Spiritual But Not Religious? Evidence for TwoIndependent
DispositionsGerard Saucier1and Katarzyna Skrzypinska21University
ofOregon2University ofGdansk, PolandABSTRACT Some psychologists
treat religious/spiritual beliefs as aunitary aspectofindividual
differences.Buta
distinctionbetweenmysti-cismandorthodoxreligionhasbeenrecognizedbyscholarsaswell
aslaypersons, and empirical studies of ism variables and of
spiritualitymeasures haveyieldedfactors reectingthis distinction.
Usingalargesampleof Americanadults, analysesdemonstratethat
subjectivespiri-tualityandtradition-orientedreligiousness
areempiricallyhighlyinde-pendent and have distinctly different
correlates in the personality domain,suggesting that individuals
with different dispositions tend towarddifferent
stylesofreligious/spiritual beliefs.
Thesedimensionshavelowcorrelations withthelexical BigFivebut
highcorrelations withscales(e.g., Absorption, Traditionalism)
onsomeomnibuspersonalityinven-tories,indicatingtheirrelevanceforstudiesofpersonality.Beliefs
about religious or spiritual phenomena have
importanteffectsonhumanbehaviorandfunctioning.
Theycanprovideonewithacognitivemapoftheworldthatmakesitmeaningful.
Suchworldviewbeliefscanllmanyfunctions.Theyprovideaparadigmfor,amongotherthings,howtheuniversebegan,whatthepurposeof
lifeis,and how tounderstand injusticeand death(Argyle&
BeitHallahmi,1975); they may provide a buffer against
mortality-basedanxiety, enhancing a sense of safety and security
(Greenberg,Work on this article was supported by Grant MH-49227
from the National Institute ofMental Health, U.S.
PublicHealthService. Theauthors aregrateful
toTarikBel-BaharandLewisR.Goldbergforhelpfulsuggestions.Correspondence
regarding this article may be addressed to: Gerard
Saucier,Department ofPsychology, 1227UniversityofOregon, Eugene,
OR97403.
E-mail:[email protected]:5,October2006r
2006,CopyrighttheAuthorsJournalcompilation r
2006,BlackwellPublishing,Inc.DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00409.xPyszczynski,
&Solomon, 1986), andthey may satisfy needs fora purpose in
life, anchoring a sense of what is right andwrong(Baumeister,
1991). Moreover, suchbeliefsconnect people,enabling the sharing of
a system of values and rules that is obligatoryfor a social group
(Kuczkowski, 1993), values and rules that may
beaprimeguidingforceforactualbehavior(Ma)drzycki,1996).Perhaps
because of the way it performs these functions,
religious-nessappearstohavesomepositiveeffectsonhealthandlongevity(Kozielecki,
1991; Powell, Shahabi, & Thoresen, 2003). Theseinclude
protective effects with respect to alcohol/drug abuse
(Miller,1998).Nonetheless, theremaybenegativeeffectsaswellas
positiveones(Koenig,1997).Despite their impact, religious or
spiritual beliefs have long been amatter of only peripheral concern
to personality psychologists(Emmons, 1999). In part, this stems
fromthe assumption thatdifferencesinreligiosityarearesult of
environmental ratherthangenetic causes and might, therefore, be the
proper domain ofsociologists. However, recent studies inbehavior
genetics suggestthat religiosity(thoughnot denominational
afliation) issubstan-tiallyheritable bymechanisms independent of
commonlystudiedpersonality traits (DOnofrio, Eaves, Murrelle, Maes,
&Spilka,1999; Kendler, Gardner, &Prescott, 1997; Waller,
Kojetin,
Bou-chard,Lykken,&Tellegen,1990),asmaybetrueofattitudesmoregenerally(Olson,
Vernon, Harris, &Jang, 2001). Religiousexperi-ence may be
associated with specic aspects of brain
function(Newberg&dAquili,2000;Newbergetal.,2001),andbeliefsmayplay
a physiological role in affect regulation (McGuire, Troisi,Raleigh,
& Masters, 1998). Such ndings erode the division
betweenreligiosityandotherpersonalitydifferences.Psychologistsoutsidethespecializeddisciplineofpsychologyofreligion
often treat religious/spiritual beliefs as a unitary aspectof
individual differences. But laypersons seemable to
recognizedistinct vectors in such beliefs (Zinnbauer et al., 1997).
For example,one increasingly encounters phrases like spiritual but
not reli-gious. This phrase forms the title of a recent scholarly
book (Fuller,2001) that discussescontemporarymetaphysical
religionandun-churched, eclectic, and psychological spirituality.
To a
tradition-orientedadherentofareligion,suchformsofspiritualitymaylooklike
one is making up ones own faith or creating a
personallycustomizedworldview. Nonetheless, Fuller estimates that
20%of1258 Saucier&SkrzypinskaAmericans adhere to such
unchurched spirituality, which has a
longlegacyinAmericanhistory.DeningKey
TermsOnecanndmanydenitionsofreligiousnessinthepsychologicalliterature.
Thereareconcrete, abstract, metaphysical,
prescriptive,relationship-oriented, inner-motivation-oriented, and
existential-quest-orienteddenitions (Zinnbauer, Pargament,
&Scott, 1999).ArgyleandBeit-Hallahmi (1975) denedreligionas
asystemofbeliefs in a divine or superhuman power, and practices of
worship orother rituals directed towards such a power (p. 1). The
emphasis onworshipandrituals implies communityactivitythat binds or
tiespeopletogether.IndeedthewordreligioncomesfromLatinreligio,derived
from ligo meaning to tie or bind (etymologically related tothe
English word ligament). Denitions of spirituality usually
putmoreemphasisontheindividualandonsubjectiveexperience.Thewordcomes
fromLatinspiritus, inturnfromspirare(tobreathe;Wulff, 1997).
ShafranskeandGorsuch(1984) denedspirituality,broadly, as a
transcendent dimension within human experience . .
.discoveredinmomentsinwhichtheindividualquestionsthemean-ingof
personal existence andattempts toplace the self
withinabroaderontological context (p. 231).
Vaughan(1991)providedauseful, more specic, denition: a subjective
experience of
thesacred(p.105).Inlinewiththismorespecicusage,inthisarticlewe will
use the more precise term subjective spirituality. In
America,virtuallyall religious peoplecall themselves spiritual, as
dosomenonreligious people.Subjective
spiritualityshouldbeunderstoodasanarrowerandlessinclusiveandambiguousnotionthanspiritual-ity,onecloserinmeaningtothenatural-languagetermmysticism.Reports
of mystical experiences arenot
foundonlyamongtheconventionallyreligious.Inthegeneralpopulation,thetendencytomakesuchreportsiscorrelatedwiththetendencytoreport
para-normal experiences (Thalbourne & Delin, 1994). A variety
of studiesindicatethatmystical
experiencesaremorefrequentlyreportedbyindividuals who self-identify
as spiritual rather than religious(Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger,
&Gorsuch, 2003). Wesuggest, how-ever, that the term mystical is
more distinct in meaning from religiousthan is the termspiritual.
Spiritual but not religious likelyindicates mystical preferences,
but because spiritual has moreSpiritualButNotReligious
1259favorable connotations inEnglishthandoes mystical, spiritual
ismoreattractiveforself-description.Tradition-OrientedReligiousnessandSubjectiveSpiritualityinPreviousLiteratureReectiononthesekeytermsinuencedustodistinguishbetweentradition-oriented
religiousness (TR) and subjective spirituality (SS).Wendthis
distinctionimplicit inpast scholarshipandresearch.Zinnbauer,
Pargament, and Scott (1999) made specic contrastsbetween(a)
organizedreligionandpersonal spirituality, (b) sub-stantive
religionandfunctional spirituality, and(c) negative reli-giousness
and positive spirituality. In each of these contrasts, the
rsttermreectsTRandthesecondtermSS.Emmons (1999) and others (e.g.,
Skrzypin ska, 2002, in press) havemadethecontrast inanother way,
notingthat spiritualitycanbestrongly related to religiousness,
though it is not always. ForEmmons, spiritualityinvolves asearchfor
meaning, unity, con-nectednesstonature, humanity,
andthetranscendent
(Emmons,1999,p.877),thushavingastrongsubjectiveelement.Religion,incontrast,
provides a faith community with teachings and narrativesthat
enhance the searchfor the sacredandencourage morality(Emmons, 1999,
citing Dollahite, 1998, p. 877), thus having a strongtraditionalist
element. Emmonss contrast is, we believe,
morepreciselyexpressedasonebetweensubjectivespiritualityandtradi-tion-orientedreligiousness.Empiricalsupportforthiscontrastisprovidedbyarecentstudyof
the content of isms terms in the English language. Saucier
(2000),assuming that the most important worldview-belief concepts
tend tobecome represented in words ending in ism, extracted 266
such
termsfromanEnglish-languagedictionaryandbuiltitemsdirectlyfromtheirdenitions.Inasampleof500collegestudents,thereplicableitemstructureshadnomorethanfourfactors.
Aparallel studyofisms found in a Romanian-language dictionary, in
Romania,replicated the four-factor structure (Krauss, in press).
Two ofthe four factorsAlpha andDeltaare relevant here.
Conceptsloadingmost highlyonAlphaemphasizeindividual
differencesinadherence to traditional and religious sources of
authority;
thisfactoriscorrelatedsubstantiallywithconservatismandauthoritar-ianism.
Concepts loadinghighlyonDeltaemphasize unorthodox1260
Saucier&Skrzypinskaspirituality.Theyinvolveindividualdifferencesinbeliefsemphasiz-ing
intuition and spiritual experiences of a mystical nature,
butincluding some currently fashionable superstitions. Alpha and
Deltaappear to encapsulate the distinction between
tradition-orientedreligiousnessandsubjectivespirituality.AsetoffactorscorrespondingtoAlphaandDeltawasreportedbyMacDonald(2000),whosoughttoidentifythecommondimen-sions
in 11 prominent measures of religious and spiritual constructs.He
found ve factors: Religiousness, Cognitive Orientation
TowardsSpirituality (COTS), Experiential/Phenomenological (E/P),
Paranor-mal Beliefs, and Existential Well-Being. A higher-order
factoranalysisfoundtwofactors.
OnewaslabeledCognitiveandBeha-vioralOrientationTowardsSpiritualityandincludedReligiousnessand
COTS. The other factor was labeled Non-Ordinary
ExperiencesandBeliefs; capturingdistinctions inprevious measures of
mysti-cism, it included E/P and Paranormal Beliefs. Existential
Well-Being,whose content overlaps withEmotional Stabilityversus
Neuroti-cism, did not have appreciable loadings on either
higher-order factor.Thesetwohigher-orderfactors
appeartocorrespondtoTRandSS.Outside psychology, scholars describing
diverse religions
havenotedadistinctionbetweenmysticalschoolsofthoughtontheonehandandmoreorthodoxtrendsontheother(e.g.,
Sabatier, 1905;Schuon, 1953), fundamentalism being in many respects
an attempt toreassert orthodoxy. For example, in Islam,
Susmrepresents
amysticalschool,whereasIslamicorthodoxyisbetterrepresentedintheSaliorWahhabi
schoolsofpractice.InJudaism,themysticalKaballacontrasts withvarious
orthodoxschools. Zenis anespe-ciallymysticalformofBuddhism.Theterms
esotericandexotericaresometimes usedtocapturethese distinctions
(Schuon, 1953). According toSchuon, exotericreligionemphasizes
formandtends towardliteralistic dogmas,
aclaimtoexclusivepossessionof the truth, sentimentality,
andanemphasisonmoralityandpersonal salvation(whichservesindivi-dual
interest, such as reward or relief in an afterlife), couched in
waysthatmakeitattractivetoamajorityofpeople.Esotericreligion,incontrast,
is moremetaphysical, contemplative, orientedtoknowl-edge, wisdom,
andunicationwithdivinity, andtowardthespiritandnot theletterof
religiousteachings. Asimilardistinctionwasmade by Sabatier (1905)
between authority- and
spirit-focusedapproachestoreligion.SpiritualButNotReligious
1261ThetermsesotericandexotericshouldnotbeconfusedwiththetermsintrinsicandextrinsicusedbyAllport
(1959). Thesedonotconcernbeliefbutrathermotivation:
Intrinsicshavehighcommit-ment to religious activities and beliefs,
treating religion as an end initself; extrinsics use religion as a
means to desired personal ends (e.g.,status, comfort). Intrinsic
and extrinsic distinguish two ways of beingreligious and are
concepts that were envisaged to describe
individualdifferenceswithinreligiouspopulations;indeed,
thedistinctionhasbeenproblematictoapplyoutsidesuchpopulations
(e.g., Burris,1994).TR and SS,incontrast,aredimensionsapplicable
togeneralpopulationsamples,
althoughonemightconceivablyidentifybothintrinsics and extrinsics
among individuals high in either dimension.HypothesesWe made the
empirical conjecture that the distinction betweenmystical
andorthodoxforms of belief corresponds tothat
oftenmadebetweenthetermsspiritual
andreligiousandwithindividualdifferences in important psychological
variables. We set out toinvestigate two questions: Is the division
of religious/spiritual beliefsintotwoindependent
dimensionsapsychometricreality?Andarethe correlates with
psychological variables so distinct and
substantialthatpsychologistsshouldbepayingattentiontothesedimensions?Our
hypotheses all follow from an overarching conception of
thedifferencebetweenTRandSS. TRinvolvesarelianceontrustedsources of
authority (such as scriptures or a church) that are a
sharedreferencepointforagroupofindividualsthesesourcesprovidingclarity
butalso animpetus for conformity.SS isa
moresubjectivistandindividualizedapproachthatinvolvesmorerelianceonprivateimaginationandintuition,
more egalitarianism, more nonconfor-mism, and more of a questioning
attitude toward status-quocollectivenorms.Arst hypothesis was that
inEnglishthetermspiritual differsfromthetermreligiousinawaythat
correspondstothecontrastbetween SS and TR. This is in line with
empirical ndings ofZinnbauer et al. (1997), that is, religiousness
being relativelymore highly associated with authoritarianism,
orthodoxy, andchurch attendance; spirituality being relatively more
associatedwithmystical experiences andNewAgebeliefs andpractices.
Wealsohypothesizedthat the termmystical wouldcorrespondmore1262
Saucier&Skrzypinskaclosely to the SS side of the contrast, and
that responses to the singleadjectives mystical and religious would
be approximately orthogonalin self-ratings and would correspond
with the two higher-orderfactors of spirituality found by MacDonald
(2000). We furtherhypothesizedthat thesetwosetsof orthogonal
distinctionswouldcorrespond to that orthogonal distinction between
Alpha and Deltafactors emerging in analyses of isms terms (Krauss,
in press; Saucier,2000). If all these initial hypotheses were
supported, it wouldbepossibletoconceiveof twolatent,
highlyindependent dimensionshavingthreesetsofindicators,
onesetfromtheadjectival
lexicon,onebasedonfactorsfromspiritualitymeasures,andonebasedonfactorsfromismsconcepts.Inlinewithouroverarchingconception,weformedavarietyofhypotheses
regarding how TR and SS would diverge with respect
tosubstantiveassociationswithothervariables.WehypothesizedthatTR(andnotSS)wouldberelatedtothefollowing:
individual differences in traditionalism,
authoritarianism,collectivism, and impression management; attitudes
emphasizing thepower of divinityhierarchicallyexercised(e.g.,
byasupernaturalGodthroughmiracles); believingit important torespect
whateverrepresents the sources of such divine authority (e.g.,
scriptures,religious rules, and leaders) while not respecting those
whose beliefsor behavior go against such authority (e.g.,
evolutionists, gays,feminists); and, behaviorally, high engagement
in religious
practicesandlowlevelsofdrugandalcoholuse.WehypothesizedthatSS(andnotTR)wouldberelatedtothefollowing:
individual differences inabsorption,
fantasy-proneness,dissociation, private self-consciousness,
eccentricity, (low) social-dominance orientation,and individualism
(especiallyofan egalitar-ian variety); attitudes emphasizing the
power of
nonhierarchicalsupernaturalforces(e.g.,magic,witchcraft,astrology,fate);believ-ingit
isimportant torespect
thosealignedwithsuchforces(e.g.,enlightenedpersonsandpsychics);
and, behaviorally, highengage-ment in environmentalist practices
and the pursuit of personalcreativeachievement.We hypothesizedthat
personality scales designedtocaptureboth religious and spiritual
tendencies (e.g., self-transcendence)would correlate with both
TRand SS. Correlated in oppositedirections with TR and SS would be
some other variables, includingthose related to conformity (vs.
nonconformity), favoring (vs.SpiritualButNotReligious
1263questioning) of norms, hierarchical relationsof authority,
andthecontrastbetweencollectivismandindividualism.Religiousness
appears to be generally independent of the Big Five(Piedmont, 1999;
Saucier&Goldberg, 1998). However,
atrendinpreviousstudies(reviewedbySaroglou,
2002)indicatesthatreligi-osity is correlated, although quite
modestly, with the Big Five factorsof Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness. We suggest that suchrelations dependonthe
content of the religiousness measure, inparticular how much the
measure emphasizes TR as compared to SS.Wehypothesizedthat
TRwouldberelatedtoAgreeableness andConscientiousness but that
SSwouldbe associatedinsteadwithOpenness to Experience (and with its
lexical-factor
counterpart,Imagination/Intellect).METHODParticipantsThesampleconsistedof
those375members of theEugene-Springeldcommunity sample
whocompletedall measures describedbelowandincluded 160 men and 215
women, with an average age of 51.23 (standarddeviation12.4) at rst
recruitment in1993(bywayof response
toamailingsenttoareahomeowners).
Mostmeasuresadministeredtothissample have involved personality and
not beliefs. Those used in this
studywereadministeredbetween1993and2002.Responses to a
multiple-choice question about denominational
aflia-tionwereavailablefor358oftherespondents(theother17respondentshad
not returned an entire survey questionnaire containing this item).
Ofthe358, 44%indicatedaProtestant afliation, 9%Catholic,
and2%eachforMormonandJewish.
CorrespondingexactlytoFullers(2001)estimate for unchurched
spirituality in America, 20% endorsed spiri-tual, but not afliated
with a conventional religion. Another 6%endorsed other, and
16%endorsed a none option. Participantswere included in analyses
regardless of their category and degree
ofreligiousafliation.Thecross-timestabilityof
religiousattitudesinolderadultsisquitehigh. For example, inthis
sample the retest
correlationbetweenself-descriptionresponsestothesingleadjectiveReligiousin1993and1996wasanimpressive.80higherthanistypicallyexpectedforpersonalityitems
and scales. And, as will be seen, response to this single item in
1993correlatednearly.80withanonadjectival indexof
religiosityadminis-tered9yearslater.1264
Saucier&SkrzypinskaMeasuresAdjectives. The termReligious
(fromthe 1993administration, whichhad a higher N than that of 1996)
was used (19 rating scale), as were theterms Mystical andSpiritual
(administeredin2002,
witha17ratingscale).ThetermReligiouswasnotreadministeredin2002.ESIitems.
ItemsfromMacDonalds(2002)ExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory(ESI)
wereused, except for theomissionof items fromthismeasures
well-beingscale, a fairlyconventional measure of
Neuroticism(ofwhichwehadothermeasures),whoseitemslackexplicitspiritualorreligiouscontent.Theremaining24items,allofwhichincludedexplicitmentionof
spiritual or religious content, werefactor
analyzedbytwomethods(principal
componentsandmaximumlikelihoodextraction, ineither case with both
oblimin and varimax rotation), extracting twofactors,
whichwereextremelysimilar across methods. Because of ourinterest in
retaining exact factor scores, we relied henceforth on
theoblimin-rotatedcomponents, whichcorrelated.36. As expected,
thesetwodimensionscorrespondedwell toTRandSS. Thetwocomponentswere
interpreted as Religiousness (with content referencing
attendingservices and the cognitive importance and effects of
religion in ones life)andSpiritual
Experiences(withcontentreferencingexperiencesthataremystical,
transcendspaceandtimeortheusual senseof self, andalsoparanormal
beliefs regarding psychokinesis, ghosts, predicting the
future,leavingonesbody,andcommunicatingwiththedead).Alpha and Delta
isms factors. Saucier (2004) described the
developmentoftheSurveyofDictionary-BasedIsms(SDI),whichconsistsof48itemclusters(ofroughlyfouritemseach)centeredaroundoneormoreismsconceptsfoundinanEnglish-languagedictionary.
Whenthese48itemclusterswerefactoranalyzed,inthesamecommunitysampleusedhere,four
obliquely rotated factors were virtually orthogonal and
nearlyidentical tothe four varimaxfactors, whichcorrespondedwell
tothefour factors from earlier studies of dictionary-based isms
(Saucier,
2000).WeusedthefactorscoresforAlphaandDelta(fromtheanalysisof48clusters)inouranalyses.Supplementaryattitudescales.
Saucier(2004)alsodescribedthedevel-opment of 42additional
itemclustersrepresentingconstructsfromtheprevious literature not
directly referenced in the SDI or otherwisecomplementarytoSDI
content. Inthis study, we usedthree of thesescales: those for
Quest-Orientation (a questioning way of being
religious;coefcientAlpha[a].80),Hierachialism(valuingobedience/deferencetoSpiritualButNotReligious
1265those inahigher social position; a.55), andExtropunitiveness
(hier-archicallyexercisedharshnesstowardcriminals;
a.69).Eccentricity.
WeutilizedanunpublishedscaledevelopedbyGoldbergwith 21 items (a
.84) from the International Personality Item Pool
(http://www.ipip.ori.org). ExampleitemsareKnowthat
myideassometimessurprise people, Amable to disregard rules, Love to
dress inoutlandishclothes, and(reverse-scored)
Liketobeviewedasproperandconventional.Conformity. The adjectives
Nonconforming and Conforming were
admi-nisteredtoparticipants,andaConforming-minus-Nonconformingscorecalculated
(a .92). We expected TRto be positively and SS to
benegativelyrelatedtothisindex. Norm-Favoringvs.
Norm-Questioning(v. 2;a.74)fromtheCaliforniaPsychological
Inventory(CPI;
Gough,1996)wasusedasanadditionalindexofconformity.Impressionmanagement.
Anotherpossibleaspect of conformityistheneedforapproval
(Crowne&Marlowe, 1964),
nowbestrepresentedinmeasuresofimpressionmanagement(IM; Paulhus,
1984). WeusedtheBalancedInventoryofDesirableResponding(Paulhus,
1988)IMscale,with continuous, not dichotomized, scores (a .82).
Aprevious studyindicated a signicant correlation between
religiosity and
impressionmanagement(Gillings&Joseph,1996).Privateself-consciousness.
Privateself-consciousnessisadispositiontobe highly aware of
internal states (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975).
WeadministeredthescaleofBuss(1980; a.76).Authoritarianism. Weuseda
selectionofRight-Wing Authoritarianism(RWA) items (Altemeyer,
1996). The 14 items (seven pro-trait, seven con-trait; a.91) were
selectedas agroupthat maximizedcoverage of thecontent in the longer
scale (as found in stepwise regression of RWA itemson RWAscore in
the Study 2 data set fromSaucier [2000]),
whilemaintainingbalancedkeyingofpro-traitandcon-traititems.Social
dominance orientation (SDO). We used a selection of SDO items(from
Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). The eight items
(fourpro-trait,fourcon-trait;
a.80)wereselectedasagroupthatmaximizedcoverage of the content in
the longer scale (as found in stepwise regressionof SDO items on
SDO score in the Study 2 data set from Saucier
[2000]),whilemaintainingbalancedkeyingofpro-traitandcon-traititems.
We1266 Saucier&Skrzypinskahypothesizedthat SS, duetoits
egalitarianor horizontal
emphases,wouldbenegativelyassociatedwithSocialDominanceOrientation.Collectivism
and individualism. We used scales by Triandis and Gelfand(1998).
Thesehavehorizontal (egalitarian) andvertical
(pro-hier-archy)subscalesforbothIndividualism(idiocentrism)andCollectivism(allocentrism).
Inkeepingwithourhypotheses, weaggregatedthetwoCollectivismsubscales
(a .68) and for Individualismused only thehorizontal
Individualismsubscale(a.57). WealsousedtheOyserman(1993) scales for
Individualism(a .55) and Collectivism(a .67) andsubtractedscores
onone fromthe scores onthe other toarrive at
aCollectivism-minus-Individualismscore(a.63).From the Magical
Ideation Scale of Eckblad and Chapman (1983) weused all 30 items
but changed the response format from true-false to a
5-pointformat(stronglyagree,agree,notsure,disagree,stronglydisagree).ThescalehadacoefcientAlphaof.92.Irrational
beliefs (Superstitiousness). We used the 19-itemscale ofKoopmans,
Sanderman, Timmerman, and Emmelkamp (1994) withcoefcientAlphaof.93.
Contentincludesbeliefsinpsychokinesis, out-of-body experiences,
astrology, reincarnation, spells, and psychic
powers.Fantasy-proneness. We used the Creative Experiences
Questionnaire(CEQ; Merkelbach, Horselenberg, &Muris, 2001).
However, wesepa-rated out the eight as a child items as a measure
of childhood fantasies(viaretrospectiverecall;
a.72)becausetheygivearetrospectiveaccountofchildhoodfantasy-proneness,apotentiallyusefulantecedentvariable.The17remainingitemsweretakenas
a measureof fantasy-pronenessinadulthood(a.77).
Thetwomeasures(currentandretrospective)corre-lated.41.Dissociation.
We utilized the 31-item Curious Experiences Survey
(CES;Goldberg,1999),arevisionoftheDissociativeExperiencesScale(Bern-stein&Putnam,1986).Alphawas.90.MPQscales.
We used scores fromthe Traditionalism(a .87)
andAbsorption(a.90)scalesfromtheMultidimensional
PersonalityQues-tionnaire(MPQ;Tellegen,inpress).TheTemperament
andCharacter Inventory(TCI; Cloninger et al.,1994) has
aSelf-Transcendencescale(a.95) withvesubscales, all
ofwhichwereusedinouranalyses. Thelabelsforthesubscalesinorder(ST1
to ST5; a .79, .77, .90, .95, .82) are: Self-forgetful
versusSelf-consciousexperience(i.e., absorption), Transpersonal
identicationSpiritualButNotReligious 1267versus
Self-differentiation (e.g., sense of connection with all
things),SpiritualacceptanceversusRationalmaterialism(e.g.,contactwithanddirection
by a higher power), Enlightened versus Objective
(supernaturalguidance), andIdealisticversusPractical (e.g.,
engagement withprayerand moral ideals). We hypothesized that some
of these subscales would
becorrelatedmainlywithTR,theotherswithSS,and,byimplication,thatST
subscales can be differentiated based on relative TR and SS
loadings.BigFive. Toindexthe BigFive factor structure we usedthe
Mini-Markers (Saucier, 1994) to capture the lexical representation
of thestructure and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa
& McCrae,1992) to capture its best-known questionnaire
representation.
Coefcientalphavaluesrangedfrom.77to.86forMini-Markersand.85to.92fortheNEO-PI-R.Multi-LanguageSeven.
Toindexavariantfactorstructurethatisalsolexically derived but may
provide a better t to indigenous factorstructures
fromnon-Europeanlanguages, we usedthe 60ML7, a
60-adjectivemeasureoftheMulti-LanguageSevenfactors(Gregariousness,Self-Assurance,
EvenTemper, Concernfor Others,
Conscientiousness,Originality/Intellect, Social
Unacceptability/Negative Valence) withalpha values of .70 to .81.
These seven factors were derived fromcommonalities found in
structures fromlexical studies of Filipino(Church, Reyes, Katigbak,
&Grimm, 1997) and
Hebrew(Almagor,Tellegen,&Waller,1995),studiesinwhichBigFivestructureswerenotobtained(Saucier,2003).Behavioral
frequency reports. We used four clusters developed by
Gold-berg(inpress)fromasetof400activitydescriptions;participantsratedthe
relative frequency with which they engaged in the activity.
Theclustersinvolveddrug/alcoholbehavior(a.89;e.g.,becameintoxicated,smokedmarijuana,drankbeer),
religiouspractices(a.87; e.g., readtheBible, taughtSundayschool,
prayed), creativeachievementbehavior(a.70; e.g., producedaworkof
art, wrotepoetry, actedinaplay), andproenvironmentalist practices
(a .76; e.g., rode a bicycle to work,
boughtorganicfood,recycled).Attitude about categories of people. To
tap specic attitudes aboutclasses and groups of people, 32 items
were administered with thequestionWhodeservesmoreinuence, power,
andrespect? anda5-point response scale (much less, slightly less,
already have the right amount,slightlymore, muchmore).
Itemssuitingourhypotheseswere: religious1268
Saucier&Skrzypinskaleaders, thosewhostudytheholyscriptures,
thosewhofollowtheTenCommandments,militaryleaders,gayandlesbianpeople,scientistswhobelieve
inevolution, feminists, those withpsychic abilities, those
withunconventional spiritual beliefs, spiritually enlightened
persons, andpeoplewhoavoidmilitaryservice.Attitudes about causal
forces. To tap other consequential specic beliefs,44items
wereadministeredwiththequestionWhat forces determinewhat happens in
life? and a 5-point response scale (never, seldom,sometimes, often,
always). Items suiting our hypotheses were: God,miracles,
supernatural power, astrological inuences, magic,
witchcraft,destiny,andfate.Childbearing and divorce. Reecting the
likely greater collectivism of TRandindividualismofSS,
wehypothesizedthatTRwouldbeassociatedwitha lower likelihoodof
divorce anda larger number of children,whereas SS would be
associated with a higher likelihood of havingexperiencedadivorce
andwithsmaller numbers of children. Numberof biological
childrenandfrequencyof
divorcewereelicitedwithtwoitemsfromamongalarger18-itemsurvey,
headedThingsThatDontHappenEveryDay,thataskedrespondentstoidentifyhowofteneachof
18eventshadoccurredintheirlives.
Thetwoitemsusedhereweregavebirthtoor fatheredachild
andbeendivorced. The6-pointresponse scale had response options of
never, once, twice, three times, fourtimes, andveor more times. For
this samplethe mediannumber ofchildren was two, with 14% percent
having never begotten a child. Some33%of thesamplehadexperiencedat
least onedivorce; responses
toanotheritemindicatedthatonly5%hadneverbeenmarried.RESULTSThethreesets
of indicatorsfor TRandSSwerenot signicantlycorrelatedwiththe age of
the participantcorrelations withagerangingfrom
.05to.10forTRindicatorsandfrom .10to.07forSSindicators. All of
theindicators, ontheotherhand, hadaverymodest point-biserial
correlationwithgender.
Withpositivecorrelationsindicatinghigherscoresamongwomenthanmen,
thecorrelationswere.12(Religious), .21(ESIReligiousness),
.14(SDIAlpha), .09 (Mystical), .21 (ESI Spiritual Experiences), and
.26 (SDIDelta). We infer that TR and SS are both unrelated to age,
but
bothappeartobeweaklyrelatedtobeingfemaleratherthanmale.SpiritualButNotReligious
1269Responsemeans(ona17scale)werelowerforMystical (2.87;SD 1.78),
than for Religious (4.28; SD 1.94) and for Spiritual (4.61;SD
2.19). This is in harmony with Normans (1967) report
indicatingthat, in English, on a 1 to 9 scale, Mystical (M55.22) is
less sociallydesirablethanReligious(M56.57)andSpiritual(M56.42).The
correlations among these terms were .68
(Religious-Spiritual),.26(Spiritual-Mystical),
and.09(Religious-Mystical). Controllingfor Religious (inapartial
correlationanalysis) didnot affect thecorrelationbetweenSpiritual
andMystical. Indications are, then,that Spiritual is somewhat
intermediary between the other twoconcepts, whereas Religious
andMystical havemoreindependentdenotation. Spiritual and Religious
were highly correlated, but,nonetheless, when
aSpiritual-minus-Religiousscorewascalculated,this score also
correlated positively (.26) with Mystical in the
presentsample,consonantwithourpredictions.Table1presentsallcorrelationsamongthethreesetsofputativeindicatorsforTRandSS.Wenotethatthewithin-setintercorrela-tions
for TR are very high, much higher than those for SS,
indicatingamoretightlyconvergingconstruct. Between-set
correlations(TRwithSSindicators)weregenerallysmall.Becausesomanyhypoth-eses
were tested simultaneously, we used a relatively stringentcriterion
( po.001) for statistical signicance in this and other
tables.Byfar,thelargestbetween-setcorrelation(.36)wasbetweenESIReligiousness
and ESI Spiritual Experiences. Scrutiny of the 24
ESIitemsrevealedthatsixusethetermspiritual,whereasonlytwousereligious
andoneuses mystical. Theitems that includedthetermspiritual all
hadatleastmoderate(.37orhigher)loadingsonboththe Religiousness and
Spiritual Experiences factors. Moreover, itemsreferring to belief
in the reality of witchcraft and of spirits and ghostsand to merger
with a force or power greater than myself also
hadsubstantialloadingsonbothfactors.AvoidingtheseitemsthatmixTRandSScontent,wedididentifysmallsubsetsofESIitemsthatcould
be used as adequately reliable abbreviated indicator scales
forTRandSSwitha near-zerocorrelation; the six items
involvedreference to seeing oneself as a religiously oriented
person and to theimportanceofgoingtoreligiousservices(forTR;
a.87),aswellastranscendingspace andtime, leavingones body,
communicatingwiththedead,andpsychokinesis(forSS;
a.78).However,becauseourparticularselectionoforthogonalitem-setsmightcapitalizeonchance
features of the present sample, we relied for subsequent1270
Saucier&SkrzypinskaTable1CorrelationMatrixforThreeSetsofIndicatorsforDimensionsofTradition-OrientedReligiousnessandSubjectiveSpiritualityIndicatorTradition-OrientedReligiousnessSubjectiveSpiritualityReligiousESIReligiousnessSDIAlpha.()MysticalESISpiritualExpcs.SDIDelta.()ReligiousESIReligiousness.78(.72/.84)SDIAlpha.().76(.69/.83).81(.75/.87)Mystical.09(.01/.19).19(.09/.29).11(.01/.22)ESISpiritualExperiences.17(.07/.27).36(.26/.45).20(.10/.30).51(.42/.60)SDIDelta.().06(.04/.17).18(.08/.28).01(.09/.12).37(.27/.46).52(.44/.61)Note.N5375.ReligiousandMysticalrefertosingleadjectivestreatedas1-itemmeasures.ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory(MacDonald,2002).SDISurveyofDictionary-BasedIsms(Saucier,2004).Coefcientsinparenthesesare95%condencelimits.Correlationsover.40areprintedinboldfacetype.analyses
on the obliquely related principal components based on allof the 24
ESI items; use of orthogonal components from the same
24itemsledtoverysimilarexternalcorrelates.Overall, we
interpretedthese results as evidence insupport
ofusingthesemeasurestheadjectivesreligiousandmystical,thetwoismsfactors,andthetwoESIfactorsasconvergingindicatorsforeachof
tworeligious/spiritual belief dimensions that
tendtobehighlyindependentofoneanotherandcanevidentlybemadefullyorthogonalwithease,ifdesired.Given
the good convergence among the indicators within each
set,wesimpliedthehypothesistestingbyaggregatingtheindicators.Onemeanstothisendwasaprincipalcomponentsanalysis.Whenthe
six indicators were analyzedwithtwofactors
extractedandrotatedbytheobliqueobliminmethod,theyloadedasexpectedonseparateTRandSSfactors,
whichintercorrelatedonly.18, witha95% condence interval from .08 to
.28. Use of maximum-likelihoodextraction ledto nearlyidentical
factors,intercorrelating .22.In thecomponent solution, salient
structure-matrixloadings onthe rstfactor were .93 (Alpha), .93 (ESI
Religiousness), and .91 (Religious),whereas salient loadings on the
second factor were .85 (ESI SpiritualExperiences), .79 (Delta), and
.77 (Mystical), with all other loadingsbeing of magnitude .31 or
lower. Component scores were saved
fromthisanalysisandcomparedtocompositevariablesconstructedbystandardizing
allsix indicators, then averaging the three TR indica-tors,
andthenseparately averaging the three SSindicators.
Thecompositevariablescorrelated.9994(TR)and.9990(SS)withthecorresponding
component scores and .21 with each other (95%condence interval
from.11 to .31). Treating each set of threeindicators as alternate
measures of a single construct, we couldcomputepreciselytheinternal
consistencyofthesecompositevari-ables (a .91 for TR, .72 for SS).
Therefore, we used these bypreference in our hypothesis tests
(although a comparison indicatedthat thenearlyidentical component
scores wouldhaveledtothesameconclusions).Aquestionof someinterest
is whether hypotheses wouldhavebeen supported if we had used only
one kind of indicator. To
enableexaminationofthissubsidiaryissue,weprovideadditionalcorrela-tionsbetweeneachindicatorandthemeasures.
ButweemphasizethatinTables27,thetwoleftmostcolumnsof
correlationsarethecrucial ones. The next two columns to the right
provide estimates of1272 Saucier&Skrzypinskathe correlations
after correctionfor attenuationdue
toimperfectreliabilityofthemeasures.
Thesecorrectionsshouldbeinterpretedwithsomecautionbecausesuchcorrectionscanbeexcessivetothedegree
that the two variables involved are multidimensional
insimilarways(Schmitt, 1996); thescalesinthetableslikelyvaryintheir
degreeof multidimensionality, sothereis ahazardof
over-correctioninsomeinstances.Variables Hypothesized to Relate to
Tradition-Oriented ReligiousnessTables 2through4present
correlations betweenthe
TRandSSvariablesandhypotheticallyrelatedscales.Table2concentratesonvariables
hypothesized to be related to TR. TRwas stronglycorrelated with
Right-Wing Authoritarianism and with Traditional-ismbut also
moderately correlated with Collectivismand
withImpressionManagement.
CorrelationswiththeSSindicatorswererarelysignicant(po.001).Theseresultssupportourhypotheses.Wealsofoundsupportforhypothesesinvolvingvariablesbasedon
act-frequency self-reports. TR was very strongly
positivelycorrelated with engagement in religious practices and was
negativelycorrelatedwithreportedengagement
indrugandalcohol-relatedbehaviors.VariablesHypothesizedtoRelatetoSubjectiveSpiritualityTable
3 includes variables hypothesized to be related to SS. Absorp-tion,
magical ideation, superstitious beliefs, and fantasy-proneness
inadulthood were all substantially positively correlated with
SS.Fantasy-proneness in childhood had moderate correlations withSS,
as diddissociationandeccentricity. Correlations for
privateself-consciousness andfor social dominance orientationwere
sig-nicantfortheaggregatevariable,butonlyfortwoofthethreeSSindicators,
takenindividually. Theindividualismmeasures turnedout to be more
highly correlated with TR (negatively) than with SS.It appears,
then, that TRis abipolar dimensionthat is
partiallyalignedwithcollectivismversusindividualism,whereasSShaslittlerelationtothisbipolardimension.Reports
of creative achievement behaviors had weak correlationsin the
expected positive direction with SS but not consistently
acrossSpiritualButNotReligious
1273Table2CorrelationsWithScalesExpectedtoRelatetoTradition-OrientedReligiousnessTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSTR0SS0ReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaReligiousPractices.80n.01.90.01.75n.77n.71n.01.11.10Right-WingAuthoritarianism.64n.15.70.18.53n.50n.75n.04.10.20nMPQTraditionalism.55n.17n.62.21.46n.43n.63n.09.17.15Drug/AlcoholBehavior().44n.10.49.12.41n.38n.42n.04.05.15Collectivism(Triandis&Gelfand).31n.09.43.14.30n.33n.24n.03.01.16Collectivism(Oyserman).24n.02.31.03.21n.22n.24n.00.00.04ImpressionManagement.21n.08.24.10.21n.21n.16.03.08.08Note.N5375.TR0Tradition-orientedReligiousnesscomposite,TR0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation;SSSubjectiveSpiritualitycomposite,SS0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation;ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory;ESI-RReligiousnessfactor;ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,()indicatesthatanegativecorrelationwashypothesized.Attenuation-correctedcoefcientsareprintedinitalics.npo.001.Table3CorrelationsWithScalesExpectedtoRelatetoSubjectiveSpiritualityTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSTR0SS0ReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaIrrational/SuperstitiousBeliefs.08.65n.09.79.00.13.09.43n.59n.55nMagicalIdeation.06.57n.07.71.03.10.09.39n.53n.46nMPQAbsorption.05.55n.06.68.03.12.01.37n.52n.43nCEQFantasyProneness.15.51n.18.68.11.20n.10.38n.53n.32nEccentricity.20n.37n.23.47.20n.10.25n.26n.40n.22nCEQChildhoodFantasies.05.35n.06.48.06.01.09.19n.37n.29nCESDissociation.07.34n.08.42.03.10.06.20n.34n.26nPrivateSelf-Consciousness.00.25n.00.34.03.06.03.23n.28n.10SocialDominanceOrientation().06.23n.07.30.00.03.19n.10.17.29nEnvironmentalistPractices.22n.13.26.18.19n.13.30n.03.16.13CreativeAchievementBehaviors.06.13.07.18.05.02.13.07.21n.04Individualism(Oyserman).26n.12.37.19.24n.26n.21n.09.11.11HorizontalIndividualism.20n.10.28.16.22n.16.18n.06.05.14Note.N5375.TRTradition-orientedReligiousnesscomposite,TR0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation,SSSubjectiveSpiritualitycomposite,SS0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation,ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory,ESI-RReligiousnessfactor,ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,()indicatesthatanegativecorrelationwashypothesized.Attenuation-correctedcoefcientsareprintedinitalics.npo.001.all
indicators. Environmentalist practices were more
consistentlyrelated(butnegativelyandweakly)toTRthantoSSindicators.VariablesHypothesizedtoRelatetoBothTRandSSTable4presentsresultsforvariableshypothesizedtoberelatedtobothTRandSS.
Self-Transcendencewas, ashypothesized, relatedtoboth, albeit
morestronglytoTR. Thisoverall effect,
however,masksinterestingdivergencesat thesubscalelevel.
Self-Forgetful-nessandTranspersonalIdenticationwerebothmorehighlycorre-lated
with SS, whereas Spiritual Acceptance, Enlightened,
andIdealisticweremorehighlycorrelatedwithTR.ThelastvariablesinTable4werehypothesizedtoberelatedinopposite
directions to TR and SS, and thus to differentiate these
twodimensions. Thebest differentiator was Quest Orientation,
whichwas relatedpositively toSSandnegativelytoTR. Religionasquest
is characterized as an open-ended active approach toexistential
questionsthatresistsclear-cut, patanswers (Batson&Schoenrade,
1991, p. 416), thus emphasizing individuality overtradition.
Directions of effect for the other variables were allconsistent
withhypotheses but not signicant for
bothaggregatevariables.CorrelationsofTRandSSWithSingleItemsWe had
numerous hypotheses relating TRor SS to attitudesregardingcausal
forcesandcategoriesofpersons.Table5presentsrelevant correlations.
Because the attitudes were indexed with singleitems of
unascertained reliability, no corrections for attenuation
areoffered.As predicted, TR was strongly associated with a belief
that God isapowerful force, withabeliefinthepowerofsupernatural
forcesand miracles, and with respect for religious leaders, those
who studythe scriptures, those who followthe Ten Commandments,
and(negatively) scientists who believe in evolution. There were
moderatepositive correlations with respect for military leaders
and, negatively.withrespectforgaysandlesbiansandfeminists.As
predicted, SS was associated with superstitious beliefs, such asin
the power of astrology or magic, and with respect for psychics
andbeliefinthepowerofdestiny.Severalothervariableshypothesized1276
Saucier&SkrzypinskaTable4CorrelationsWithScalesExpectedtoRelatetoBothDimensionsTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSTR0SS0ReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaHypothesizedtobebothTRandSS-relatedTCISelf-Transcendence.76n.52n.82.63.67n.79n.64n.31n.56n.38nTCIST1:Self-forgetful.15.52n.18.69.14.21n.07.33n.55n.38nTCIST2:Transpersonalidentif..25n.59n.30.79.22n.33n.15.36n.53n.53nTCIST3:Spiritualacceptance.81n.43n.89.53.71n.83n.70n.24n.51n.30nTCIST4:Enlightened.87n.33n.93.40.76n.87n.78n.20n.40n.20nTCIST5:Idealistic.75n.35n.87.45.67n.75n.67n.22n.36n.27nHypothesizedopposingrelationstoTRandSSQuestOrientation.21n.33n.25.43.17.11.31n.23n.23n.33nCollectivismvs.Individualism(Oys.).32n.07.42.10.29n.31n.29n.05.07.05Hierarchialism.31n.05.44.08.25n.22n.39n.01.02.12Extropunitiveness.25n.06.31.08.16.15.38n.04.08.10CPINorm-favoring(v.2).20n.12.24.16.20n.20n.17.07.13.09ConformingversusNonconforming.16.15.17.18.17.07.19n.15.20n.02Note.N5375.TRTradition-orientedReligiousnesscomposite,TR0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation,SSSubjectiveSpiritualitycomposite,SS0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation,ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory,ESI-RReligiousnessfactor,ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,()indicatesthatanegativecorrelationwashypothesized.Attenuation-correctedcoefcientsareprintedinitalics.npo.001.Table5CorrelationsofTradition-OrientedReligiousnessandSubjectiveSpiritualityWithSingleItemsTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaHypothesizedtobeTR-relatedPowerofGod.84n.24.74n.79n.82n.17.26n.17RespectReligiousLeaders.67n.03.60n.59n.67n.07.01.00RespectThoseWhoStudyScriptures.67n.08.58n.59n.68n.04.10.05PowerofMiracles.62n.33n.50n.61n.61n.21n.37n.21nPowerofSupernatural.59n.26n.48n.59n.56n.15.32n.16RespectTenCommandmentsObeyers.53n.00.47n.46n.54n.01.05.05RespectMilitaryLeaders.35n.08.31n.24n.43n.00.10.11RespectEvolutionScientists().57n.05.43n.47n.69n.02.03.18nRespectGayandLesbianPeople().37n.19n.29n.25n.48n.05.15.26nRespectFeminists().37n.18n.29n.27n.46n.08.10.26nHypothesizedtobeSS-relatedPowerofAstrologicalInuences.07.55n.03.10.06.41n.48n.44nPowerofMagic.03.46n.02.07.04.35n.42n.35nRespectPsychics.04.46n.05.00.06.27n.39n.43nRespectEnlightenedPersons.36n.45n.31n.40n.29n.26n.38n.43nPowerofWitchcraft.13.31n.10.13.12.29n.34n.12RespectUnconventionalBeliefs.05.29n.05.03.11.12.28n.29nPowerofDestiny.11.30n.05.09.18.20n.23n.30nPowerofFate.01.21n.07.05.08.13.10.28nRespectAvoidersofMilitary.34n.12.30n.23n.41n.01.16.11HypothesizedtoberelatedtobothTRandSSFrequencyofDivorces.03.22n.02.02.06.13.19n.21nNumberofBiologicalChildren.13.01.16.12.09.05.03.01Note.N5375.TRTradition-orientedReligiousnesscomposite,SSSubjectiveSpiritualitycomposite,ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory,ESI-RReligiousnessfactor,ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,()indicatesthatanegativecorrelationwashypothesized.npo.001.to
be SS-relatedthe power of witchcraft and fate, respect for
thosewith unconventional beliefshad moderate correlations in
theexpected direction but not consistently across all indicators.
Respectforavoidersof
militaryservicewasmoreconsistentlyrelated(butnegatively)
toTRthantoSSindicators. Overall, correlations
inTables3through5suggestthatSSinvolvesaninterestinprivatelyandsubjectively
experienced(rather thancollectively sharedandvalidated)metaphysical
phenomenabutthatthisinterestdoesnothavesubstantialcorollariesinthedomainofpoliticalviews.TRand
SS composites (put in standardized form)
differedamongvariousdenominationcategories,
whichalsowereindexedbyasingle item. Amongthose categories
withsubstantial (overN525)representationinoursample,
meanstandardscorestiltedintheTRdirectionforProtestants(.49forTR,
.15forSS)andCatholics(TR.50, SS.07). Aswouldbeexpected,
scorestiltedinthe SS direction for those who identied as spiritual
but notafliatedwithaconventional religion (TR .31, SS.75). Thosewho
endorsed none as their religious afliation had below-meanscores for
both but were more extreme for TR ( 1.36) than for SS( .60).
Withinamultivariate analysis of variance (overall F[6,634] 558.27,
po.001), denominationcategory(amongthesefour,with N5321) predicted
both TR (F[3, 317] 5105.33, po.001) andSS(F[3, 317] 527.42,
po.001). Post hocScheffe tests indicatedthat,
with95%condenceintervals, Protestant
andCatholicdidnotdifferfromeachotheroneitherTRorSSbutdiddifferfromboth
spiritual and none, just as spiritual and
nonedifferedfromeachother,onbothTRandSS.Overall,thosewhoidentiedwithareligiousdenominationweremuchmorelikelytobehighonTRthanwerethosewhodidnot.
SS, however, wasauseful differentiator amongthe unchurched; that
is, it distin-guishedwithverylargeeffectsizethespiritual
butnotafliatedwithaconventionalreligionfromthosewithnoneasreligiousafliation.CorrelationsWithPersonalityDimensionsTable
6 presents correlations between the TR and SS indicators
andbroadpersonalitydimensions.TheexpectedcorrelationofTRwithAgreeableness
(A) andConscientiousness (C) couldnot
befoundwiththeBigFivescalesandonlyheldupforAgreeablenesswhen1280
Saucier&SkrzypinskaTable6CorrelationsofTradition-OrientedReligiousnessandSubjectiveSpiritualityWithBigFiveandMulti-LanguageSevenTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSTR0SS0ReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaBigFiveExtraversion.02.07.02.09.02.06.00.05.08.11BigFiveAgreeableness.06.13.07.17.11.12.03.03.08.20nBigFiveConscientiousness.07.15.08.19.03.07.08.10.14.12BigFiveEmotionalStability.16.15.19.20.11.17.21n.07.15.17BigFiveImagination/Intellect.11.21n.13.28.09.02.22n.12.28n.07NEO-PI-RExtraversion.05.20n.06.25.04.11.00.07.17.23nNEO-PI-RAgreeableness.29n.13.32.16.31n.32n.19n.04.07.22nNEO-PI-RConscientiousness.07.18.08.22.07.07.05.11.17.15NEO-PI-RNeuroticism.03.07.03.09.01.01.10.07.07.05NEO-PI-ROpennesstoExperience.26n.40n.28.49.19n.13.37n.24n.33n.37nML7Gregariousness.06.08.07.11.04.10.03.05.11.12ML7Self-Assurance.02.00.02.00.03.02.05.03.01.02ML7EvenTemper03.07.04.09.07.05.04.05.09.04ML7ConcernforOthers.28n15.35.21.25n.30n.24n.08.07.21nML7Conscientiousness.26n.16.32.22.23n.20n.28n.11.12.14ML7Originality/Intellect.13.13.16.18.08.05.22n.11.15.03ML7SocialUnacceptability(NV).03.28n.04.37.05.03.00.23n.30n.16Note.N5375.TRTradition-OrientedReligiousnessfactor,SSSubjectiveSpiritualityfactor,ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory,ESI-RReligiousnessfactor,ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,ML7Multi-LanguageSeven.npo.001.usingtheNEO-PI-Rscales.
However, TRwasconsistentlymoder-atelycorrelatedwithML7Concernfor
Others (relatedtoAgree-ableness)andML7Conscientiousness,
inlinewiththehypothesis.These results indicate that the correlation
between TR and A may bestronger when the A measure emphasizes
either compliance (as in theNEO-PI-R)orprosocial
andaltruistictendencies(asintheML7),ratherthangentlenessandabsenceofhostility(asontheBigFivescale).
Similarly, the correlation between TR and C may be
strongerwhentheCmeasurehasgreateremphasisonstrictnessandperfec-tionism,asistrueofCintheML7(seeSaucier,2003,Table4).We
expected that SS would be related to Openness to Experience(O)
andtoitslexical-factorcounterpart Imagination/Intellect. Wefound
that O is related to both TR and SS and is a
gooddifferentiatorofthem.
ThosehighonTRtendedtobelowonO;thosehighonSStendedtobehighonO.
ThispatterngeneralizedweaklyandinconsistentlytothelexicalfactorinlinewithpreviousndingsthatOissubstantiallyrelatedtosocialattitudes(McCrae,1996;
van Hiel, Kossowska, & Mervielde, 2000), more so than is
thelexicalIntellectfactor(Yik&Tang,1996).Finally,Table6revealsaninterestingbutunanticipatedcorrela-tion.
Two of the SS indicators were correlated positively with
SocialUnacceptability (i.e., Negative Valence), and the third was
nearly so(po.01but not po.001).
ThereissomecontroversyoverwhetherNegative Valence (NV) has a
substantive interpretation (Benet-Martinez &Waller, 2002;
Saucier, 2002, 2003) or anartifactualinterpretation(Ashton&Lee,
2002). Sauciers(2003)
markersforthisfactorincludetheadjectivesweirdandcrazy;
furtheranalysesindicatedthatindividualswithstrongtendenciestowardsubjective,mystical
spiritual experienceswerealsomorelikelytoapplytheseparticular
adjectives tothemselves, consistent witha substantiveinterpretation
of NV and with the already noted correlation
betweenSSandeccentricity.HierarchicalRegressionAnalysesSubstantial
correlations between personality scales and either TR
orSSraisethepossibilitythat TRandSSarereallynothingmorethan traits
already captured by personality inventories. The resolu-tion of
this issue depends, however, on which constructs one
acceptstobeaspectsofpersonality.AkeyquestionthenisHowfarmust1282
Saucier&Skrzypinskaone expand the denition of what comprises a
personality variable
inordertoarguethatdispositionstowardTRandSSarepersonalityvariables?To
answer this question, we employed a set of
hierarchical-regressionanalyses.
Ineachanalysistherstblockwasthegendervariable. The second block of
predictors consisted of lexical Big
Fivescalescores.Thethirdandfourthblocksconsistedofotherperson-ality
scales that had demonstrated a substantial correlation with TRor
SSindicators inthe earlier analyses: the
thirdblockinvolvedscaleswhosecategorizationaspersonalityisuncontroversial;thefourthblockincludedscales
whose categorizationas suchmightgenerate some debate. Finally, a
fthblockinvolvedscales thatwould rarely be categorized as
personality traits. The rst fourblockswereutilizedinaforcedentry
manner,
whereasthefthblockwassubjectedtoastepwisealgorithmtosearchforthesinglevariablethat
best addedtotheprediction(pforentry.001,
pforremoval.005).Asinearlieranalyses,primaryanalysesinvolvedtheTRandSScomposites,eachbasedonthreeindicators,butwealsopresent
analyses basedoneachindicator alone soas
toexaminegeneralityofresultsacrosssingleindicators.Table7summarizestheresultsofthesehierarchical
regressions.Gender and the lexical Big Five each provided a
signicant R-squaredchangeinonlyhalfoftheregressions.
Addingpersonalityinventoryscales (for whichthere wouldbe nodispute
over theirbeing considered personality variables; e.g., Openness to
Experience)raised these multiple correlations substantially (to .41
and .61, with
arangeof.35to.58fortheindicators).Addingstillotherscalesthatmight
incitesomecontroversyif labeledpersonality (e.g.,
Self-Transcendence) produced a very large increase in the
multiplecorrelationfor TR(to.87, indicators inthe.75.85range)
andasmallerincreaseforSS(to.68,indicatorsinthe.48.69range).Switchingtoadjusted(shrunken)
Rvalues intheseregressionswould result in a reduction of from .00
to .03 in the R values,
exceptthattheRforMysticalandthelexicalBigFivewasadjustedfrom.19 to
.14. There is probably relatively little ination in the
multiplecorrelations.Theresultsof
thesefourregressionstepsindicatethat TRandSS should not be
considered personality if personality meanscaptured by the lexical
Big Five. However, if personality is denedas whatever is measured
on inuential personality inventoriesSpiritualButNotReligious
1283Table7MultipleCorrelationsFromHierarchicalRegressionsUsingPersonalityScalestoPredictReligious/SpiritualBeliefDimensionsTradition-OrientedReligiousnessSubjectiveSpiritualityAfterStepTRSSReligiousESIRelig.SDIAlphaMysticalESISpir.SDIDelta1Gender.17.23n.12.21n.14.09.21n.26n2LexicalBigFive.27.37n.22.27.34n.19.40n.37n3OtherPersonalityScales.41n.61n.35n.37n.47n.43n.58n.55n4OtherScalesThatMightBeLabeledPersonality.87n.68n.75n.84n.85n.48n.69n.59n5Non-PersonalityScalesThatAddtoPrediction.88n.78n.76n.85n.88n.55n.76n.68nScaleAddedatStep5RWAIrrBelRWAIndividualismRWAIrrBelIrrBelIrrBelItsDirectionofEffect1111111Note.N5375.nChangesinR-squaredforstepsignicant,po.001.RWARightWingAuthoritarianism.IndividualismOysermanscale.IrrBelIrrationalBeliefs.ForTRregressionsStep3includedNEO-PI-ROpennesstoExperienceandCPIVector2(Norm-favoring),Step4TCISelf-TranscendenceandMPQTraditionalism.ForSSregressionsStep3includedNEO-PI-ROpennesstoExperience,MPQAbsorption,60ML7NegativeValence,PrivateSelf-Consciousness,Step4TCISelf-Transcendence,CESDissociation,CEQFantasy-Proneness,Eccentricity.(including
the TCI andMPQ), thenit appears that
TRandSSshoulddenitelybeconsideredaspectsofpersonality.ForallthreeTRindicatorsRWAhadpartialcorrelationsinthe.15to.45rangewiththecriterionafterBlock4,
but, inonecase,Individualismhadahigher (negative) one. For
theSSindicators,Irrational Beliefs was, for the aggregate as well
as the singleindicators, the scale that added to prediction. Though
Block 5additions all yielded a signicant change in R-squared
values,manymaybe surprisedthat suchbelief scales addedsolittle
towhat can be called personality measures in terms of
predictingvariation in tradition-oriented religiousness and
subjective spirituality.Theforegoingresults
involvedoperationalizingTRandSSviacompositesthatallowedthemtobemodestly(.21)intercorrelated.However,theseresultswerenotmethoddependent.Whenanalyseswererunusingcomponentorfactorscoresinsteadof
composites,with either principal components or maximum-likelihood
extractionandwitheitherobliqueorwithorthogonalfactors,
thecoefcientswerelittledifferentandwouldleadtothesameconclusions.DISCUSSIONThe
results of this study indicated that Tradition-oriented
Religious-ness (TR) andSubjectiveSpirituality(SS)
arehighlyindependentdimensions that can be tapped by any of at
least three sets ofindicators. Anyof these indicators wouldhave
generatedsimilarresults for most of our hypotheses, so these ndings
are notcontingent on whether the indicators are adjectives or,
instead,factors drawnfromthe ESI or fromstudies of
dictionary-basedisms. Cautionis needed, however, inusing the
termspiritual insurvey items, as this term tends to lead to a
confounding of TR
andSS,whereastermslikereligiousormysticaldonot.These dimensions
have quite different correlates. TRis highlyassociated with
authoritarianismand traditionalismand, moremoderately,
withcollectivismversus
individualismandwith(low)opennesstoexperience;TRrepresentsabrand
ofreligious/spiritualbeliefinwhichthereishighrelianceontradition-hallowedsourcesof
authoritythat providesharedpractices (e.g., rituals) andrulesfor
controllingsocial andsexual behavior. SSis
associatedwithabsorption, fantasy-proneness, dissociation, and
beliefs of a magicalSpiritualButNotReligious
1285orsuperstitioussort,aswellaswitheccentricityandhighopennesstoexperienceandrepresentsabrandofbeliefinwhichtheindivi-duals
subjective experiences (including intuitions and
fantasies)havegreatimportance.Thetwodimensionsappeartobedispositionsthataresubstan-tiallyintertwinedwithcommonlymeasuredpersonalitytraits
andshouldnot beconfusedwithdenominational afliations,
norevenwithmembershipinaparticularreligion.
Perhapssuchafliationsandmembershipsreect speciccultural
andenvironmental inu-ences to which the individual might be exposed
and thus involve onlythe supercial mode in which these dispositions
are expressed.However, those whoidentify witha denominationappear
morelikelytobehighonTRthanarethosewhodonot.Overall, our ndings are
potentially important for several reasons.First, they indicate that
scientists who treat religious/spiritualtendencies as a unitary
phenomenon do so in error. Instead, spiritualtendencies
cangoineither of twohighlyindependent
directions:towardatradition-oriented,
authority-basedreligionemphasizingcollectively shared beliefs, or
toward a mysticism based in subjective,individual experience that
seemsto have little implication for groupactionor
politicalviews.Second, itappearsthatthese twodifferentdirections
are associated with different dispositions. One
directionreferencescollectivelydenedauthorityandprovidesclearerdirec-tives
for behavior, making it more appealing to those whosetendencies and
values emphasize behavioral control (via rules,rituals, or a
hierarchical conception of the world). The otherdirection, more
subjective and phenomenological, may be moreappealing to those with
tendencies to absorption and
fantasy.Researchisneededtodenefurtherthesedispositions.Arguments
that religiousness/spirituality forms a sixth factor
ofpersonality(e.g., MacDonald, 2000; Piedmont, 1999)
shouldtakeintoaccountthattherearetworelativelyorthogonaldimensionsinthis
domain and that these two dimensions have substantial
correla-tions(inopposingdirections)withoneofthewidelyacceptedrstve
factors, Openness to Experience. If one were to produce a
singlereligiousness/spiritualityfactorthataveragedTRandSS, it
mightappearorthogonal toOpenness. But
asourndingsdemonstrate,TRandSSshouldnotbelumpedtogether.One could,
alternatively, attempt to assimilate these ndingsentirely to the
Five-Factor Model. This would involve the argument1286
Saucier&Skrzypinskathat SS and TRsimply represent high and low
Openness toExperience, respectively. Arst problemwiththis approach:
TRand SS are not opposites, but highly independent. This means
someindividuals will be high on one and low on the other. But
others willbe high on both and others will be low on both, and
these two groupsof individuals might tend to score similarlyaround
the middleonOpenness to Experience. Within the Five-Factor Model,
informationthat
woulddistinguishhighTR/highSSfromlowTR/lowSSissimply lost. Asecond
problemwith this Openness 5SSTRformulationis that Openness has some
problems
withgeneralityacrossculturalsettings(DeRaad,1994;Watkins&Gerong,1997).WefoundthatTRandSSarerelativelyindependentoflexicallybased
personality factors and that lexically based social-attitude(isms)
factors serve as good indicators for them. The
clearestapproachmight betodispensewiththeOpenness construct as
aproblematic amalgam of temperamental, intellectual, and
attitudinaltendencies. Instead, onewouldconceiveof
TRandSSasdisposi-tional factors underlying social attitudes that
are beyond a Big
FiveinwhichthereisanIntellectfactorratherthanOpenness.TRandSSdimensionsdonotapplyonlytoreligiouspeoplebutcan
also be used to differentiate among the nonreligious. Forexample,
onenonreligiouspersonmaystronglyopposetraditionalreligionbutbemoreindifferenttosubjectivespiritual
experiences.Another may be relatively indifferent to traditional
religion butstronglyskepticalofsubjectivespiritualexperiences.Some
limitations of this study need acknowledgment. First, we donot yet
knowtowhat extent ourndingsareculturebound. Thepresent sample
represents but one cultural setting. Given thepresence inall major
religions of distinct orthodoxandmysticalschools, cross-cultural
generalizabilityseems promising. However,relations withother
variables maybe moderatedbyculture. Forexample, if
adherencetotraditional authority-basedreligionwerestrongly
normative in a culture, endorsement of attitudes represent-ing
doctrines of this religion should become highly desirable
forindividuals. Under such conditions, measurement of
tradition-orientedreligiousnessshouldbecomestronglyaffectedbydesirabilityrespond-ing,
asarescoresonAgreeablenessandConscientiousness, withtheresult that
correlations of TR with these two variables should increase.We
relied on multiple converging indicators of TR and SS as thereis
not yet awell-validatedmeasure of these twoconstructs;
ESISpiritualButNotReligious 1287items, markers of AlphaandDeltaisms
factors, or adjectives allseemcapable of serving. Moreover, we
reliedexclusivelyonself-report data, though it can be argued that
self-report may be superiorwith respect to belief variables because
informants often are not
veryknowledgeableaboutthefullrangeofanotherindividualsbeliefs.CONCLUSIONSIndividual
differences inreligious/spiritual beliefs cannot be
cap-turedbyasingledimension. Twohighlyindependent dimensions(TR and
SS) have quite different correlates, supporting the view
thattheyareindeeddivergentconstructs.TRisassociatedwithauthor-itarianismandtraditionalismand,
moremoderately, withcollecti-vism versus individualism and with low
Openness to Experience. SSisassociatedwithabsorption,
fantasy-proneness, dissociation,
andbeliefsofamagicalorsuperstitioussort,aswellaseccentricityandhigh
Openness to Experience. Expressions of religious/spiritualbelief
appear to differ according to whether the person
placesrelativelymoreimportanceonhavingclearcollectivestandardsforbehavioral
control, or onpersonal intuitions, fantasies,
andsub-jectiveexperience.Becausethetwodimensionsofreligious/spiritualbelief
overlapsosubstantiallywithpersonality,
thereisacaseforsayingtheyarethemselvesaspectsofpersonality.
Eveniftheyarenot personality, they appear to capture important
dispositions of theindividual, dispositions to which psychology has
paid too
littleattention.REFERENCESAllport,G.W.(1959).Religionandprejudice.CraneReview,2,110.Almagor,M.,Tellegen,A.,&Waller,N.(1995).TheBigSevenmodel:Across-cultural
replication and further exploration of the basic dimensions of
naturallanguage of trait descriptions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69,300307.Altemeyer, B. (1996). The
authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA:
HarvardUniversityPress.Argyle, M., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975).
The social psychology of religion. London:Routledge.Ashton, M. C.,
& Lee, K. (2002). Six independent factors of personality
variation:AresponsetoSaucier.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,16,6375.1288
Saucier&SkrzypinskaBatson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A.
(1991). Measuring religion as
quest:Validityconcerns.JournalfortheScienticStudyofReligion,30,416429.Baumeister,R.F.(1991).Meaningsoflife.NewYork:GuilfordPress.Benet-Mart
nez, V., & Waller, N. G. (2002). From adorable to worthless:
Implicitand self-report structure of highly evaluative personality
descriptors. EuropeanJournalofPersonality,16,141.Bernstein, E. M.,
& Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and
validityofadissociationscale.JournalofNervousandMentalDisease,174,727735.Burris,
C. T. (1994). Curvilinearity and religious types: A second look at
intrinsic,extrinsic, and quest relations. International Journal for
the Psychology ofReligion,4,245260.Buss, A. H. (1980).
Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San
Francisco:Freeman.Church, A. T., Reyes, J. A. S., Katigbak, M. S.,
& Grimm, S. D. (1997).
FilipinopersonalitystructureandtheBigFivemodel: Alexical approach.
Journal
ofPersonality,65,477528.Cloninger,C.R.,Przybeck,T.,Svrakic,D.,&Wetzel,R.(1994).TheTempera-mentandCharacterInventory(TCI):Aguidetoitsdevelopmentanduse.
St.Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of Personality,Washington
University.Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEOPI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI) professional
manual.Odessa,FL:PsychologicalAssessmentResources.Crowne,D.P.,&Marlowe,D.(1964).
Theapprovalmotive:Studiesinevaluativedependence.NewYork:Wiley.De
Raad, B. (1994). An expedition in search of a fth lexical factor:
Key issues
inthelexicalapproach.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,8,229250.Dollahite,
D. C. (1998). Fathering, faith, and spirituality. Journal of
MensStudies,7,315.DOnofrio, B. M.,Eaves,L. J.,Murrelle,L.,
Maes,H.H., &Spilka, B.(1999).Understandingbiological andsocial
inuences onreligious afliation, atti-tudes, andbehaviors:
Abehaviorgeneticperspective. Journal
ofPersonality,67,953984.Eckblad, M., &Chapman, L. J. (1983).
Magical ideationas anindicator
ofschizotypy.JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology,51,215225.Emmons,R.A.(1999).
Religioninthepsychologyofpersonality:Anintroduc-tion.JournalofPersonality,67,873888.Fenigstein,
A., Scheier, M. F., &Buss, A. H. (1975).
Publicandprivateself-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal
of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology,43,522527.Fuller, R. C.
(2001). Spiritual, but not religious: Understanding
unchurchedAmerica.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Gillings, V.,
&Joseph, S. (1996). Religiosityandsocial desirability:
Impressionmanagement andself-deceptivepositivity.
PersonalityandIndividual Differ-ences,21,10471050.Goldberg, L. R.
(1999). The Curious Experiences Survey, a revised version of
theDissociativeExperiencesScale: Factorstructure, reliability,
andrelationstodemographic and personality variables. Psychological
Assessment, 11, 134145.SpiritualButNotReligious 1289Goldberg, L. R.
(in press). The comparative validity of adult
personalityinventories: Applicationsof aconsumer-testingframework.
InS. R. Briggs,J. M. Cheek, &E. M. Donahue (Eds.), Handbook of
adult personalityinventories.NewYork:Plenum.Gough, H. G. (1996).
CPI manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA:
ConsultingPsychologistsPress.Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T.,
&Solomon, S. (1986). The causes andconse-quences of aneedfor
self-esteem: Aterror management theory. InR. F.Baumeister (Ed.),
Public self and private self (pp. 189212).
NewYork:Springer-Verlag.Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and
evaluating factor scores. PsychologicalMethods,6,430450.Kendler, K.
S., Gardner, C. O., & Prescott, C. A. (1997). Religion,
psychopathol-ogy, andsubstanceuseandabuse: Amultimeasure,
genetic-epidemiologicalstudy.AmericanJournalofPsychiatry,154,322329.Koenig,
H. G.(1997).
Isreligiongoodforyourhealth?Theeffectsofreligiononphysicalandmentalhealth.NewYork:HaworthPastoralPress.Koopmans,
P. C., Sanderman, R., Timmerman, I., &Emmelkamp, P. M.
G.(1994). The Irrational Beliefs Inventory: Development and
psychometricevaluation.EuropeanJournalofPsychologicalAssessment,10,1527.Kozielecki,
J. (1991). ZBogiemalbo bez Boga [With God or without
God].Warszawa:PWN.Krauss, S. (in press). The lexical structure of
social attitudes in Romania: The
ismsofEasternEurope.JournalofPersonality.Kuczkowski, S. (1993).
Psychologia religii [Psychology of religion]. Krakow:WAM.MacDonald,
D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement and relation
totheFiveFactorModelofpersonality.JournalofPersonality,68,153197.MacDonald,
D. A. (2002). The Expressions of Spirituality Inventory:
Testdevelopment,validationandscoringinformation.Unpublishedmanuscript.Ma)drzycki,
T. (1996). Osobowosc jako systemtworza)cy i realizujacy
plany[Personalityasasystemforcreatingandrealizingplans].Gdan
sk:GWP.McCrae,R.R.(1996).Socialconsequencesofexperientialopenness.Psychologi-calBulletin,120,323337.McGuire,
M. T., Troisi, A., Raleigh, M. J., & Masters, R. D. (1998).
Ideology andphysiological regulation. In I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt &
F. K. Salter (Eds.), Indoctrin-ability, ideology, andwarfare:
Evolutionaryperspectives (pp. 263276). NewYork:Berghahn.Merkelbach,
H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. (2001). The Creative
ExperiencesQuestionnaire: Abrief self-report measureof
fantasy-proneness.
PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,31,987995.Miller,W.R.(1998).Researchingthespiritualdimensionsofalcoholandotherdrugproblems.Addiction,93,979990.Newberg,A.B.,&dAquili,E.B.(2000).Theneuropsychologyofreligiousandspiritualexperience.JournalofConsciousnessStudies,7,251266.Newberg,
A., Alavi, A., Baime, M., Pourdehnad, M., Santanna, J., &
dAquili,
E.(2001).Themeasurementofregionalcerebralbloodowduringthecomplex1290
Saucier&Skrzypinskacognitive taskof meditation: Apreliminary
SPECTstudy. Psychiatry Re-search:Neuroimaging,106,113122.Norman, W.
T. (1967). 2800personalitytrait descriptors: Normative
operatingcharacteristics for a university population. Department of
Psychology,UniversityofMichigan.Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A.,
Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability
ofattitudes:Astudyoftwins.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,80,845860.Oyserman,D.(1993).Thelensofpersonhood:Viewingtheself,andothers,inamulticultural
society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65,9931009.Paulhus,D.L.(1984).Two-componentmodelsofsociallydesirableresponding.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46,598609.Paulhus,
D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in
self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.
Unpublished
manual,UniversityofBritishColumbia,Vancouver,Canada.Piedmont, R. L.
(1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of
personality?Spiritual transcendence and the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality, 67,9831013.Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L.,
&Thoresen, C. E. (2003).
Religionandspirituality:Linkagestophysicalhealth.AmericanPsychologist,58,3652.Pratto,
F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., &Malle, B. F. (1994).
Socialdominanceorientation: Apersonalityvariablepredictingsocial
andpoliticalattitudes.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67,741763.Sabatier,
A. (1905). Religions of authority and the religion of the
spirit(L.S.Houghton,Trans.).NewYork:McClure,Phillips,&Co.Saroglou,
V. (2002). Religion and the ve factors of personality: A
meta-analyticreview.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,32,1525.Saucier,
G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldbergs unipolar Big
Fivemarkers.JournalofPersonalityAssessment,63,506516.Saucier, G.
(2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal
ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,78,366385.Saucier, G. (2002). Gone
too faror not far enough? Comments on the article
byAshonandLee(2001).EuropeanJournalofPersonality,16,5562.Saucier,
G. (2003).
Analternativemulti-languagestructureofpersonalityattri-butes.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,17,179205.Saucier,
G. (2004). Personality and ideology: One thing or two?
Unpublishedmanuscript,UniversityofOregon.Saucier,G.,&Goldberg,L.R.(1998).WhatisbeyondtheBigFive?JournalofPersonality,66,495524.Schmitt,
N. (1996). Usesandabusesof coefcient alpha. Psychological
Assess-ment,8,350353.Schuon, F. (1953). The transcendent unity of
religions (P. Townsend, Trans.). NewYork:Pantheon.Shafranske, E.
P., &Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Factors associated with
theperceptionofspiritualityinpsychotherapy.JournalofTranspersonalPsychol-ogy,16,231241.SpiritualButNotReligious
1291Skrzypinska, K. (2002). Pogladnaswiat apoczuciesensui
zadowoleniezzycia[Viewoftheworld,lifemeaning,andwell-being].Krakow:Impuls.Skrzypinska,K.(inpress).FromspiritualitytoreligiousnessIsthisaone-waydirection?
Anthologyof Social andBehavioral Science. Linko ping,
Sweden:UniversityofLinko ping.Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Hunsberger,
B., & Gorsuch, R. (2003). The psychology
ofreligion:Anempiricalapproach.NewYork:Guilford.Tellegen, A. (in
press). Manual for the Multidimensional Personality
Questionnaire.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Thalbourne, M.
A., & Delin, P. S. (1994). A common thread underlying belief
intheparanormal, creativepersonality, mystical
experienceandpsychopathol-ogy.JournalofParapsychology,58,338.Triandis,
H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of
horizontalandvertical individualismandcollectivism.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,74,118128.vanHiel, A.,
Kossowska, M., &Mervielde, I. (2000).
TherelationshipbetweenOpenness to Experience and political
ideology. Personality and IndividualDifferences,28,741751.Vaughan,
F. (1991). Spiritual issuesinpsychotherapy. Journal
ofTranspersonalPsychology,23,105119.Waller, N. G., Kojetin, B. A.,
Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., &Tellegen, A.(1990).
Geneticandenvironmental inuencesonreligiousinterests, attitudesand
values: A study of twins reared apart and together. Psychological
Science,1,138142.Watkins, D., & Gerong, A. (1997). Culture and
spontaneous
self-conceptamongFilipinocollegestudents.JournalofSocialPsychology,137,480488.Wulff,D.M.(1997).Psychologyofreligion:Classicandcontemporary(2nded.).NewYork:Wiley.Yik,
M. S. M., &Tang, C. S. (1996). Linking personality and values:
Theimportance of a culturally relevant personality scale.
Personality and IndividualDifferences,21,767774.Zinnbauer, B. J.,
Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M.,
&Belavich, et al. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying
the fuzzy.
JournalfortheScienticStudyofReligion,36,549564.Zinnbauer, B. J.,
Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging
meaningsofreligiousnessandspirituality: Problemsandprospects.
Journal ofPerson-ality,67,889920.1292 Saucier&Skrzypinska