.

Salsman, J. M., Brown, . L. Brechting, E. H., & Carlson,

C. R. (2005). Te link between religion and spirituality

and psychological adjustment: Te mediating role o

optimism and social support. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 522-535.

Saucier, G. & Skrzypinska, K. (2006). Spiritual but not

religious? Evidence o two independent dispositions.

Journal o Personality, 75, 1258-1292.

Schneider, K. J. (1987). Te deied sel: A centaur

response to Wilber and the transpersonal movement.

Journal o Humanistic Psychology, 27(2), 196-216.

Schneider, K. J. (1989). Inallibility is so damn appealing: A

reply to Ken Wilber.Journal o Humanistic Psychology,

29(4), 470-481.

Sharanske, E., & Malony, N. (1990). Clinical

psychologists religious and spiritual orientations and

their practice o psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Teory,

Research, Practice, and raining,27, 72-78.

Shostrom, E. (1963). Manual: Personality Orientation

Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial

esting Service.

Slie, B. D., Hope, C., & Nebeker, R. S. (1999). Examining

the relationship between religious spirituality and

psychological science.Journal o Humanistic Psychology,

39(2), 51-85.

Suzuki, D. . (1957). Mysticism, Christian and Buddhist.

New York, NY: Perennial Library.

Suzuki, D. ., Fromm, E., & DeMartino, R. (1960).Zen

Buddhism and psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Harper.

at, R. (1969). Peak experiences and ego permissiveness:

An exploratory actor study o their dimensions inno

identity and spirituality

Documents