Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 1, No. 3, 162–179 1941-1022/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0015883

The Empirical and Conceptual Value of the Spiritual Transcendence

and Religious Involvement Scales for Personality Research

Ralph L. Piedmont, Joseph W. Ciarrochi, Joseph E. G. Williams

and Gabriel S. Dy-Liacco Eastern Illinois University
Loyola College in Maryland

Despite their wide usage, the constructs of spirituality and religiosity have no univer-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

sally accepted definitions, and very little research has examined how these numinous
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

constructs relate both to one another and to established personality dimensions. Two
studies are presented that examined the factor structure of a motivationally based
measure of spirituality, the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS) and a behaviorally
based measure of religiosity, the Religious Involvement Scale (RIS). Three causal
models examining their relationships to one another and to psychological measures of
growth and maturity, as well as their incremental validity in predicting a wide array of
psychosocial outcomes over the influence of the Five-Factor Model domains were
examined. Employing self and observer ratings and American and Filipino samples, the
results demonstrated that these robust, cross-culturally generalizable scales provided
insights into people not contained by traditional personality variables. The conceptual
implications of these results were discussed.

Keywords: Spiritual Transcendence Scale, Religious Involvement Scale, cross-cultural,

incremental validity

Spirituality and religiosity are the two cor-
nerstone constructs for research in the psychol-
ogy of religion. A recent PsychInfo search (Jan-
uary 28, 2009) on the number of times the terms
spirituality, religiosity, or religion appear in an
article found over 37,000 citations. In their re-
view of the field, Emmons and Paloutzian
(2003) noted the great upsurge in interest in
these constructs over the past 15 years by both
applied and basic researchers (see also Dy-
Liacco, Piedmont, Leach, & Nelson, 2003).
However, despite such widespread usage, these
terms do not have a universally accepted defi-
nition (e.g., Miller & Thoresen, 2003). Scott
(cited in Hill et al., 2000) identified 31 different
definitions of religiousness and 40 for spiritual-
ity, which she classified into nine different con-
Ralph L. Piedmont, Joseph W. Ciarrochi, and Gabriel S.
Dy-Liacco, Department of Pastoral Counseling, Loyola
College in Maryland; Joseph E. G. Williams, Department of
Psychology, Eastern Illinois University.
Mark Leach served as Action editor for this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Ralph L. Piedmont, Pastoral Counseling Department, Loy-
ola College in Maryland, 8890 McGaw Road, Suite 380,
Columbia, MD 21045. E-mail:mrmagic328@comcast.net
162
tent areas (e.g., experiences of connectedness,
systems of thought or beliefs, and capacities for
transcendence). When the same term is used to
define different concepts, clarity of understand-
ing cannot be reached.
Proponents for each of these different ap-
proaches to spirituality and religiosity have de-
veloped measures to capture these various qual-
ities (see Hill & Hood, 1999). Despite the great
interest in assessing the numinous, little effort
has been devoted either to examining unique-
ness and redundancy among these various con-
structs or to organizing numinous constructs
within broader models of personality (e.g., Gor-
such, 1990; Piedmont, 1999a,b). The lack of
such basic, construct validity data serves both to
undermine efforts to summarize the current re-
search literature and to preempt the field from
integrating religious and spiritual constructs
with more mainstream theoretical models (see
Hill et al., 2000).
The purpose of this report was to provide an
empirical look at these two constructs relative to
each other and to established psychosocial con-
structs within the context of a broad taxonomy
of personality: the Five-Factor Model (FFM).
The two studies contained here examined the
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY
structural nature of the Spiritual Transcendence
Scale (STS) and a Religious Involvement Scale
(RIS), as well as their incremental validity in
predicting a variety of outcomes over and above
the domains of the FFM across both American
and Filipino cultures. This report empirically
demonstrated the value of these scales for those
interested in understanding how individuals de-
velop a resilient sense of personal meaning.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Conceptualizing Spirituality
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and Religiosity
Because spirituality and religiosity are seen by
many as being conceptually overlapping, in that
both involve a search for the sacred (e.g., Hill &
Pargament, 2003), some researchers prefer to in-
terpret these two dimensions as being redundant
(e.g., Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999). Mu-
sick, Traphagan, Koenig, and Larson (2000)
have noted that in samples of adults, these two
terms are highly related to one another; over
88% rated themselves as being average to high
on both spirituality and religiousness. They
questioned whether there is a meaningful dis-
tinction between these two constructs or if any
disparities are “. . . simply an artifact of the
wishes of researchers hoping to find such dif-
ferences” (p. 80). Nonetheless, there are those
who emphasize the distinctiveness between
these two constructs (e.g., Piedmont, 2001;
Piedmont & Leach, 2002; Rayburn, 1996).
Here, spirituality is viewed as an attribute of an
individual (much like a personality trait) while
religiosity is understood as encompassing more
of the beliefs, rituals, and practices associated
with an institution (Miller & Thoresen, 1999,
pp. 6). Religiosity is concerned with how one’s
experience of a transcendent being is shaped by,
and expressed through, a community or social
organization. Spirituality, on the other hand, is
most concerned with one’s personal relation-
ships to larger, transcendent realities, such as
God or the universe.
Clarifying spirituality and religiosity in terms
of personal versus social orientations has some
value for the field and helps to promote clarity
in discussing these terms. However, this type of
distinction is not always made and the concep-
tual confusion surrounding these two terms is
reflected in numerous studies where multiple
measures are glued together into a single instru-
ment in an effort to insure that measures of both
163
constructs are included. T. Seeman, Dubin, and
M. Seeman (2003) have explicitly called for
future research to “disaggregate” these two
terms so that they may be differentially related
to outcomes of interest.
In order to accomplish this bifurcation, the
STS and RIS were developed to operationalize
these two sets of constructs in a manner that
solidly grounded them in both psychological
theory and sound measurement practice. The
STS operationalized spirituality from a trait per-
spective (see Piedmont, 1999a, 2001). Spiritu-
ality was defined as an intrinsic motivation of
individuals to create a broad sense of personal
meaning within an eschatological context. In
other words, knowing that we are going to die,
spirituality represents our efforts to create
meaning and purpose for our lives. This need
for meaning is seen as an intrinsic, universal
human capacity (see Piedmont & Leach, 2002).
The RIS was defined to represent a “sentiment”;
a learned capacity that develops out of social
traditions and experiences (see Piedmont,
2004a). Both measures tie numenal functions
(i.e., spiritual, religious) to psychological mod-
els of behavior rather than to theological or
denominational constructs. The value of con-
structing numinous scales in this manner is that
the measurement models underlying psycholog-
ical scales are clearly defined and provide direct
methods for examining the psychometric and
conceptual utility of constructs.
The STS was selected for this study for three
reasons. First, it possesses a tremendous amount
of validity evidence (Piedmont, 2001, 2004a),
showing structural and predictive validity that
generalizes across denominations and cultures
(Goodman, Britton, Shama-Davis, & Jencius,
2005; Piedmont, 2007a; Piedmont & Leach,
2002). Second, it was developed within the con-
text of the FFM in an effort to capture aspects of
spirituality that were nonredundant with these
established personality domains (Piedmont,
2001). The STS has shown itself to predict a
wide array of psychosocially salient outcomes
(e.g., sexual attitudes, interpersonal style, well-
being, psychological maturity) even after the
predictive effects of the FFM were removed
(⌬R2’s range from .02 to .10, Piedmont, 2004a).
Finally, research has shown that the STS’s uni-
dimensional conceptualization of spirituality
seems well founded (e.g., Piedmont, Mapa, &
 164 PIEDMONT, CIARROCHI, DY-LIACCO, AND WILLIAMS
Williams, 2006). The RIS contains items that
are considered the standard for assessing reli-
gious involvement (see Piedmont, 2004a; Pied-
mont et al., 2006). Thus the two numinous
measures that form the heart of this research
have an extensive empirical pedigree few other
scales have (see Hill & Hood, 1999).
Conceptual Issues
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
A fundamental question about these two con-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
structs is how they relate structurally to one
another. It is not known if they are both linked
to a common root motivation (i.e., the search for
the sacred), and therefore should be considered
a single dimension. Or, if spirituality and reli-
giosity are independent, then some examination
of their mutual distinctiveness is needed. Are
both necessary for predicting outcomes? Can
one of these constructs be considered as having
causal precedence over the other? Answers to
these questions have important implications.
The most important, as noted by Musick et al.
(2000), is to determine whether sufficient em-
pirical evidence exists to support making a dis-
tinction between the concepts of spirituality and
religiosity. If the two constructs can be usefully
separated, then more discriminating and clari-
fying definitions for the terms can be developed.
It would also enable the STS and RIS to be used
in ways that both minimizes their conceptual
redundancy and promotes an empirical under-
standing of how the numinous may be relevant
for clinical treatment, such as with substance
abusers (e.g., Piedmont, 2004b), or health pro-
motion (e.g., Miller & Thoresen, 1999), or how
it may buffer against or exacerbate mental ill-
ness (e.g., Miller & Kelley, 2004).
If spirituality and religiosity do represent dis-
tinct concepts, then, from a practical standpoint,
evidence is needed that demonstrates each con-
struct has sufficient unique predictive power to
warrant separate interpretations. Much of the
controversy surrounding the definition of spiri-
tuality and religiosity may be rendered moot if
there is little discriminant validity between
them. To address this issue, two important em-
pirical tests are required. First, the incremental
validity of each scale relative to the other needs
to be examined (the test of unique predictive
power). Second, the pattern of these scales’
correlations with external criteria needs to be
evaluated (the test of predictive nonredun-
dancy). To be considered viable, distinct con-
structs, both criteria would need to be met.
These issues were addressed in both studies.
Spirituality and Religiosity as Predictors
of Outcome
There is a burgeoning literature linking spir-
itual and religious constructs to a number of
mental and physical health outcomes (see Koe-
nig, McCullough, & Larson, 2000; Powell, Sha-
habi, & Thoresen, 2003). On the surface, this
literature shows that spirituality and religion are
positively correlated with physical and mental
health. Individuals with high levels of these
constructs frequently are seen as experiencing
less physical illness (or recovering quicker from
disease) than those who score lower on these
dimensions. Pargament and colleagues have
shown how religious coping adds significantly
to individuals’ attempts to manage personal
stress, burnout, and mortality (Pargament, 1997;
Pargament, Koenig, Tarakeshwar, & Hahn,
2001; Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez,
1998).
However findings such as these do not go un-
challenged. Sloan and colleagues have criticized
research in this area on the basis of numerous
methodological and statistical shortcomings
(Sloan & Bagiella, 2002; Sloan, Bagiella, & Pow-
ell, 2001; see also Smith, 2001). One of the
concerns centers on the lack of evidence docu-
menting the predictive power of spiritual and
religious variables over and above other estab-
lished constructs, like social support. This fail-
ure to demonstrate incremental predictive valid-
ity for spiritual and religious constructs raises
important concerns about their construct valid-
ity (see Joiner, Perez, & Walker, 2002). The
question arises as to what degree spiritual con-
structs are merely the “religification” (Van
Wicklin, 1990) of already existing personality
constructs? Buss (2002) has flatly stated that
““religious” phenomena may simply parasitize
existing evolved mechanisms or represent by-
products of them” (p. 203). Thus some person-
ality researchers question the utility of numi-
nous constructs, seeing them as only adding
redundant terms to an already large domain of
constructs.
Piedmont (1999b) has argued that to be valu-
able, spiritual and religious constructs need to
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY
demonstrate that they carry significant predic-
tive power over and above that of established
personality constructs, like the dimensions of
the FFM (Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & John,
1992). Because the FFM represents a compre-
hensive taxonomy of personality constructs, it
provides an empirical and conceptual frame-
work that enables researchers to identify areas
of redundancy and uniqueness between numi-
nous constructs and other personality variables.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
As Ozer and Reise (1994) noted, “[those] who
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
continue to employ their referred measure with-
out locating it within the FFM can only be
likened to geographers who issue reports of new
lands but refuse to locate them on a map for
others to find” (p. 361). In his meta-analytic
review, Saroglou (2002) noted that various
measures of spirituality and religiosity demon-
strated significant associations with all five of
the personality domains of the FFM, although
the effect sizes were small (the absolute mag-
nitudes of correlation ranged from .01 to .21).
To be of ultimate value for science, numinous
constructs need to show that they represent
something new about individuals. The FFM can
be used to provide a base of prediction against
which the contribution of measures of religios-
ity and spirituality can be compared. This report
will examine whether the personality dimen-
sions of the FFM can fully explain the STS’ and
RIS’ relationships to other constructs. Using
hierarchical multiple regression analyses, these
studies examined the degree to which spirituality
and religiosity were able to predict uniquely a
wide range of psychosocial outcomes once the
explanatory effects of personality were removed.
A final conceptual question concerns the causal
relationships between spirituality and religious-
ness and other psychological constructs. As Em-
mons and Paloutzian (2003, pp 392–393) noted,
“We do not yet know whether personality influ-
ences the development of religiousness . . . ,
whether religiousness influences personality . . . ,
or whether personality and religiousness share
common genetic or environmental causes.” This
important question of causality speaks to the ulti-
mate value of these constructs. If one’s orientation
to the numinous develops out of one’s sense of
personhood, then it is the level of psychological
adjustment that forms the experiences of the nu-
minous. Thus, unhappy people will tend to have
unhappy relationships with the Transcendent.
Like any other behavior, relationships with some
165
ultimate reality are reflections of more basic psy-
chological dynamics. However, if spirituality and
religiosity have a causal impact on our psycholog-
ical system, then these variables become impor-
tant conduits through which growth and maturity
can be focused. In this scenario, the quality of
one’s relationship to the Transcendent has impor-
tant implications for our own psychological sense
of stability. Disturbances in our relationship to the
Transcendent can have serious repercussions for
the rest of our system. Demonstrating that numi-
nous constructs serve as causal inputs into our
psychic systems would have far-reaching implica-
tions for how the social sciences conceptualize
individuals and would open the possibility for a
whole new class of potential therapeutic strategies
(e.g., Murray-Swank & Pargament, 2005).
Four categories of outcomes were examined:
emotional well-being (i.e., positive and negative
affect), interpersonal engagement (i.e., pro-
social behavior, interpersonal style), sexual at-
titudes (i.e., attitudes toward abortion, attitudes
toward sexual activity), and measures of per-
sonal maturity and meaning (i.e., purpose in
life, self-actualization, materialism, and collec-
tivism/individualism). Such a diverse number of
scales were selected for two reasons. First, it has
long been suggested that the religious aspects of
the individual represents an organizing praxis of
the personality with implications for all other
aspects of psychological functioning. As All-
port (1955, p. 94) noted, “The developed reli-
gious sentiment is the synthesis of these and
many other factors, all of which form a com-
prehensive attitude whose function it is to relate
the individual meaningfully to the whole of
Being.” If numinous constructs play such an
important psychological role, then their poten-
tial influence on a wide variety of systems
would need to be empirically documented. Sec-
ond, the developing research base continues to
demonstrate the predictive utility of spiritual
and religious constructs across physical, social,
and psychological modalities (see Paloutzian &
Park, 2004 for an overview). The four catego-
ries selected for this study provided a small but
diverse sampling of these many domains.
Study 1
Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM),
this study examined the fundamental structure
 166 PIEDMONT, CIARROCHI, DY-LIACCO, AND WILLIAMS
of spirituality and religiosity. The first set of
models examined the relations between the STS
and RIS as they related to the outcome dimen-
sion of psychological growth. Do they represent
independent (Model 1) or correlated dimensions
(Model 2)? If correlated, to what degree?
Should the two scales be considered to reflect a
single numinous dimension (Model 3), or do
these scales retain sufficient unique variance to
warrant separate interpretations? Answers to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
these questions will help to understand the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
structural relatedness of these constructs. The
second set of analyses examined the direction of
causal relationship between the STS and RIS
scales on the one hand, and measures of psy-
chological growth, on the other. This construct
was chosen because of its strong conceptual and
empirical links to numinous constructs (e.g.,
Piedmont, 2001). Are these numinous variables
consequences of one’s emotional maturity
(Model 4)? Or, are they better conceived as
causal inputs to growth? And if so, does religi-
osity (Model 5) or spirituality (Model 6) serve
as the more fundamental cause? A comparison
of how well the data fit these various SEM
models will provide insights into the role of
numinous variables in relation to larger psycho-
social constructs and lay a foundation for their
theoretical development.
This study also addressed three construct va-
lidity issues. First, it examined the incremental
validity of STS and RIS in predicting a wide
array of psychosocial outcomes. Specifically,
the personality dimensions of the FFM provided
the benchmark against which to evaluate their
predictive ability. Would these numinous scales
contain any unique predictive power once per-
sonality characteristics were controlled? Sec-
ond, an incremental validity paradigm was uti-
lized to test how the STS and RIS matched up
against each other. We hypothesized that each
scale would independently contribute to pre-
dicting psychosocial outcomes. Finally, it
would also need to be demonstrated whether the
STS and RIS have discriminant validity as well.
Would these scales predict to different criteria?
For researchers to include both types of scales
in their studies, some assurance is needed that
having both constructs results in a more com-
prehensive coverage of this aspect of the indi-
vidual than either construct alone can provide.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 324 women and 143
men ages 16 to 75 (M ⫽ 20.4, SD ⫽ 6.6) years.
All were college students from a midwestern
state university. All were volunteers and re-
ceived course credit for their participation. Re-
garding religious affiliation, 89% indicated
some type of Christian affiliation, 10% indi-
cated another religion, and less than 1% indi-
cated they were Jewish. All participants volun-
teered, and students did receive course credit for
their participation. Given the large percentages
of women and Christians, these individuals con-
stitute more of a convenience sample than being
representative of students in general.
Measures
Spiritual Transcendence Scale. Developed
by Piedmont (1999a), this 24-item scale con-
sists of three subscales: Universality (a belief in
the unity and purpose of life), Prayer Fulfill-
ment (an experienced feeling of joy and con-
tentment that results from prayer and/or medi-
tation), and Connectedness (a sense of personal
responsibility and connection to others). Items
are answered on a 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree) Likert-type scale. Piedmont
(1999a, 2001) has shown responses to these
scale items to have acceptable reliabilities (.83,
.87, and .64 for Universality, Prayer Fulfillment,
and Connectedness, respectively). Alpha reli-
ability for Total Transcendence scores in the
current sample was .86. Scores on these scales
have also been shown to predict a variety of
related spiritual constructs and a number of
psychologically salient outcomes (e.g., stress
experience, well-being, and sexual attitudes;
Piedmont, 1999a). Piedmont and Leach (2002)
have showed that the STS generalized cross-
culturally to a sample of Indian Muslims, Chris-
tians, and Hindus.
Religious Involvement Scale. Developed by
the first author, four items were designed to
measure the individual’s degree of religious in-
volvement. Participants are asked to rate them-
selves in terms of how often they: read the
Bible/Torah/Koran/Geeta 1 (Never) to 7 (Sev-
eral times a week); read religious literature 1
(Never) to 7 (Several times a week); pray 1
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY
(Never) to 8 (Daily); and, attend religious ser-
vices 1 (Never) to 5 (Quite often). The Religi-
osity scale was computed by transforming re-
sponses to each item to a z-score and then
summing. This sum of the item z-scores pro-
vides an index of the individual’s degree of
religious involvement. This measure contains
those aspects of religious activity that are fre-
quently used in the literature. Alpha reliability
of scores in this scale was .85.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The Purpose in Life Test. Developed by
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Crumbaugh (1968), this 20-item scale measures
a person’s “will to meaning” as construed by
Victor Frankl (1966). Responses are given on a
7-point Likert-type scale, the poles of which
vary according to the question. Guttmann
(1996) provides an adequate review of the re-
search literature on this scale. Alpha reliability
for the scale in this sample was .88.
Self-Actualization Scale. Created by Jones
and Crandall (1986), this scale provides a mea-
sure of Maslow’s highest level of development.
The 15 items are responded to on a 1 (dis-
agree) to 4 (agree) Likert-type scale. Jones
and Crandall (1986) have found that high
scores on this scale are associated with indi-
viduals being extraverted, rational in their
thoughts and behaviors, and inner-directed.
Alpha reliability for scores on this scale in the
current sample was .55.
Demographic questionnaire. Developed by
the author, the questionnaire asks participants
about their age, gender, and religious affiliation.
Attitude toward abortion. This is a single-
item 9-point bipolar scale designed to cap-
ture the subject’s attitude toward abortion
from “very pro-abortion” (⫺4) to “very pro-
life” (⫹4).
Bipolar Adjective Rating Scale (BARS).
Developed and validated by McCrae and Costa
(1985, 1987), this 80-item scale is designed to
capture the FFM domains of adult personality,
namely, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The re-
sponses to the scale items have also been
shown to be reliable and structurally valid
with college students (Piedmont, 1995). Re-
sponses are measured on a 1- to 7-point Likert-
type scale, and FFM domain scores are found
by summing the responses to items for each
domain. Alpha reliabilities for the FFM domain
scores in the current sample were .77, .80, .71,
.77, and, .83 for Neuroticism, Extraversion,
167
Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientious-
ness, respectively.
Individualism/Collectivism Scale. Devel-
oped by Dion and Dion (1991), this 15-item
scale is an index of how much a person feels
himself or herself as being a part of a larger
community or group. Items are answered on a 1
(Strongly Agree) to a 5 (Strongly Disagree)
Likert-type scale. Alpha reliability for scores in
the current sample was .74.
Interpersonal Orientation Scale. Devel-
oped by Swap and Rubin (1983), this 29-item
scale is designed to measure the degree to
which one is interested in and responsive to
other people. High scorers tend to like others
more readily than low scorers, and low scor-
ers take a matter-of-fact approach to social
relationships. Items are answered on a 1
(Strongly Agree) to a 5 (Strongly Disagree)
Likert-type scale. Alpha reliability for scores
in the current sample was .67.
Materialism Scale. Developed by Belk
(1985), this 24-item scale is an index of the
degree to which individuals focus on the imme-
diacy of their needs and life situation. Items are
answered on a 1 (Strongly Agree) to a 5
(Strongly Disagree) Likert-type scale. Alpha re-
liability in the current sample was .57 for the
Total Materialism score.
Prosocial Behavior Inventory (PBI). This is
a 39-item scale, developed by De Conciliis
(1993/1994), using an act-frequency paradigm.
The behaviors selected for this scale were be-
haviors nominated by college students as de-
scriptive of other students they believed to be
prosocial. Participants were asked to answer
each question on a 5-point Likert-type scale
denoting the frequency with which they per-
formed each activity over the previous 6
months. Alpha reliability in the current sample
was .92.
Sexual Attitudes Scale. This is a 21-item
scale developed by Fisher, Byren, White, and
Kelly (1988) to capture sexual attitudes. The
overall dimension that arises from this scale
reflects sexual attitudes ranging from very ero-
tophobic (negative attitudes toward sex) to very
erotophilic (positive attitudes toward sex).
Items are responded to on a 7-point Likert scale
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The
alpha for scores on this dimension was .88.
 168 PIEDMONT, CIARROCHI, DY-LIACCO, AND WILLIAMS

Procedure items from these two dimensions into a single

Each participant received a packet of all
scales with instructions to complete all of the
scales. The order of scales was randomized to
control for any order effects. Materials were
completed in groups of 15 to 35. Participants
received class credit for their participation. Stu-
dent volunteers were told that this was a general
study examining the relations between spiritu-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
construct loses important predictive power.
These two constructs have sufficient reliable
variance to warrant their separate usage.
Models 4 – 6 examined causal models that
specified various relations between spirituality,
religiosity, and psychological growth. This lat-
ter construct was defined by scores on the Self-
Actualization and Purpose in Life scales.
Model 4 examined the extent to which the nu-

ality/religiosity and personality. minous variables are by-products of one’s emo-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tional growth and maturity. The SEM analyses

Results
Structural Equation Analyses
Two sets of models were examined using
SEM (LISREL 8.72; Jöreskog & Sörbom,
2005). The first set examined three models that
postulated different causal relations between
spirituality and religiosity. The results of these
analyses are presented in Table 1 as Models
1–3. Of the three models tested, the one that
viewed spirituality and religiosity as correlated,
though separate, dimensions provided the best
approximate fit [Model 2; Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .09, Stan-
dardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR) ⫽ .05,
AIC ⫽ 161.68]. Although the latent disattenu-
ated correlation between spirituality and religi-
osity was found to be ⌽ ⫽ .71, such strong
overlap does not indicate that these two dimen-
sions should be considered reflections of a com-
mon cause. As Model 3 shows, combining the
indicated that this was the poorest fitting model
(RMSEA and SRMR ⬎ .10, AIC ⫽ 243.72).
Models 5 and 6 varied the causal nature of the
numinous variables. Model 6, which specified
spirituality as the primary causal agent, was best
supported by the data (AIC ⫽ 159.09).
Construct Validity
Table 2 presents the correlations among the
STS and RIS and a variety of psychosocial out-
come variables. As can be seen, together these two
scales related significantly with aspects of all crit-
eria. The RIS correlated significantly stronger than
the STS with Attitude Toward Abortion,
t(463) ⫽ 4.44, p ⬍ .01 and Sexual Orientation,
t(463) ⫽ ⫺5.06, p ⬍ .01. The STS correlated
significantly stronger than the RIS with Interper-
sonal Orientation (t(463 ⫽ 6.45, p ⬍ .01); Proso-
cial Behavior, t(463) ⫽ ⫺2.23, p ⬍ .01; and
Purpose in Life, t(463) ⫽ ⫺2.55, p ⬍ .05.

Table 1
Comparison of Model Fits for Various Structural Equation Models
Model # Model df ␹2 RMSEA SRMR AIC CFI
1 Religiosity and spirituality as 25 237.37 .13 .20 261.33 .90
independent causes of growth
2 Religiosity and spirituality as 24 113.87 .09 .05 161.68 .96
correlated causes of growth
3 Religiosity and spirituality as a single 26 245.19 .15 .08 323.48 .91
dimensional cause of growth
4 Growth as the cause of religiosity 25 247.34 .12 .16 243.72 .91
and spirituality
5 Religiosity as the cause of spirituality 25 130.14 .10 .07 180.43 .96
and growth
6 Spirituality as the cause of religiosity 25 114.09 .09 .05 159.09 .97
and growth
Note. The outcome construct “growth” was defined by the two variables self-actualization and purpose and life.
RMSEA ⫽ Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ Standardized root mean square residual; AIC ⫽ Akaike
information criterion; CFI ⫽ Comparative fit index. Data estimated using maximum likelihood algorithms.
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY 169

Table 2
Incremental Validity of Religiosity and Spirituality Over the Five-Factor Model Personality Domains in
Predicting Psychosocial Outcomes
Correlations
Outcome variable Religiosity Spirituality R2a ⌬R2b
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Attitude towards abortion .39 .20 .15 .13ⴱⴱⴱ
Individualism ⫺.21ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ
Interpersonal orientation ⫺.05 ⫺.33ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱⴱ .08ⴱⴱⴱ
Total materialism ⫺.20ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱⴱ .04ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱ
Prosocial behavior .16ⴱⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱⴱ .04ⴱⴱⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Purpose on life .25ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ .05ⴱⴱⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Self-actualization .16ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱⴱ .05ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱ

Sexual orientation ⫺.45ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱⴱ
Neuroticism ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ .03ⴱⴱ —
Extraversion .06 .20ⴱⴱⴱ .04ⴱⴱⴱ —
Openness ⫺.09ⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ .05ⴱⴱⴱ —
Agreeableness .18ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱⴱ —
Conscientiousness .12ⴱ .23ⴱⴱⴱ .06ⴱⴱⴱ —
Alpha reliability .85 .86
Note. N’s for correlations range from 454 to 467. N for regression analyses ⫽ 451.
R is the variance explained by Religiosity and Spirituality together. b ⌬R2 is variance explained by Religiosity and
a 2

Spirituality together over that accounted for by the Five-Factor Model Personality Domains.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

A series of multiple regression analyses were
conducted using each of the psychosocial vari-
ables as the criterion. The RIS and STS scales
were entered simultaneously as predictors. Col-
umn 3 of Table 2 presents the resulting R2’s. As
can be seen, both scales together explain from 4%
(Total Materialism) to 20% (Sexual Orientation)
of the variance in these outcomes (M ⫽ 11%).
In order to determine whether these relation-
ships can be explained by personality, a series of
hierarchical regressions were performed, again us-
ing the psychosocial variables in Table 2 as the
criteria. On Step 1 of the regression, the FFM
personality domains were entered using a forced
entry method. On Step 2, the RIS and STS scales
were entered as a block, and partial F tests were
conducted to determine whether these two scales
together accounted for any additional variance
over personality. The results are presented in col-
umn 4 of Table 2. As can be seen, in all instances
the RIS and STS scales accounted for a significant
amount of additional explanatory variance (range:
2% to 16% additional variance, M ⫽ 6.6%). The
practical significance of these findings will be
explored below.
In an effort to examine the unique predictive-
ness of the RIS and STS scales individually, an
additional two series of hierarchical regressions
were performed. In the first series, the FFM
personality domains were again all entered on
the first step of the equation. On Step 2, the STS
scale was entered and on Step 3 the RIS scale
was entered. In this manner, the incremental
validity of the STS over personality was ob-
tained, and the incremental validity of the RIS
over both personality and Spirituality was de-
termined. The second series of hierarchical re-
gressions repeated this process, but reversed the
order of entry for the STS and RIS. The psy-
chosocial variables listed in Table 2 were the
criteria for all analyses.
Table 3 presents the results of these hierar-
chical regressions. In all but one instance, the
RIS evidenced incremental validity over per-
sonality. In 4 of 8 instances it evidenced incre-
mental validity over both personality and Spir-
ituality. The STS also evidenced incremental
validity over personality in 7 of 8 instances and
maintained significant predictiveness over both
personality and the RIS in 4 of 8 instances. In
examining the patterns of unique predictiveness
(i.e., the ⌬⌬R2 columns), it is interesting to note
that the Religiosity and Spirituality scales ap-
pear to complement each other. In other words,
when Religiosity was a significant unique pre-
dictor of an outcome (e.g., Attitudes Toward
Abortion), Spirituality was not significantly re-
lated; when Spirituality uniquely predicted
 170 PIEDMONT, CIARROCHI, DY-LIACCO, AND WILLIAMS

Table 3
Incremental Validity of Religiosity and Spirituality, Taken Separately, Over the Five-Factor Personality
Domains and Each Other in Predicting Various Psychosocial Outcomes
FFM Religiosity Spirituality
Psychosocial outcome R 2
⌬R 2a
⌬⌬R 2b
⌬R 2c
⌬⌬R2d
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Attitude towards abortion .05 .13 .09 .04 .00
Individualism .24ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱ .00 .02ⴱⴱ .01ⴱ
Interpersonal orientation .17ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .01 .07ⴱⴱⴱ .08ⴱⴱⴱ
Total materialism .17ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱ .01 .00
Prosocial behavior .10ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .01 .03ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Purpose in Life .47ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱ .04ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Self-actualization .24ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱ .00 .01ⴱ .00

Sexual orientation .01ⴱ .16ⴱⴱⴱ .11ⴱⴱⴱ .06ⴱⴱⴱ .00
a
⌬R2: variance explained by religiosity over and above FFM personality domains partial F(1, 445). b ⌬⌬R2: Variance
explained by religiosity over and above both Personality and Spirituality, partial F(1, 444). c ⌬R2: Variance explained by
Spirituality over and above FFM Domains, partial F(1, 445). d ⌬⌬R2: Variance explained by Spirituality over and above
both Personality and Religiosity, partial F(1, 444).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

(e.g., Interpersonal Orientation), Religiosity did
not. Thus, these two strongly correlated con-
structs appear to predict some aspects of psy-
chosocial functioning in nonredundant patterns.
Discussion
Five points of interest emerge from this study.
First, these data again confirm that spirituality and
religiosity are highly correlated constructs, but as
the SEM and hierarchical regressions demon-
strated, they do retain sufficient unique variance as
to warrant their separate usage. Each scale showed
significant explanatory power over the other in the
hierarchical regression analyses. Thus, they can-
not be collapsed into a single construct. Second,
these variables are not interchangeable: spiritual-
ity and religiosity were shown to evidence differ-
ent patterns of correlation with the external crite-
ria; on those occasions when one variable was not
a significant predictor, the other was. The RIS and
STS appear to be complementary predictors. This
argues the need for researchers to include both
scales in their research. Each provides signifi-
cantly unique perspectives and predictive power
regarding a variety of psychosocial processes.
Third, the predictive power of these scales
could not be explained by personality. These
findings support other research showing that
numinous variables represent aspects of the in-
dividual not contained by more traditional per-
sonality dimensions (McDonald, 2000; Pied-
mont, 1999a; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998). Thus,
religiosity and spirituality represent a new cat-
egory of individual difference qualities in need
of exploration and development.
Fourth, the SEM analyses provide new infor-
mation about the potential value of these numi-
nous constructs. It is important to note that SEM
cannot prove causality among a set of variables.
Rather, the value of this technique is that it
assesses the relative merits of models that hy-
pothesize causal relations among variables.
Causal models imply specific correlations
among variables, such as between the cause and
its effect and between effects sharing common
causes. SEM examines the extent to which the
observed relations among these variables in a
real data set are consistent with the associations
implied by these hypothesized causal connec-
tions. The most important finding here was that
the observed correlations among the variables
fit best with the model that assumed spirituality
to have a causal impact on psychological
growth (Model 6). The SEM results do not
prove this causal connection, rather they sup-
port the view that spirituality may operate as a
source of motivation that impacts growth and
development. This model is consistent with the
conceptual model underlying the development
of the STS (Piedmont, 2004a) and with the
growing interest to identify therapeutic inter-
ventions that stimulate clients’ spirituality in an
effort to promote personal change (e.g., Mur-
ray-Swank & Pargament, 2005). It is up to
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY
future experimental research to verify the causal
processes implied in Model 6.
Finally, the magnitude of association be-
tween these numinous variables and the out-
come constructs needs to be considered. The
incremental R2’s noted in Table 3 hover around
.03, and raise concerns over practical signifi-
cance. Is it worth adding these two variables
only to gain an addition 3% of the variance?
The answer is, we believe, “yes.” It should be
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
kept in mind that the R2’s are partial coeffi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cients; they represent what each construct has to
offer once the predictive effects of both person-
ality and the other covariate have already been
removed. Thus these values are low because
there is little reliable variance left to explain in
the criteria. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) have
observed that increases in R2 are generally very
small by the time a third substantive predictor is
added to a regression equation. As more predic-
tors are added, their incremental contributions
will be increasingly smaller. Hunsley and
Meyer (2003) suggested that an R2 increase of
between .02 and .04 would indicate a reasonable
contribution for a variable entered on the third
step. Given that the numinous variables in the
present study are being added into the regres-
sion equations on the 6th and 7th steps, the 3%
additional variance appears to represent a quite
robust contribution.
Another way to contextualize the contribu-
tion of the STS and RIS is to compare directly
their explanatory power to that of the FFM. This
can be done by comparing the R2 values in
Table 2 with the corresponding FFM R2 values
in Table 3. The result provides a more direct test
of the zero-order predictiveness of this numi-
nous domain relative to the empirically power-
ful FFM. Making this comparison shows the
religious and spiritual constructs to be relatively
robust predictors. In some instances, the predic-
tive power of the religious and spiritual con-
structs was as great as the contribution made by
personality. For example, the FFM predicts
17% of the overall variance in the Interpersonal
Orientation scale, while the RIS and STS scales
together explain 13% of the overall variance.
Similarly, the FFM explains 10% of the vari-
ance in Prosocial Behavior, while the numinous
scales explain 7%. In other instances, where the
FFM may explain the lion’s share of the vari-
ance (e.g., 47% of the variance in the Purpose in
Life test), the STS and RIS also explained
171
healthy amounts of the variance (e.g., 14% of
the total variance in the Purpose in Life Test).
What is perhaps of greater interest is that there
are aspects of the individual better predicted by
the numinous scales. Those measures of sexual
attitudes (e.g., Attitude Rating Toward Abor-
tion and the Sexual Orientation Scale) were
much more related to the STS and RIS (R2’s
of .15 and .20, respectively) than they were to
the dimensions of the FFM (R2’s of .05 and
.01, respectively).
Of course, future research will need to repli-
cate these findings using other measures of the
FFM that may be more comprehensive (e.g., the
NEO Personality Inventory-Revised). Would
the predictive power of the numinous scales
continue to be as large? Future research will
also want to demonstrate the practical signifi-
cance of spiritual and religious constructs for
everyday life. What specific behaviors of inter-
est are related to this unique variance? Is the
magnitude of this effect large enough to have an
identifiable impact on behavior?
These data provide some evidence that these
two measures of spirituality and religiosity are
variables with predictive depth and potential
conceptual power. As a single block, they com-
pared favorably on some variables to the pre-
dictive power of the major personality dimen-
sions represented by the FFM. Their ultimate
value, however, may lie in their ability to ex-
plain some aspects of human activity (e.g., sex-
ual attitudes) better than the more traditional
personality variables.
Study 2
The data presented so far have been restricted
to U.S. samples of college students and has
relied exclusively on self-report data. In an ef-
fort to document the robustness of these find-
ings, this study examined the STS and RIS in an
adult sample of Filipinos using both self-report
and observer measures. Using many of the same
measures employed in Study 1, this study aimed
to replicate similar patterns of relationships be-
tween spirituality and religiosity as seen previ-
ously. A Filipino sample was used for two rea-
sons: First, research has shown that trait/
motivational measures of personality in general
and of the FFM in particular generalize well to
this society (Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-
LapeZa, Carlota, & del Pilar, 2002). Second,
 172 PIEDMONT, CIARROCHI, DY-LIACCO, AND WILLIAMS
although mostly Catholic in religious affiliation,
the Filipino culture is collectivistic in nature and
as such may conceptualize numinous qualities
in ways very different from US samples (e.g.,
Triandis, 2001). Thus, the Philippines is a cul-
tural platform where the measurement model
underlying this study is appropriate and valid,
yet provides a sufficiently different cultural con-
text to allow for a rigorous examination of a
construct’s generalizability.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This study also examined the structural rela-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tionships between the STS and RIS that were
outlined in Study 1. Specifically, SEM would be
used to evaluate the extent to which the con-
structs underling the STS and RIS were corre-
lated and whether they continued to be best
considered as distinct constructs. Further, mod-
els that posited the causal relationship of spiri-
tuality and religiosity to measures of emotional
maturity and meaning were also examined. The
major issue here was to determine whether the
best fitting models identified in Study 1 would
be replicated in, and generalized to, another
culture.
Method
Participants
Participants included 654 Filipinos (437
women and 197 men; 20 did not indicate gen-
der) ranging in age from 16 to 75 (M ⫽ 30)
years. The majority (86%) indicated Roman Ca-
tholicism as their religious preference, with ap-
proximately 4% indicating a non-Christian af-
filiation. A subsample of these individuals (n ⫽
300) were asked to find two individuals who
knew them for at least 6 months and were
familiar with their personal characteristics in
order to rate them on a series of questionnaires.
A total of 285 rater packets were returned (259
individuals obtained 2 raters, and 26 obtained
only a single rater). Of the 544 raters, 354 were
women and 182 were men (the remaining 8 did
not indicate their gender). Ages ranged from 15
to 64 (M ⫽ 26) years. Raters were asked to
indicate on a 1 Do not know very well to 7 Know
very well Likert-type scale the degree of close-
ness they had to the target; Mean score on this
scale was 5.22. Raters knew their targets on
average of 5.4 years (range from 9 months to 33
years). All participants volunteered.
The data for this study were part of a larger
project examining the construct validity of the
Tagalog version of the STS (Tagalog is a native
language of the Philippines). As such, a differ-
ent set of constructs from Study 1 were selected
for the purposes of this project. Information
about this sample has been previously presented
in Piedmont (2007).
Measures
STS. This was the same scale used previ-
ously, but for the purposes of this study was
translated into Tagalog, a native language of the
Philippines. The alpha reliability for responses
to the overall scale score was .79 in this sample.
Alpha reliabilities for responses on the facet
scales were .75, .59, and .42 for the Universal-
ity, Prayer Fulfillment, and Connectedness, re-
spectively. Observers completed the validated
rater version of the STS in English (Piedmont,
2001). The English version was used to serve as
a criterion for examining the construct validity
of the Tagalog version. A composite rating was
created by averaging the two observer ratings.
This composite was used in all analyses. Con-
cerning the observer form, the overall alpha for
responses to the total score (which was based on
the aggregated ratings of the two observers) was
.78. Internal consistencies for responses on the
facet scales were .77, .58, and .25 for Univer-
sality, Prayer Fulfillment, and Connectedness
respectively.
Significant cross-observer agreement was
found for the STS total score (r(261) ⫽ .27, p ⬍
.001), and for the facet scales as well (r’s ⫽ .41,
.23, and .16, all p’s ⬍ .01 for Universality,
Prayer Fulfillment, and Connectedness, respec-
tively). Although the range of these values is
consistent with that found for traditional per-
sonality constructs (e.g., FFM domains) in
American samples (where average r’s range
from .30 to .48; Funder, Kolar, & Blackman,
1995), they are on the smaller side. One possi-
ble reason for lower convergence may be a
function of the self version being in Tagalog
while the rater version was in English. Given
some of the item changes made in the Tagalog
version, the scales may not be perfectly compa-
rable (see Piedmont, 2007a).
RIS. This was the same scale employed in
the previous study. It was completed in English.
Alpha reliability in the current sample was .70.
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY
Bradburn Affect Balance Scale. Developed
by Bradburn (1969), this 20-item true-false
scale captures these dimensions of affective
well-being: Positive Affect (PAS), Negative Af-
fect (NAS), and Affect Balance (NAS sub-
tracted from PAS). Scores on these scales have
been shown to correlate with global happiness
(Lowenthal, Thurner, & Chiriboga, 1975). Al-
pha reliabilities in the current sample for the
PAS and NAS scales were .59 and .64, respec-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tively for the self-report version, and .61 and .71
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
for the observer scores.
Delighted-Terrible Scale. This scale was
developed by Andrews and Withey (1976) as a
cognitive measure of global well being. Partic-
ipants rate their overall level of life satisfaction
on a Likert scale of 1 (terrible) to 7 (delighted).
Prosocial Scale. Developed by Rushton,
Chrisjohn, and Fekken (1981), this 20-item
scale captures altruistic behavior. Individuals
rate the frequency with which they have en-
gaged in altruistic behaviors on a 5-point Likert-
type scale ranging from never to very often.
Rushton et al. provide alpha reliabilities in five
samples ranging from .78 to .86. Significant
peer-self correlations were also obtained, while
correlations with a measure of social desirability
were nonsignificant. Rushton et al. also demon-
strated significant convergence of the Prosocial
Scale with both tests (e.g., Emotional Empathy
Scale and the Social Interest Scale) and actual
behaviors (e.g., volunteering to read to blind
persons in response to a telephone solicitation).
In the current Filipino sample, the alpha reli-
ability was .86.
Both the observers and participants com-
pleted the Individualism-Collectivism (alpha
reliability ⫽ .68 and .66 for the self- and
observer-rating scores, respectively), and
Self-Actualization (alpha reliability ⫽ .65
and .62 for the self- and observer-ratings
scores, respectively) scales as described in
Study 1 in English. Additionally, self-report
scores were also obtained on the Purpose-in-
Life Test (alpha reliability ⫽ .91), BARS (al-
phas ⫽ .70, .74, .58, .89, and .90 for N, E, O, A,
and C, respectively), and Materialism (overall
alpha reliability ⫽ .54) scales as described in
Study 1, as well as an overall rating on their
Attitudes Toward Abortion. These measures
were completed in English.
173
Procedure
Research packets containing all instruments
were handed out individually. Participants com-
pleted the materials on their own time and re-
turned the materials to the research coordinator
when complete. The order of presentation of the
scales was counterbalanced within each packet
to avoid any potential confounds due to order.
For those who were required to obtain observer
ratings, they were also given packets to deliver
to their rater. These individuals completed the
materials independently from the target and
sealed their ratings in the provided envelopes.
These packets were returned directly to the re-
search coordinator. As noted above, informa-
tion from the two raters was aggregated to form
a composite score. These composite variables
were used in all analyses. Because of missing
data across the different scales, the number of
subjects for each analysis varied.
Results and Discussion
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses
were employed to systematically examine the
relatedness of the STS and RIS to the outcomes
over both personality and each other. The re-
sults of these analyses are presented in Table 4.
As can be seen, the top half of Table 4 presents
the regression results using the self-reported
scores as criteria (note that the self-rated version
of the STS that is in Tagalog was used as the
predictor). The pattern of findings is very sim-
ilar to that found in Study 1 and the magnitudes
of the relationships are comparable. Both the
STS and the RIS evidence significant predictive
validity over and above both personality and
each other. Again, the predictive nature of these
variables remains complementary. The bottom
half of Table 4 presents the results employing
the peer ratings as the criteria (note that the
observer version of the STS is the predictor).
Here again the STS evidences significant incre-
mental validity. The RIS does not indicate any
predictive power.
These findings provide additional support for
the position that the STS and RIS represent
predictively distinct constructs. Using a differ-
ent language version of the STS as well as both
self and observer ratings of spirituality, both
scales demonstrated a capacity to predict a wide
 174 PIEDMONT, CIARROCHI, DY-LIACCO, AND WILLIAMS

Table 4
Incremental Validity of Religiosity and Spirituality, Taken Separately, Over the Five-Factor Personality
Domains and Each Other in Predicting Various Self- and Observer-Rated Psychosocial Outcomes in a
Filipino Sample
FFM Religiosity Spirituality
R2
⌬R 2a
⌬⌬R 2b
⌬R 2c
⌬⌬R2d
Self outcomes (n ⫽ s range from 529–591) Self STS (Tagalog)
Individualism .14ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱⴱ .05ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ
Self-actualization .23ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱ .01ⴱ
Positive affect .10ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .00 .01ⴱⴱ .01ⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Negative affect .14ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .00

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Affect balance .20ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱⴱ .00

Delighted-terrible .10ⴱⴱⴱ .01 .00 .01ⴱⴱ .01ⴱ
Purpose-in-life .40ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱⴱ .04ⴱⴱⴱ .05ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱⴱⴱ
Prosocial behavior .10ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱ .05ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ
Materialism .17ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱⴱ
Attitudes towards abortion .02 .11ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱⴱ .04ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱ
Observer outcomes (n ⫽ s range from 232–250) rater version of STS (English)
Individualism .09ⴱⴱⴱ .01 .00 .05ⴱⴱⴱ .04ⴱⴱⴱ
Self-actualization .08ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .00 .07ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱⴱ
Positive affect .07ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .00 .00 .00
Negative affect .03 .00 .00 .00 .00
Affect balance .09ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .00 .02ⴱ .02ⴱ
Delighted-terrible .10ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .00 .02ⴱ .02ⴱ
Note. Portions of these data have been reported in Piedmont (2007a).
a
⌬R2: variance explained by religiosity over and above FFM personality domains. b ⌬⌬R2: Variance explained by
religiosity over and above both Personality and Spirituality. c ⌬R2: Variance explained by Spirituality over and above
FFM Domains. d ⌬⌬R2: Variance explained by Spirituality over and above both Personality and Religiosity.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

range of psychosocial variables even after the
predictive effects of each other were removed.
Structural Equation Models
The first set of analyses examined the extent
of overlap between the STS and RIS. As can be
seen in Table 5, Model 2a, where these two sets
of constructs were allowed to correlate, pro-
vided a significantly better fit to the data than
the orthogonal model (⌬␹2 df ⫽ 1, N ⫽
602) ⫽ 61.78, p ⬍ .01, AIC ⫽ 135.21). The
latent disattenuated correlation between them
was ⌽ ⫽ .61, a value of comparable magnitude
to that found in Study 1. All measures of fit
indicate the superiority of the correlated model
over the orthogonal model. These findings were
also replicated when the observer version of the
STS was used. As can be seen for Model 2b, a
very similar pattern of findings was obtained;
the correlated model evidenced a better fit than
the orthogonal model (⌬␹2 df ⫽ 1, N ⫽
263) ⫽ 20.35, p ⬍ .01, AIC ⫽ 90.63). The
disattenuated latent correlation between the two
constructs was ⌽ ⫽ .41.
Despite such overlap between the scales, they
are better conceived of as separate dimensions.
As can be seen with Models 3a and 3b, the
single factor model does not fit as well as the
two correlated factor model. Finally, Models 4a
and 4b reversed the order of causality and ex-
amined whether measures of growth would be a
better predictor of spirituality and religiosity
than the reverse. The pattern of findings was
consistent in both instances: those models hy-
pothesizing spirituality and religiosity to be in-
puts into one’s psychological maturity, rather
than consequences of growth, evidenced the
most support in the data.
The pattern of findings for this study closely
parallel those presented in Study 1. That the
current sample consisted of a cross-cultural
sample of adults and employed both self and
observer ratings add greater support to the va-
lidity of these earlier findings. Clearly, the STS
and RIS scales contain highly correlated dimen-
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY 175

Table 5
Comparison of Model Fits for Various Structural Equation Models in a Filipino Sample
Model # Model df ␹2 RMSEA SRMR AIC CFI
Self-report data
1a Religiosity and spirituality as 25 154.99 .09 .27 194.99 .94
independent causes of growth
2a Religiosity and spirituality as 24 93.21 .07 .07 135.21 .97
correlated causes of growth
3a Religiosity and spirituality as a single 26 155.14 .09 .09 193.14 .94
dimensional cause of growth
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

4a Growth as the cause of religiosity 25 122.86 .08 .12 162.86 .95

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

and spirituality
Observer ratings on STS
1b Religiosity and spirituality as 25 68.98 .08 .18 108.98 .96
independent causes of growth
2b Religiosity and spirituality as 24 48.63 .06 .08 90.63 .98
correlated causes of growth
3b Religiosity and spirituality as a single 26 95.98 .10 .17 133.98 .94
dimensional cause of growth
4b Growth as the cause of religiosity 25 52.96 .07 .09 92.96 .98
and spirituality
Note. RMSEA ⫽ Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ Standardized root mean square residual; AIC ⫽
Akaike information criterion; CFI ⫽ Comparative fit index. Data were estimated using maximum likelihood algorithms.

sions that are best conceived as separate con-
structs. Both of these variables provide insights
into the behaviors and attitudes of others that
are nonredundant with established personality
domains as represented by the FFM. It is also of
interest to note that qualities representing the
numinous and transpersonal were found related
to a wide range of salient psychosocial con-
structs, such as Interpersonal Style, Psycholog-
ical Maturity, Sexual Attitudes, and Emotional
Well-being. However, as the SEM analyses re-
vealed most importantly, the observed pattern
of correlations among these variables was most
consistent with the theoretical model that spec-
ified spirituality and religiosity as having a
causal influence on these psychosocial out-
comes. The conceptual implication of this
model is that spirituality does not work out of
one’s sense of maturity and personal stability.
Happy people who have a helping personal style
do not tend to develop spiritual attitudes.
Rather, these data suggest that one’s spiritual
development influences personal well being and
emotional maturity.
The data from this study provide additional
support for the position that for any explanatory
model of human functioning to be comprehen-
sive, it will need to include measures of spiri-
tuality and religiosity (e.g., Piedmont, 1999a,
2001).
Overall Discussion
This paper provides a rigorous empirical ex-
amination of the STS and RIS and finds that
they may have important implications for psy-
chological functioning across a wide spectrum
of outcomes. These data show that religiosity
and spirituality are not interchangeable con-
structs. Although the field has had difficulty in
defining these concepts, with some believing
that a single overall definition is impossible, or
inappropriate (e.g., Hill et al., 2000), the basic
scientific need for accurate description and def-
inition of numinous constructs still remains. If
spirituality and religiosity are such complex
phenomena that they defy concise description,
then they offer little hope for truly expanding
our understandings of people. Koenig (2008)
has asserted that if the field cannot develop
unique, clear constructs, then the numinous
should be eliminated from research altogether.
The findings obtained here address these con-
cerns by showing that measures of spirituality
and religiousness are not conceptually or em-
pirically redundant with the personality do-
 176 PIEDMONT, CIARROCHI, DY-LIACCO, AND WILLIAMS
mains of the FFM. Demonstrating incremental
validity over personality ought to be seen as an
essential empirical quality of any numinous
measure. But even more importantly, spiritual-
ity and religiousness evidenced incremental va-
lidity over each other, demonstrating their own
predictive value. The differential predictiveness
of the psychosocial outcomes identified in these
two studies does provide a future opportunity
for researchers to evolve empirically sustain-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
able, conceptual definitions of these two nonre-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
dundant constructs.
In many ways the Psychology of Religion is in
a similar position, sharing many of the same vul-
nerabilities, as the field of Personality Psychology
was in the early to mid 1960s. Mischel’s (1968)
scathing criticism of that field’s reliance on self-
reports, confused definitions of constructs, and
poor validity data almost brought the discipline to
an end. The results of this paper were aimed to
address such empirical criticisms. The analyses
presented here directly tested the unique predic-
tive power of numinous constructs and examined
issues of scale structure and causal influence while
controlling for relevant covariates. The obtained
findings were replicated across self-report and ob-
server ratings, in both American and Filipino sam-
ples. The results of the causal modeling analyses
suggested the potential role these spiritual and
religious scales may play as agents for psycholog-
ical growth and change. Thus this report goes
beyond mere empirical description and attempts to
develop an understanding of how numinous vari-
ables may impact psychosocial functioning. These
findings provide a useful point of departure for
further research, especially studies that use exper-
imental and longitudinal designs, which would
directly test the causal implications suggested
here. Such studies may be able to articulate the
psychological mechanisms by which spirituality
comes to exert its influence. Numinous constructs
should not be dismissed just yet.
Future research will need to extend these find-
ings to other numinous measures (e.g., the Faith
Maturity Scale, Benson, Donahue, & Erickson,
1993) as well as to other cultures. Research with
other samples of Filipinos has yielded similar
SEM findings (e.g., Dy-Liacco, Kennedy, Parker,
& Piedmont, 2005), although such consistency
may be argued to be a result of employing mostly
Christian samples. However, research comprising
Muslims, Hindus, and Christians from India
(Piedmont & Leach, 2002) and Orthodox, Con-
servative, and Reformed Jews in the United States
(Goodman et al., 2005) has replicated the validity
findings with the STS reported here across these
very different faith traditions and cultures. It re-
mains to be seen whether an analysis of the same
causal models examined here would generate sim-
ilar findings in these different groups.
Final Comments
These findings do have considerable signif-
icance for those who are outside the Psychol-
ogy of Religion and may be skeptical about
numinous variables, perhaps viewing them as
”black-box” constructs. Taken together, the re-
sults presented here should lend confidence to
researchers regarding the empirical viability
and conceptual soundness of numinous scales:
they can meet the standard canons of scientific
method and rigor. As was shown in this report,
the STS and RIS have clear operational defini-
tions and their scores are psychometrically
sound. When they are part of larger multivariate
models, these scales do provide significant ad-
ditional explanatory variance across a wide
range of psychosocial outcomes.
Religion and spirituality have played a major
role in every culture across history, and such
practices and beliefs have shaped our philoso-
phy, law, government, and ethics. We believe
that no other single human quality has had such
a profound impact on how our species has come
to view itself. Such a salient, influential con-
struct cannot be ignored, and examining the
numinous may provide insights into what it is
that makes us quintessentially human. Perhaps,
as Miller and Thoresen (2003) have suggested,
the time is propitious for psychology to develop
greater faith in its own methods for studying
this influential area of human experience. In the
words of the founder of American psychology,
“. . . to the psychologist the religious propensi-
ties of man must be at least as interesting as any
other of the facts pertaining to his mental con-
stitution” (James, 1902/2002, pp. 4).
References
Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic consider-
ations for a psychology of personality. New Ha-
ven, CT: Yale University Press.
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social
indicators of well-being: American’s perceptions
of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of
living in the material world. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 265–280.
Benson, P. L., Donahue, M. J., & Erickson, J. A.
(1993). The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualiza-
tion, measurement, and empirical validation. Re-
search in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 5,
1–26.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psycholog-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ical well-being. Chicago: Aldine.
Buss, D. M. (2002). Sex, marriage, and religion:
What adaptive problems do religious phenomena
solve? Psychological Inquiry, 13, 201–203.
Crumbaugh, J. (1968). Purpose in Life test. Journal
of Individual Psychology, 24, 74 – 81.
De Conciliis, A. J. (1993/1994). Individual correlates
of prosocial behavior: Comparison of three models
(Doctoral Dissertation, Loyola College in Mary-
land, 1993). Doctoral Abstracts International, 54,
2892. (University Microfilms No. AAC 93–
23130).
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Psychological
individualism and romantic love. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 6, 17–33.
Dy-Liacco, G., Piedmont, R. L., Leach, M. M., &
Nelson, R. (August, 2003). Interdisciplinary re-
view of the literature on religion and spirituality
(1997–2001). Poster presented at the Annual Con-
vention of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, Toronto, Canada.
Dy-Liacco, G. S., Kennedy, M. C., Parker, D. J., &
Piedmont, R. L. (2005). Spiritual Transcendence
as an unmediated causal predictor of psychological
growth and worldview among Filipinos. Research
in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 261–
286.
Emmons, R. A., & Paloutzian, R. F. (2003). The
psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 54, 377– 402.
Fisher, W. A., Byren, D., White, L. A., & Kelly, K.
(1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of
personality. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123–151.
Frankl, V. F. (1966). Self-transcendence as a human
phenomenon. Journal of Humanistic Psychol-
ogy, 6, 97–106.
Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C.
(1995). Agreement among judges of personality:
Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquain-
tanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 69, 656 – 672.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic
personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26 –34.
Goodman, J. M., Britton, P. J., Shama-Davis, D., &
Jencius, M. J. (2005). An exploration of spiritual-
ity and psychological well-being in a community
177
of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews. Re-
search in the Social Scientific Study of Reli-
gion, 16, 63– 82.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Measurement in psychology
of religion revisited. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 9, 82–92.
Guttman, D. (1996). Logotherapy for the helping
professional. New York: Springer Publishing.
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1999). Measures of
religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education
Press.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in
the conceptualization and measurement of religion
and spirituality: Implications for physical and
mental health research. American Psycholo-
gist, 58, 64 –74.
Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough,
M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., et al. (2000).
Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of
commonality, points of departure. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 51–77.
Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental
validity of psychological testing and assessment:
Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues.
Psychological Assessment, 15, 446 – 455.
James, W. (1902/2002). The varieties of religious
experience: A study in human nature. New York:
Modern Library. (Original work published in
1902)
Joiner, T. E., Perez, M., & Walker, R. L. (2002).
Playing devil’s advocate: Why not conclude that
the relation of religiosity to mental health reduces
to mundane mediators? Psychological Inquiry, 13,
214 –216.
Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a
short index of self-actualization. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 63–73.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2005). LISREL, 8.72.
Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Katigbak, M. S., Church, T. A., Guanzon-LapeZa,
M. A., Carlota, A. J., & del Pilar, G. H. (2002). Are
indigenous personality dimensions culture spe-
cific? Philippine inventories and the five-factor
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 82, 89 –101.
Koenig, H. G. (2008). Concerns about measuring
“spirituality” in research. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 196, 349 –355.
Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B.
(2000). Handbook of religion and health. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lowenthal, M. F., Thurner, M., & Chiriboga, D.
(1975). Four stages of life. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating
Norman’s “Adequate Taxonomy”: Intelligence
and personality dimensions in natural language
 178 PIEDMONT, CIARROCHI, DY-LIACCO, AND WILLIAMS
questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 710 –721.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation
of the five-factor model of personality across in-
struments and across observers. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction
to the five-factor model and its applications. Jour-
nal of Personality, 57, 415– 433.
McDonald, D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description,
measurement, and relation to the five-factor model
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of personality. Journal of Personality, 68, 153–
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
197.
Miller, L., & Kelley, B. S. (2004). Relationships of
religiosity and spirituality with mental health and
psychopathology. In R. Paloutzian & C. Park
(Eds.), The handbook of the psychology of religion
(pp. 460 – 478). New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, W. R., & Thoresen, C. E. (1999). Spirituality
and health. In W. Miller (Ed.), Integrating spiri-
tuality into treatment (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Miller, W. R., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Spirituality,
religion, and health: An emerging research field.
American Psychologist, 58, 24 –35.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality assessment. New
York: Wiley.
Murray-Swank, N., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). God,
where are you? Evaluating a spiritually-integrated
intervention for sexual abuse. Mental Health, Re-
ligion, and Culture, 8, 191–203.
Musick, M. A., Traphagan, J. W., Koenig, H. G., &
Larson, D. B. (2000). Spirituality in physical
health and aging. Journal of Adult Development, 7,
73– 86.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psycho-
metric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ozer, D. J., & Reise, S. P. (1994). Personality assess-
ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 357–388.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, C. L. (2004), The hand-
book of the psychology of religion. New York:
Guilford Press.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion
and coping: Theory, research, practice. New
York: Guilford Press.
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., Tarakeshwar, M. A.,
& Hahn, J. (2001). Religious struggle as a predic-
tor of mortality among medically ill elderly pa-
tients: A two-year longitudinal study. Archives of
Internal Medicine, 161, 1881–1885.
Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., &
Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative
religious coping with major life stressors. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 710 –724.
Piedmont, R. L. (1995). Big Five adjective marker
scales for use with college students. Psychological
Reports, 77, 160 –162.
Piedmont, R. L. (1999a). Does spirituality represent
the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcen-
dence and the five-factor model. Journal of Per-
sonality, 67, 985–1013.
Piedmont, R. L. (1999b). Strategies for using the five-
factor model of personality in religious research.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 27, 338 –250.
Piedmont, R. L. (2001). Spiritual transcendence and
the scientific study of spirituality. Journal of Re-
habilitation, 67, 4 –14.
Piedmont, R. L. (2004a). Assessment of Spirituality
and Religious Sentiments, technical manual. Bal-
timore: Author.
Piedmont, R. L. (2004b). Spiritual Transcendence as
a predictor of psychosocial outcome from an out-
patient substance abuse program. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 18, 223–232.
Piedmont, R. L. (2007a). Cross-cultural generaliz-
ability of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale to the
Philippines: Spirituality as a human universal.
Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 10, 89 –107.
Piedmont, R. L., & Leach, M. M. (2002). Cross-
cultural generalizability of the Spiritual Transcen-
dence Scale in India: Spirituality as a universal
aspect of human experience. American Behavioral
Scientist, 45, 1888 –1901.
Piedmont, R. L., Mapa, A. T., & Williams, J. E. G.
(2006). A factor analysis of the Fetzer/NIA Brief
Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/
Spirituality (MMRS). Research in the Social Sci-
entific Study of Religion, 17, 177–196.
Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003).
Religion and spirituality: Linkages to physical
health. American Psychologist, 58, 36 –52.
Rayburn, C. A. (1996, August). Religion and spiritual-
ity: Can one exist independently of the other? Paper
presented at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C.
(1981). The altruistic personality and the self-
report altruism scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 2, 293–302.
Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of
personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality
and Individual Differences, 32, 15–25.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is be-
yond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66,
495–524.
Seeman, T. E., Dubin, L. F., & Seeman, M. (2003).
Religiosity/spirituality and health: A critical re-
view of the evidence for biological pathways.
American Psychologist, 58, 53– 63.
Sloan, R. P., & Bagiella, R. (2002). Claims about
religious involvement and health outcomes. An-
nals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 14 –21.
Sloan, R. P., Bagiella, R., & Powell, T. (2001).
Without a prayer: Methodological problems, ethi-
cal challenges, and misrepresentation in the study
 SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOSITY
of religion, spirituality, and medicine. In T. G.
Plante, & A. C. Sherman (Eds.), Faith and health:
Psychological perspectives (pp. 339 –354). New
York: Guilford Press.
Smith, T. W. (2001). Religion and spirituality in the
science and practice of health psychology: Open-
ness, skepticism, and the agnosticism of method-
ology. In T. G. Plante & A. C. Sherman (Eds.),
Faith and health: Psychological perspectives.
New York: Guilford Press.
Swap, W., & Rubin, J. (1983). Measurement of in-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
terpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Social Psychology, 44, 211.
179
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and
personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907–924.
Van Wicklin, J. F. (1990). Conceiving and measuring
ways of being religious. Journal of Psychology
and Christianity, 9, 27– 40.
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B.
(1999). The emerging meanings of religiousness
and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal
of Personality, 67, 889 –920.
Received November 7, 2008
Revision received March 11, 2009
Accepted March 19, 2009 䡲