Religion and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy

Author(s): Brian J. Zinnbauer, Kenneth I. Pargament, Brenda Cole, Mark S. Rye, Eric M.
Butter, Timothy G. Belavich, Kathleen M. Hipp, Allie B. Scott, Jill L. Kadar
Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 549-564
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387689
Accessed: 11/07/2010 01:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

Religion and Spirituality:

Unfuzzying the Fuzzy
BRIAN J. ZINNBAUERt
KENNETH I. PARGAMENTt
BRENDA COLE
MARKS. RYE
ERIC M. BUTTER
TIMOTHYG. BELAVICH
KATHLEENM. HIPP
ALLIE B. SCOTT
JILL L. KADAR

The present study attempts to measure how individuals define the terms religiousness and
spirituality, to measure how individuals define their own religiousness and spirituality, and to examine
whether these definitions are associated with different demographic,religio/spiritual, and psychosocial
variables. The complete sample of 346 individuals was composedof 11 groupsof participantsdrawn froma
wide range of religious backgrounds. Analyses were conductedto compare participants' self-rated religiousness and spirituality, to correlate self-ratedreligiousness and spirituality with the predictorvariables,
and to use the predictor variables to distinguish between participants who described themselves as
"spiritualand religious" from those who identified themselves as "spiritualbut not religious." A content
analysis of participants' definitions of religiousness and spirituality was also performed.The results suggest several points of convergence and divergence between the constructs religiousness and spirituality.
The theoretical,empirical, and practical implicationsof these results for the scientific study of religion are
discussed.

in the past 20 years, interest in religiousness and spirituality has increased, and a large
number of social scientists have attempted to define, study, and theorize about these two
terms (e.g., Ingersoll 1994; Shafranske and Gorsuch 1984; Spilka 1993; Turner, et. al 1995).
Still, the ways in which the words are conceptualizedand used are often inconsistent in the
research literature. Despite the great volume of work that has been done, little consensus
has been reached about what the terms actually mean. In particular, the term spirituality
has as times been used so loosely that one researcher has called it a "fuzzy"concept that
"embracesobscurity with passion" (Spilka 1993: 1).Not surprisingly, spirituality has been
described recently as an obscure construct in need of empirical grounding and operationalization (Hoodet al. 1996; Spilka 1993; Spilka and McIntosh 1996).
Current conceptions of religiousness and spirituality in the social scientific study of
religion are nothing if not diverse. Definitions of religiousness have ranged from subscription to institutionalized beliefs or doctrines (Vaughan 1991), to "a system of beliefs in a
t Brian J. Zinnbauer is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH
43403. Email: bzinnba&choice,net.
t Kenneth Pargament is a professor of psychoklgy and director of clinical training in the Clinical Psychology Program at
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403.

Brenda Cok, Mark Rye, Eric Butter, Timothy Belavich, Kathleen Hipp, Allie Scott, and Jill Kadar were all doctoral
students in clinical or social psychology at Bowling Green State University during the preparation of this manuscript.
549
i) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1997, 36(4): 549-564

550

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDYOF RELIGION

divine or superhuman power, and practices of worship or other rituals directed towards
such a power"(Argyle and Beit-Hallahmi 1975: 1), to "the feelings, acts, and experiences of
individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to
whatever they may consider the divine"(James 1902/1961:42).
Current definitions of spirituality are equally diverse. Spirituality has been variously
defined by theorists as "the human response to God's gracious call to a relationship with
himself"(Benner 1989: 20), "asubjective experience of the sacred"(Vaughan 1991: 105), and
"that vast realm of human potential dealing with ultimate purposes, with higher entities,
with God, with love, with compassion, with purpose"(Tart1983: 4). Furthermore,the terms
spirituality and religiousness have been used interchangeably and inconsistently by some
authors. For example, Miller and Martin (1988: 14) frequently interchange the terms even
after they explicitly state that spirituality "mayor may not include involvement in organized religion".
The finding that researchers define these terms differently is mirrored in the ways
that religious and spiritual believers themselves define the terms. For example, Pargament,
Sullivan, Balzer, Van Haitsma, and Raymark (1995) used a policy-capturing approach to
assess the meanings college students and clergy attribute to the word religiousness. Their
findings indicated that different individuals attributed different meanings to religiousness.
To some, religiousness meant church attendance, to others it meant acts of altruism, and to
others it meant performing religious rituals. Similarly, if popular publications such as
Newsweek and Time reflect the views and attitudes of the American public, contemporary
spirituality is also defined in diverse ways. Popular references to spirituality have included
elements such as interest in angels, New Age interest in crystals and psychic readings, and
evangelical or Pentecostal religious experiences.
While this diversity of opinion regarding religiousness and spirituality may enrich our
understanding of the constructs, the inconsistency in the definitions can also have some
negative implications for social scientific research. First, without a clearer conception of
what the terms mean, it is difficult to know what researchers and participants attribute to
these terms. Second, a lack of consistency in defining the terms impairs communication
within the social scientific study of religion and across other disciplines interested in the
two concepts. Third, without commondefinitions within social scientific research it becomes
difficult to draw general conclusionsfrom various studies.
Past and Present Trends in Defining Religiousness and Spirituality
Historically, spirituality was not distinguished from religiousness until the rise of
secularism in this century, and a popular disillusionment with religious institutions as a
hindrance to personal experiences of the sacred (Turner et al. 1995). In the past 25 years,
interest in spirituality has greatly increased (Roof 1993), and American religious life has
shifted to include more elements defined as %piritual."At the same time, there has been a
dropin public confidencein religion and religious leadership (Roof 1993; Turner et al. 1995).
Consequently, spirituality has begun to acquire distinct meanings and connotations.
With regard to religiousness, social scientific research has traditionally adopted either
a substantive or functional approach (Pargament 1997). The substantive approach focuses
on the beliefs, emotions, practices, and relationships of individuals in relation to a higher
power or divine being. At the center of the definition is the sacred, and it is the sacred which
fundamentally characterizes religiousness. The functional approach on the other hand
emphasizes the function that religiousness serves in the life of the individual. Beliefs, emotions, practices, and experiences are examined, but the focus is how they are used in dealing
with the fundamental problems of existence such as life, death, suffering, and injustice
(Pargament 1997).What is notable about these past approaches to religiousness is that they

UNFUZZYINGTHE FUZZY
RELIGIOUSNESSAND SPIRITUALITY:

551

are all fairly broad and include a wide range of elements. Consequently, definitions and conceptualizations within these traditions have been broad enough to subsume the "spiritual"
as well as both individual and institutional beliefs and activities. As spirituality has become
differentiated from religiousness, however, it has taken with it some of the elements formally included within religiousness. Therefore, recent definitions of religiousness have
become more narrow and less inclusive.
Current writings by some scholars and researchers in the scientific study of religion
reflect these popular definitional changes. Whereas religiousness historically included both
individual and institutional elements, spirituality is now commonlyregarded as an individual phenomenon and identified with such things as personal transcendence, supraconscious
sensitivity, and meaningfulness (Spilka and McIntosh 1996). Religiousness, in contrast, is
now often described narrowly as formally structured and identified with religious institutions and prescribedtheology and rituals.
Additionally, both terms now differ accordingto how they are evaluated. Whereas historically both religiousness and spirituality were broadly considered to have both positive
and negative elements (Pargament 1996), spirituality has recently acquired a specific positive connotation through its association with personal experiences of the transcendent
(Spilka and McIntosh 1996). Religiousness, in contrast, has been negatively tagged by some
as a hindrance to these experiences (Turner et al. 1995).
Also, as the label of spirituality has conceptually broken away from religiousness it
has been adopted by identifiable groups of believers. One example comes from Roofs (1993)
study of 1,599 members of the baby-boomergeneration. Accordingto Roofthere was a large
defection of baby boomers from organized religions in the 1960s and 1970s, and an increase
in "newreligions"which emphasized direct spiritual experience over institutional religion.
One segment of this generation, termed by Roof as the "highly active seekers," were those
baby boomers who adopted a highly individualized spirituality which rejected organized
religion and traditional forms of worship. Accordingly,this group tended to identify themselves as "spiritual"and not "religious."In comparisonto other baby boomers, Roof characterizes this group as more educated, more individualistic, more likely to engage in
'mystical"religion which may contain various New Age beliefs and practices, less likely to
hold a "theistic"belief about God, more likely to view their faith as a "spiritualjourney"or a
"quest,"and more likely to come from homes in which their parents attended religious
services infrequently.
Therefore, the religious and spiritual landscape has undergone changes in recent hisand
it appears as if researchers' conceptualizations of religiousness and spirituality
tory,
not
have
all caught up. As evident in the research literature, a great deal of energy has
recently been expended by theorists and researchers in defining the terms religiousness and
spirituality, and some common themes can be seen in the ways they are conceptualized.
Very little attention, however, has been paid to the ways the general public defines the
terms. Apart from a handful of studies which have explored the meanings that individual
believers attribute to religiousness and spirituality (e.g. Clark 1958; Coe 1900; McReady
and Greeley 1976; Pargament et al. 1995; Roof 1993, Zinnbauer 1997), precious little
research has addressed how individual believers think about and distinguish the terms.
Moreover,few investigations have considered whether self-evaluations of religiousness and
spirituality are associated with distinctive demographic, religio/spiritual, and psychosocial
factors.
The Present Study
The present study was designed in two parts. First, several questions regarding the
ways in which individuals characterize themselves and their beliefs with regard to relig-

552

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDYOF RELIGION

iousness and spirituality were investigated. These questions included the following: how do
individuals define the terms religiousness and spirituality; to what degree do individuals
rate themselves religious and/or spiritual; what beliefs do they hold about God;how do they
view the conceptual relationship between religiousness and spirituality; and what positive
or negative connotations do they attribute to the terms religiousness and spirituality?
Second, the association between the answers to the above questions and different
demographic,religio/spiritual, and psychosocial variables was explored. Specific hypotheses
were made only for the relationship between self-rated religiousness and spirituality and
the various demographic, religio/spiritual, and psychosocial variables. Based upon the previously cited work by Roof (1993), it was hypothesized that self-rated spirituality would be
related to mystical experiences, New Age beliefs and practices, a pantheistic or agnostic
belief about God, religious quest, higher income and education, group experiences related to
spiritual growth, and the experience of being hurt by clergy. Based on previous research
relating religiousness to such variables as religious orthodoxy and right-wing authoritarianism (see Hood et al. 1996, for a summary), it was hypothesized that self-rated religiousness would be related to right-wing authoritarianism, religious orthodoxy,intrinsic religiousness, and parental religiousness. Self righteousness, frequency of church attendance,
and age were also expected to be related to self-rated religiousness. It was expected that
both self-rated religiousness and spirituality would be related to frequencyof prayer.
METHOD
Participants
Eleven different samples from Pennsylvania and Ohio were collected for this study.
Groups were specifically selected from different churches, institutions, and age groups that
were likely to hold different definitions and self-reported levels of religiousness and spirituality. These groups included members of a rural Presbyterian church (54 questionnaires distributed, 37 returned complete), a conservative Catholic church located in a small town (50
distributed, 26 returned), a nontraditional Episcopal church (70 distributed, 15 returned), a
rural Lutheran church (30 distributed, 11 returned), an urban Unitarian church (60 distributed, 40 returned), and several "New Age"groups (66 distributed, 17 returned). Additionally, the five other participant groups included community mental health workers (60 distributed, 27 returned), students at a small, conservative Christian liberal arts college (80
distributed, 79 returned), students at a State University (50 distributed, 38 returned),
nursing home residents (23 distributed, 20 returned), and faculty at a college of nursing (65
distributed, 36 returned). The total number of surveys distributed was 608, and 346 were
returned complete (57%).
The entire sample consisted of 112 males (32%) and 234 females (68%), whose ages
ranged from 15 to 85 (X = 40). The sample was predominantly white (95%). The median
household income level of this sample was $50,000-$64,000; 39% of the participants were
married;and the median highest level of education completed was some college.
Procedure
The questionnaires were distributed to participants by several different methods. For
the church and New Age groups, the investigators passed out the questionnaires after worship services or meetings to those willing to participate, or gave the questionnaires to clergy
to distribute to other church members. These participants either returned the questionnaires directly to the investigators or returned them by mail. Questionnaires distributed to
the community mental health workers were placed either on their desks or in their mail-

UNFUZZYINGTHE FUZZY
RELIGIOUSNESSAND SPIRITUALITY:

553

boxes at the mental health agency. These questionnaires were returned to the investigator's
mailbox or placed on his desk. Nursing home residents were asked to participate by graduate student clinical assistants. Student respondents who were willing to participate were
given the questionnaires at the end of an introductorypsychology class and asked to return
them at the next class. Students received extra credit points for their participation.
Measures
Measures of religiousness and spirituality. Participants' self-definitions and conceptions of religiousness and spirituality were assessed in several ways. First, respondents
were asked to write their own definitions of religiousness and spirituality. Second, participants responded to two 5-point Likert-type items according to the degree they consider
themselves religious and spiritual. Third, respondents were asked to choose one of four
statements that best defined their own religiousness and spirituality: I am spiritual and
religious;I am spiritual but not religious;I am religious but not spiritual; I am neither spiritual nor religious. Fourth, participants were asked to choose among five sets of statements
that describe the ways in which they believe that the concepts of religiousness and spirituality relate to one another. The five descriptions involved the following relationships:
spirituality is a broaderconcept than religiousness and includes religiousness;religiousness
is a broaderconceptthan spirituality and includes spirituality; religiousnessand spirituality
are different and do not overlap; religiousness and spirituality are the same concept and
overlap completely;religiousness and spirituality overlap but they are not the same concept.
Fifth, participants rated Religiousness and Spirituality on a 20-item abbreviated form of
Osgoods's (1969) Semantic Differential scale. This scale yielded two scores: evaluation of
religiousness and spirituality as positive I negative, and evaluation of religiousness and
spirituality as potent/impotent. High potency for this scale indicates an evaluation of religiousness or spirituality as severe, strong, and constrained.
Religio/spiritual and psychosocial measures. Three widely known and used measures
of religious attitudes and behaviors were used in the present research: the Intrinsic
Religiousness scale (Hoge 1972), the Quest scale (Batson and Ventis 1982), and a shortened
9-item version of the Orthodoxy scale (Batson and Ventis 1982). Two additional measures
were used to assess less conventional religious or spiritual beliefs and experiences: items
were selected from two subscales (Ego Quality, Unifying Quality) of the Mysticism Scale,
Research Form D (Hood 1975), and a new scale was created for this study to measure 'New
Age"beliefs in such things as reincarnation and psychic phenomena. The Cronbach alpha
calculated for this new scale was .85. Three final measures were used to assess nonreligious
or nonspiritual attitudes or behaviors: a measure of self-righteousness (Falbo and Belk
1985); shortened forms of the Right Wing Authoritarianism scale (Altemeyer 1981), and the
Subjective Individualism-Collectivism scale (Triandis 1995), which was broken down into
four subscales characterized as independencefrom others, interdependencewith others, individual competitiveness,and self-sacrificefor others. Cronbachalphas for all of the shortened
scales ranged from .61 to .93 and were judged to be adequate. The only scale with low internal consistency was the Quest scale (Cronbachalpha = .39).
An additional measure was designed to assess participants' beliefs about God. This
item asked respondents to choose among five beliefs about God. These five descriptions
included theistic, pantheistic, deistic, agnostic, and atheistic perspectives (see Appendix).

554

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDYOF RELIGION

FIGURE 1
GRAPH OF GROUP MEANS FOR SELF-RATEDRELIGIOUSNESS AND SPIRITUALITY
5

10

GrRoups

1
2
3
4
5
6

=
=
=
=
=
=

New Age Gr-oups(n = 17)

Mental Health Workers(n = 27)
NontraditionalEpiscopalians(n =15)
Unitarians (n = 40)
MainstreamCollegeStudents (n =38)
RuralLutherans(n = 11)

Socdcoo

tm:rltosi

7
8
9
10
11

=
=
=
=
=

Rural Presbyterians(n = 37)

Faculty at a Collegeof Nursing (n = 36)
ConservativeChristianCollegeStudents (n =79)
Nursing Home Residents (n = 20)
RomanCatholics(n= 26)

RESULTS

frlgosest

prtaiy

eifaotGd

ef

Self-Definitionsand Conceptionsof Religiousness and Spirituality

Self-ratedreligiousnessand spirituality.Means were calculated for each of the 11 participant groups on the 5-point self-rated Religiousness and Spirituality scales. These results
can be seen in Figure 1. Of note from this analysis is that there were intragroup differences
1idewtiAgeaGioupasreinou17) an
7prtul
Re
itnmhio
reg37)n
in
levels of religiousness and spirituality.
For
the RuralnPesbyothefrians
overall sample,self-rated
spirituality( X
= 3.93) was significantly higher thanself-ratedreligiousnWess
(X = 3.23) (t(343)= 10.79, p <
.001). Additionally, for all groups except the conservative Catholic group and the nursing
home resident group, self-rated spirituality was significantly higher than self-rated
religiousness. However, some groups reported considerably greater religious-spiritual discrepancythan others. For example, the New Age group was highest in self-rated spirituality
( X = 4.65) and lowest in self-rated religiousness ( X = 2.65) (t(6) = 5.83, p < .001).
Additionally, mental health workers reported high self-rated spirituality ( X = 3.85), and
low self-rated religiousness ( X = 2.67) (t(26) = 6.68,p < .001). In contrast, the conservative
Christian college students displayed less discrepancy between self-rated spirituality ( X
3.90) and self-rated religiousness ( X 3.53) (t(8) = 2.82, p <..1).

555

UNFUZZYINGTHE FUZZY
RELIGIOUSNESSAND SPIRITUALITY:

the relationship of religiousness to spirituality and beliefs about God were examined for the
entire sample. For the forced-choiceitem regarding the relationship of religiousness to spirituality, the percentages of the sample endorsing the choices were as follows: religiousness
and spirituality overlap but they are not the same concept (41.7%);spirituality is a broader
conceptthan religiousness and includes religiousness (38.8%);religiousness is a broaderconcept than spirituality and includes spirituality (10.2%);religiousness and spirituality are different and do not overlap (6.7%);religiousness and spirituality are the same concept and
overlap completely (2.6%). For the forced-choice item regarding beliefs about God, the
results were as follows:pantheistic description (52.0%);theistic (33.9%);agnostic (10.5%);
atheistic (2.4%);and deistic (1.2%).
Frequencieswere also totaled for the forced-choiceitem asking participants to identify
themselves as religious and/or spiritual. Results were as follows:I am spiritual and religious (S+R, 74%);I am spiritual but not religious (SnR, 19%);I am religious but not spiritual
(RnS, 4%);I am neither religious nor spiritual (3%).Thus, 93% of participants identified
themselves as spiritual. In contrast, 78%identified themselves as religious.
Contentanalysis. A content analysis was performedon the participants'personal definitions of religiousness and spirituality. Each definition was coded on two dimensions: overall content; and the nature of the sacred. Thirteen content categories and four categories
describingthe nature of the sacred in participant definitions were created for this study (see
Table 1 for a description of the categories and results of the content analysis). Three coders
initially coded the definitions separately. The statistic Kappa on the content category
codings was .65 (z = 61.08;p < .0001) and on the nature of the sacred category was .67 (z =
17.41;p < .000 1) indicating an acceptable level of agreement among the coders. The three
coders then convened to arrive at mutually agreed upon codes for every definition. Three
hundred and twenty-five pairs of religousness and spirituality definitions were coded.Fiftysix spirituality definitions (17%of total) were labeled as uncodable due to poverty of codable
content or extreme ambiguity. Forty definitions of religiousness (12%of total) were labeled
as uncodable.
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF CONTENTANALYSIS OF DEFINITIONS OF RELIGIOUSNESS AND SPIRITUALITY
Content
Category

Overall Sample
Spirituality Religiousness
N
N
%
%

10
1
0
2
3
6
2
4
0
5
1
6
7
2
8
117
111
9
2
10
2
11
12
2
18
13
56
14
329
N~~~~~~~~~......
=

3
0
2
<1
0
<1
<1
36
34
<1
<1
<1
6
17
...............

1
2
2
2
0
2
9
9
73
25
69
53
42
40
3329
-9............

<1
<1
<1
<1
0
<1
3
3
22
8
21
16
13
12.................

S+R
Spirituality Religiousnew
N
N
%
%
8
0
4
2
0
0
0
86
81
2
1
2
14
38
238............
238

3
0
2
<1
0
0
0
36
34
<1
<1
<1
6
16
..........

0
0
0
0
1
<1
2
<1
0
0
<1
1
1
3
3
8
59
25
7
17
51
21
14
33
13
32
13
31
-238................................

SnR
Spirituality Religiousness
N
%
N
%
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
26
26
0
1
0
2
8
67.................
67

3
0
3
0
0
0
0
39
39
0
2
0
3
12
........

1
0
1
0
0
1
6
0
8
6
14
18
6
6
67.................
67

Tabl 1 cotne.

2
0
2
0
0
2
9
0
12
9
21
27
9
9

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDYOF RELIGION

556

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Sacred
Category

Overali Sample
Spirituality Religiousness
N
%
N
%

1
35
2
28
3
191
4
19
N...............................................27=
273*

13
10
70
7

39
2
219
29
........................28289*

13
<1
76
10

S+R
Spirituality Religiousnes
N
%
N
%
24
17
147
12
..............................20200*

12
8
74
6

23
1
162
21
........................20207*

SaR
Spirituality Religiousnes
N
%
N
%
10
8
36
5
................................ 9
59*

11
<1
78
10

17
14
61
8
...............

12
0
43
6
6
61*

20
0
70
10

Content Category Key

1. Feeling or aimed at attaining a desirableinner affectivestate such as comfort,anxiety reduction,security,etc.
2. Having or striving to gain meaning.
3. Aimed at obtainingpersonalgrowth,actualization,mastery, or self-control.
4. Concernforothers;aimed at obtaininga better world.
5. Hope.
6. Having,or striving to gain, controlover problemsor ability to solve problems.
7. Negative means or ends such as gaining extrinsic rewards,feeling superiorto others, an excuse to avoid personal
responsibility,etc.
with God/Christ/HigherPower/
8. Feeling or experienceof connectedness/relationship/oneness
transcendentreality/Nature/etc.
9. Personalbeliefs such as belief or faith in God/Higherpower/thedivine/personalvalues/etc.
10. Personalworshipor practices such as prayer,Bible reading,meditation,etc.
11. Organizationalpracticesor activities such as attendanceat services, performanceof rituals, churchmembershipor
allegiance,etc.
12. Commitmentto organizationalbeliefs or adherenceto institutionally based belief systems or dogma.
13. Integratingone's value or beliefs with one's behaviorin daily life, followingGod'swill in one's life, demonstrating
God'slove to others, etc.
14. Uncodable.
* If the contentcategorywas uncodable,the definitionwas not codedin the Sacred Category.
Nature of the Sacred Category Key
1. Definitiondoes not explicitly refer to the sacred.
2. Definitionrefers to nontraditionalconceptof the sacred(e.g., transcendentreality, groundof being, Nature).
3. Definitionrefersto traditionalconceptof the sacred(e.g., God,Christ, HigherPower, Holy, Divine, the Church).
4. Definitionrefersto the sacred but does not specifytraditionalor nontraditional.

Frequencies were calculated for each content category over the entire sample. The
most common definitions of spirituality were coded in the following content categories:
feeling or experience of connectedness/relationship/oneness with God/Christ/Higher
Power/transcendent reality/Nature/etc. (36%);personal beliefs such as belief or faith in
God/Higherpower/the divine/personal values/etc. (34%);uncodable (17%);integrating one's
values or beliefs with one's behavior in daily life, following God's will in one's life, demonstrating God'slove to others, etc. (5.5%);feeling or aimed at attaining a desirable inner
affective state such as comfort,anxiety reduction, security, etc. (3%);and aimed at obtaining
personal growth, actualization, mastery, or self-control (2%). In terms of the categories
describing the nature of the sacred, the results were as follows: 70% of the definitions
referred to traditional concepts of the sacred (God, Christ, higher power, the church); 13%
made no reference to the sacred; 10% referred to nontraditional concepts of the sacred
(transcendent reality, ground of being, nature); and 7%made reference to the sacred but did
not provide enough information to code as traditional or nontraditional.
The most common definitions of religiousness were content coded as follows: personal
beliefs such as belief or faith in God/Higher power/the divine/personal values/etc. (22%);
organizational practices or activities such as attendance at services, performanceof rituals,
church membership or allegiance, etc. (21%); commitment to organizational beliefs or
adherence to institutionally based belief systems or dogma (16%);integrating one's values

UNFUZZYINGTHE FUZZY
RELIGIOUSNESSAND SPIRITUALITY:

557

or beliefs with one's behavior in daily life, following God's will in one's life, demonstrating
God's love to others, etc. (13%);uncodable (12%);personal worship or practices such as
prayer, Bible reading, meditation, etc. (8%);negative means or ends such as gaining extrinsic rewards, feeling superior to others, an excuse to avoid personal responsibility, etc. (3%);
feeling or experience of connectedness/relationship/oneness with God/Christ/Higher
Power/transcendent reality/Nature/etc. (3%). In terms of the categories describing the
nature of the sacred, the results were as follows: 76% of the definitions referred to traditional concepts of the sacred (God, Christ, higher power, the church);13%made no reference
to the sacred; 10%made reference to the sacred but did not provide enough information to
code as traditional or nontraditional;and less than 1%referred to nontraditional concepts of
the sacred (transcendent reality, ground of being, nature).
For the entire sample, definitions of religiousness and spirituality were significantly
different in content (X2(132) = 198.94;p < .00 1) but not in the nature of the sacred 2 (9) =
12.94; p = .17). Descriptively, definitions of spirituality most often included references to
connection or relationship with a Higher Power of some kind, belief or faith in a Higher
Power of some kind, or integrating one's values and beliefs with one's behavior in daily life.
As with definitions of spirituality, definitions of religiousness included belief or faith in a
Higher Power of some kind and integrating one's values and beliefs with one's behavior in
daily life, but they also commonlyincluded references to organized activities such as church
attendance and performance of rituals, as well as commitment to organizational or institutional beliefs or dogma.Therefore,both definitions share some features in common,but they
diverge in the focus of religiousness definitions on organizational or institutional beliefs and
practices, and the focus of spirituality definitions on the personal qualities of connection or
relationship with a Higher Power.
Associations Between the Self-Definitionsand the Predictor Variables
Correlational analyses. Correlations were calculated between self-rated religiousness
and spirituality and the demographic, religio/spiritual, and psychosocial variables. Significant correlations are displayed in Table 2. In accordance with hypotheses, significant positive correlations emerged between self-rated religiousness and church attendance, frequency of prayer, parent's religious attendance, intrinsic religiousness, religious orthodoxy,
right-wing authoritarianism, and self-righteousness. Although no specific hypotheses were
made about them, significant positive correlations also emerged between self-rated religiousness and self-rated spirituality, positive evaluation of religiousness and spirituality,
characterization of spirituality as potent, interdependence with others, and self-sacrifice for
others. Significant negative correlations emerged between self-rated religiousness and two
variables: independence from others; and New Age beliefs and practices.
In accordancewith hypotheses, significant positive correlations emerged between selfrated spirituality and level of education and income, frequency of prayer, experiences of
being hurt by clergy, New Age beliefs and practices, group experiences related to spiritual
growth, and mystical experiences. Although no specific hypotheses were made about them,
significant positive correlations also emerged between self-rated spirituality and church
attendance, positive evaluation of spirituality, and intrinsic religiousness. Significant negative correlations emerged between self-rated spirituality and self-righteousness, individual
competitiveness, and evaluation of spirituality as potent.

568

FORTHESCIENTIFIC
JOURNAL
STUDYOFRELIGION
TABLE2
SIGNICANT CORRELATIONS
OF PREDICTORS
WITHSELF-RATED
RELIGIOUSNESS
ANDSPIRITUALITY

Predictors

Self-Rated
Religiousness

Demographicvariables
Education
Income
Churchattendance
Prayeroutside of church
Groupexperiences related to spiritual growth
Mothers church attendance duringchildhood
Father'schurch attendanceduring childhood
Hurt by clergy
Religio/Spiritual variables
Self-ratedreligiousness
Self-rted spirituality
Positve evaluation of religiousness
Positiveevaluation of spirituality
Evaluationof spirituality as potent (i.e., constricted,
constrsined, and severe)
New Age beliefs and practices
Intrinsicreligiosity
Mysticalexperiences
Religiousorthodoxy
Psychosocialvariables
Right-wingauthoritarianism
Se11righteousness
Independencefromothers
Interdependencewith others
Individualcompetitiveness
Self-sacrificefor others

Self-Rated
Spirituality

-.07
.08
.45
.38**
-.05
.26**
.23**
.04

.15
.12*
.23
.35**
.27
.07
.06
.12*

1.0
.21**
.54
.18
.20**

.21
1.0
-.02
.38
-.14**

-.18**
.45
-.04
.40

.24**
.41
.27**
.16

.27**
.16
-.18
.11*
-.02
.15**

-.07
-.18
-.002
-.09
-.21
-.02

*P<.05; **p <.01

NOTrE:

Supplemental analyses. Additional analyses were conducted to determine the differences between the spiritual and religious (S+R) and the spiritual but not religious (SnR)
groups for the religious and/or spiritual forced-choiceitem. The other two groups from this
item were dropped from analyses due to infrequent endorsement. The results of t-test
analyses between the groups generally parallel the results of the correlations presented
previously (see Table 3). Similar to correlations of self-rated religiousness with the predictor
variables, the S+R group was significantly higher than the SnR group in terms of church
attendance, frequency of prayer, parent's church attendance, self-rated religiousness, positive evaluation of religiousness and spirituality, intrinsic religiousness, religious orthodoxy,
right-wing authoritarianism, self-righteousness, interdependence with others, and selfsacrifice for others. Similar to correlations of sf-rated spirituality with the predictor variables, the SnR group was significantly higher than the S+R group in terms of group experienes related to spiritual growth, New Age beliefs and practices, mystical experiences, and
independence from others.
Additionally, participant endorsement of the religious and/or spiritual item was
examined by participant group, beliefs about God, and relationship of religiousness and
spirituality (see Table 4 for results). Fndings indicated that the membrship n a particular
participant group was related to endorsement of the religious and/or spiritual item (12(10) =
44.35;;pc<.001).Those groups with a higher than expected endorsement of the SnR category

559

UNFUZZYINGTHE FUZZY
RELIGIOUSNESSAND SPIRITUALITY:

were the New Age group (47%,x2(1) = 6.07; p < .05); the mental health worker group (44%,
X2(1) = 12.13; p < .00 1); and the Unitarian group (38%,X2(1)= 11.42;p < .001). In contrast,

two groups had a lower than expected endorsement of the SnR category: the College of
Nursing faculty group (5%,X2(1)= 4.46; p< .05), and the Roman Catholic group (0%,X2(1) =
6.39;p < .05).
TABLE 3
"SPIRrfUAL AND RELIGIOUS"
RESULTS OF T-TESTS COMPARINGSELF-IDENTIEFIED
PARTICIPANTS WITH "SPIrUAL BUT NOT RELIGIOUS"PARTICIPANTS

Spiritual and
Religious
(n - 255)

GROUP
Spiritual not
Religious
(n . 67)

t Value

Demographicvariables
Churchattendance
Prayeroutside of church
Groupexperiences related to spiritual growth
Mother'schurchattendanceduring childhood
Father'schurchattendanceduring childhood

5.50
5.34
2.33
5.50
4.93

4.18
4.55
2.99
4.39
4.01

6.17***
5.78
-2.28*
4.78

Religio/Spiritual variables
Self-ratedreligiousness
Self-ratedspirituality
Positive evaluation of religiousness
Positiveevaluation of spirituality
New Age beliefs and practices
Intrinsicreligiosity
Mysticalexperiences
Religiousorthodoxy

3.60
4.08
5.78
6.23
2.70
3.79
3.13
7.31

1.99
4.03
4.32
5.94
3.07
3.31
3.40
5.45

15.34***
0.47
11.38

Psychoeocialvariables
Right-wingauthoritarianism
Self-righteousness
Independencefromothers
Interdependencewith others
Self-sacrificefor others

3.19
2.48
5.72
6.76
5.97

2.65
2.32
6.13
6.24
5.38

3.35**

2.92**

-4.29
5.90
-2.03*
6.33
5.98
2.15*

-2.28*
2.95**

3.40**

NOTE:Numbers presented are item means; * p < .05; ** p < .01; * p < .001.

Endorsement of the religious and/or spiritual item was also significantly related to
belief about God (2 (4) = 40.93;p < .001) and to the description of the relationship between
religiousness and spirituality (X2(4) = 14.76; p <.01) (see Table 4 for results). In accordance
with our predictions, a larger than expected proportion of the SnR group than the S+R
group indicated an agnosticism (X2(1)= 10.30; p < .001), but contrary to predictions no significant differences emerged for the pantheistic belief. No other differences between the S+R
group and the SnR group were significant for the belief-about-God item. For the relationship between religiousness and spirituality item, a larger than expected proportion of
the SnR group than the S+R group viewed religiousness and spirituality as different and
not overlapping (2 (1) = 11.25; p < .001). No other differences between the S+R group and
the SnR group were significant for the relationship between religiousness and spirituality
item.
Definitions from the content analysis were also examined for the S+R and SnR groups.
No significant differences emerged between the two groups in their definitions of spirituality in terms of content (j (9) = 4.92; p = .84) or nature of the sacred j (l3) = 3.49; p = .32).
Likewise, no significant differences emerged between the groups in their religiousness defi-

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTDY OF RELIGION

560

nitions in terms of nature of the sacred (x2(3) = 3.31; p = .35). However, there were
differences between the groups' definitions of religiousness in terms of content (T2(11) =
29.7; p < .005). As can be seen in Table 4, despite some similarities between the groups in
their content coding, a larger than expected proportion of the S+R group than the SnR
group identified religiousness with belief or faith in a Higher Power of some kind (Category
9; X2(1)= 10.29;p < .001). Conversely, a higher than expected proportionof the SnR group
than the S+R group identified religiousness with commitment to organizational beliefs or
adherence to institutionally based belief systems (Categorv 12;X (1) = 5.29; p < .05), or with
negative means and ends such as gaining extrinsic rewards, feeling superior to others, or
avoiding personal responsibility (Category7; x2(1) = 3.91;p < .05).
TABLE 4
PERCENTAGE OF ENDORSEMENTOF RELIGIOUS AND/OR SPIRITUAL ITEM BY PARTICIPANT
GROUP, BELIEF ABOUT GOD, AND CONCEPTUALREIATIONSHIP OF
RELIGIOUSNESS AND SPIRITUALITY

Group

Percentage of Endorsement of Reliwus and/or Spiriul

I Am Spiritual
and Religious (S+R)

Item by Participant Group

I Am Spiritual
but not Religious (SnR)

53
52
50
82
75
73
73
84
95
92
88

New Age Groups

Mental Health Workers
Unitarians
Rural Lutherans
ConservativeChristian CollegeStudents
NontraditionalEpiscopalians
MainstreamCollege Students
Rural Presbyterians
Nursing HomeResidents
Faculty at a Collegeof Nursing
RomanCatholics

47
44
38
18
18
14
14
11
5
5
0

do not always sum to 100%.

Only the S+R and SnR groups are displayed;therefore,percentates by grouEp

Religious and/or
Spiritual item
'I am spiritual and
religious"(S+R)
'I am spiritual but not
religious"(SnR)

'I am spiritual and

religious (S+R)
'I amspiritual but not
relgus (SnR)

................

.......................................................................................................................................

Percntage of Endorement for Belief-about-God Item by S+R and SnR Groups

Belief about God
Atheistic
Pantheistic
Theistic
Deistic
Agnostic
57

36

42

26

20

....................................................................

RelWous and/or
SpiritualItem

....?........................

..................................I......T...............

.........0

.....................................................................

.....................

l
Between Recl
Percentage of Endorwment of Conceptu Relosehip
and Sprtuality Item for S+R and SnR Groupn
Conceptual Relationship
1
2
3
4

42

10

41

36

15

44

reion
beten re4gousnm and spiritualty:
Key to cnep
1. Spirituahtyis a broaderoonpt than regWousnes and includes religiousness.
2. Rligiousness is a broaderconceptthan spirituality and includes spiritualiy.
3. Religiousnessand spiritualty amediiffent and do not overlap.
4. Religiousnes and spirituality are the earn. conceptand overlapcompletely.
5. Religiosness and spiritualityoverlapbut they are not the same concept.

RELIGIOUSNESSAND SPIRITUALITY:
UNFUZZYINGTHE FUZZY

561

DIscussIoN

This study is notable as one of the few empirical studies comparingreligiousness and
spirituality, and the results suggest three main conclusions. First, there is evidence to suggest that the terms religiousness and spirituality describe, in part, different concepts. In
terms of the previously outlined hypotheses, religiousness and spirituality have some different correlates. As predicted, religiousness was found to be associated with higher levels of
authoritarianism, religious orthodoxy,intrinsic religiousness, parental religious attendance,
self-righteousness, and church attendance. In line with predictions, spirituality was associated with a different set of variables: mystical experiences, New Age beliefs and practices,
higher income, and the experience of being hurt by clergy.
Further evidence for the distinction between the terms comes from participants' definitions of religiousness and spirituality. As with more recent definitions provided by scholars (see Spilka and McIntosh 1996), spirituality was most often described in personal or
experiential terms, such as belief in God or a higher power, or having a relationship with
God or a higher power. Definitions of religiousness included both personal beliefs, such as a
belief in God or a higher power, and organizational or institutional beliefs and practices
such as church membership, church attendance, and commitment to the beliefs system of a
church or organized religion.
A second conclusion is that although religiousness and spirituality appear to describe
different concepts, they are not fully independent. Self-rated religiousness and spirituality
were modestly but significantly correlated (r = .21), and most respondents indicated that
they consider themselves both spiritual and religious (S+R, 74%). Also, in line with our
hypotheses, both religiousness and spirituality were associated with frequency of prayer.
Additionally, both were related to church attendance, intrinsic religiosity, and religious
orthodoxy.Finally, definitions of religiousness and spirituality did not significantly differ in
the nature of the sacred. Rather, both religiousness and spirituality definitions commonly
incorporatedtraditional concepts of the sacred (e.g., references to God, Christ, the Church).
Although most individuals in our sample appeared to integrate spirituality with traditional organizational beliefs and practices (i.e., "religiousand spiritual"group), there was a
small proportionof our sample (19%)that identified themselves as solely spiritual (i.e., the
'spiritual not religious"group), and this group differed from the majority in several ways.
Comparedwith the S+R group, the SnR group was less likely to evaluate religiousness positively, less likely to engage in traditional forms of worship such as church attendance and
prayer, less likely to hold orthodox or traditional Christian beliefs, more likely to be independent from others, more likely to engage in group experiences related to spiritual growth,
more likely to be agnostic, more likely to characterize religiousness and spirituality as different and nonoverlapping concepts, more likely to hold nontraditional 'new age" beliefs,
and more likely to have had mystical experiences. Also, though the difference is modest, the
SnR group was more likely than the S+R group to hold a pejorative definition of religiousness, labeling it as a means to extrinsic ends such as feeling superior to others and avoiding
personal responibility.
Interestingly, the "Spiritualnot religious"group identified in this study matches very
closely the description provided by Roof (1993) of the highly active seekers" in the babyboomer generation. Both groups identify themselves as 'spiritual" but not "religious",both
appear to reject tftditional organized religion in favor of an individualized spirituality that
includes mystim along with New Age beliefs and practices, and comparedwith their contemporaries both are more individualistic and more likely to come from homes in which
their parents attended religious services less fiequently.
A third conclusion is that, despite the finding that 93%oof respondents identified
thiemslves as spiritual (i.e., endorsedeither the "I am religious and spiritual"or "I am]

662

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUY OF RELIGION

spiritual but not religious" item), and 78% identified themselves as religious, there were
group differencesin self-rated religiousness and spirituality, and variation in the definitions
of these terms. For example, some groups such as the New Age group and the mental health
worker group rated themselves as highly spiritual but not very religious. In contrast, other
groups such as the nursing home residents and the Roman Catholics rated themselves as
moderately spiritual and religious. Interpretation of these group differences is complicated
by the differences found in the meanings of the terms from the content analyses. Definitions
of the terms were coded into a variety of categories, and no single category accounted for
more than 36% of the definitions. Thus, although nearly all participants called themselves
spiritual, and many participants identified themselves as religious, different meanings may
have been attributed to these terms. To say that members of one group rate themselves as
more spiritual than another group is not very informative without knowledge of what spirituality means to each group. Likewise, it is difficult to interpret differences within groups or
among individuals in these self-ratings without explicit understanding of the meanings
attributed to the terms.
The findings of this study illustrate the necessity for researchers to recognize the
many meanings attributed to religiousness and spirituality by different religious and cultural groups, and the different ways in which these groups consider themselves religious
and/or spiritual. As indicated by Hood et al. (1996), no single perspective on religion dominates postmodern culture, but rather multiple perspectives exist simultaneously. Whether
one considers oneself religious or spiritual depends upon the meaning and relevance of these
terms to members of a given religious or ideological group. Thus, to accurately measure
religiousness and spirituality it becomes necessary to consider the system of beliefs or
worldviews of the individuals or groups studied. Studies employing methodologies such as
policy capturing, that go beyond simple self-reports have documented that many different
meanings are attributed to the terms religiousness and spirituality (Pargament et al. 1995;
Zinnbauer 1997). Future studies of religiousness and spirituality must go beyond the use of
single-item self-report measures and scales that are not sensitive to different group ideologies. Only by explicitly operationalizing religiousness and spirituality in terms that reflect
the variety of perspectives of potential research participants can we make generalizations
across groups and ideologies, and cumulate findings across studies.
Taken together, the results of this study are particularly salient for mental health
workers. As a group they rated themselves as much more spiritual than religious, and they
were second only to the New Age group in percentage of respondents who identified themselves as spiritual but not religious (44%).Therefore, mental health workers are less likely
to integrate religiousness and spirituality than the majority of believers. This sounds a note
of caution. A potential danger is a value conflict between those mental health professionals
who resemble Roofs (1993) 'highly active seekers" and potential clients who integrate
religiousness with spirituality. The value-laden nature of psychotherapyis well documented
(e.g., Bergin 1980; Kelly 1990, Schwen and Schau 1990), and the potential for therapists to
transmit their values to clients is also empirically evident (e.g., Kelly 1990; Schwen and
Schau 1990). Therefore, mental health workers who hold personal values strongly favoring
spirituality or dispara ing religiousness may need to be wary of two pitfalls. One pitfall is
for mental health workers to project their 'spiritual"worldview into clinical interventions
and discourage "religious"solutions to psychological problems. When counseling other
"highlyactive seekers"this may not be a concern, but when working with clients who integrate spirituality and religiousness or even with those few who favor religiousness, it
becomes more salient. Mental health workers who fail to be sensitive to this potential value
conflict may thus clash with or undermine the worldviewof their clients.
A second pitfall is that mental health workers and researchers who adopt a position of
advocacy for spirituality and against religiousness may interfere with the objective and

RELIGIOUSNESSAND SPIRrrUALITY:UNFUZZYINGTHE FUZZY

563

empirical study of both religiousness and spirituality. Theorizing about the terms as incompatible opposites and rejecting conventional or traditional expression of worship runs
counter to the experiences of most believers who appear to integrate both into their lives.
Likewise, as argued by Spilka and McIntosh (1996), contrasting the terms as good-bad or
superior-inferior confounds the definition and measurement of these concepts with their
outcomes. For the present, it may be necessary to suspend judgments about the outcomes of
religiousness and spirituality until we are clearer about the meaning of these fuzzy terms
for different individuals and groups. Sharper definitions are prerequisites to studies of the
costs and benefits of religiousness and spirituality.
A final issue concerns the social scientific study of religion as a field. The field takes
its name from the traditionally broad use of the term religion which includes spirituality
and encompasses both individual and institutional expressions. As the terms religiousness
and spirituality have evolved over time they have acquired much more specific connotations.
Currently, religiousness is increasingly characterized as 'anarrowand institutional," and
spirituality is increasingly characterized as 'personal and subjective." This distinction
raises the question of whether the social scientific study of religion should reflect this cultural change and redefine itself as a field. Perhaps the field should become the social scientific study of religion and spirituality, or perhaps a separate social scientific study of religon
and social scientific study of spirituality would be more appropriate.
There are three reasons why we suggest that the field should retain the broadband
use of religion as the term which defines the field. First, it provides continuity with a long
tradition of study within the social sciences, and offers a more succinct label of selfdefinition than the social scientific study of religion and spirituality. Second, the broadband
use of religion is needed to avoid the previously outlined dangers associated with polarizing
spirituality and religion into 'good"individual spirituality and "bad"organized religion.
Religion in its broadband sense includes both the personal and the institutional, the traditional and the progressive, the helpful and the harmful. Third, it avoids the danger of tying
the field too closely to potentially ephemeral cultural changes. If interest in spirituality
wanes in the next 10 years, we may have to rename the field once again to reflect the latest
focus of popular interest. And,yet, if interest remains high over time and a body of empirical research on spirituality is accumulated, we may need to revisit this issue again. For
now, however, we suggest that the field remain the social scientific study of religion.
The use of the term religion to define the field is not without its dangers. First and
foremost, the broadbanduse of religion runs counter to current trends toward narrowerconceptions of this construct. Without active advocacy for this use of the term by informed
researchers, the scientific study of religion may be marginalized as the study of 'narrow'
institutional faith. It is therefore incumbent for us as social scientists of religion to educate
others about the meanings we attribute to broadbandreligion. In addition to our investigative responsibilities we have a responsibility as a discipline to shape the views others hold
about our field, and to contribute our own voice to the ongoing cultural debate about the
nature of religion, religiousness, and spirituality.
The various phenomena associated with spirituality are essential parts of religion;
they lie at the core of religious life. Spirituality currently reflects new developments in individual and cultural religious expression, and could inject a great deal of excitement and
interest into our discipline. It is our belief that spirituality, however it is defined and
expressed in our pluralistic society, should have a home within a broadband
conceptualization of religion. The definitional questions surrounding religiousness and
spirituality outline the crossroads at which the field has arrived, and our answers to these
questions will shape the nature of scientific inquiry for the future. Without careful consideration of these terms we run the risk of becoming the social scientific study of "narrow"
religion and ?fuzzy"spirituality.

564

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDYOF RELIGION

REFERENCES
Altemeyer,B. 1981. Right-wingauthoritarianism.Winnepeg,Canada:University of ManitobaPress.
Argyle,M., and B. Beit-Hallahmi.1975. Thesocial psychologyof religion.London:Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Bergin, A. E. 1980. Psychotherapy and humanistic values. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 48: 95-105.
Batson, C. D., and W. L. Ventis. 1982. The religious experience:A social psychological perspective. New York: Oxford

University Press.
Benner, D.G. 1989. Toward a psychologyof spirituality: Implicationsfor personality and psychotherapy.Journal of
Psychology and Christianity 8: 19-30.

Clark,W. H. 1958. How do social scientists define religion?Journalof Social Psycholgy 47: 143-47.
Coe, G. A. 1900. The spiritual life: Studies in the science of religion. New York: Eaton and Mains.

Falbo,T. and S. S. Belk. 1985. A short scale to measure self-righteousness.Journal of PersonalityAssessment49:

72-77.

Hoge, D. 1972. A validatedintrinsic religious motivationscale.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 11:369-76.
Hood,R. W. 1975. The constructionand preliminaryvalidationof a measure of reportedmystical experience.Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14: 29-41.
Hood, R. W., B. Spilka, B. Hunsberger and R. Gorsuch. 1996. The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. New

York:GuilfordPress.
Ingersoll, R. E. 1994. Spirituality, religion, and counseling:Dimensions and relationships. Counselingand Values 38:
98-111.

James, W. 1961. [19021.The varieties, of religious experience. New York:Collier.

Kelly, T. A. 1990. The role of values in psychotherapy:A critical review of process and outcome effects. Clinical
Psychology Review 10: 171-86.

McReady,W. C. and A. M. Greeley. 1976. The ultimate values of the Anerican population. Vol. 23. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Miller, W. R. and J. E. Martin 1988. Spirituality and behavioralpsychology:Toward integration. In Behaviortherapy
and religion: Integrating spiritual and behavioral approaches to change, edited by W. R. Miller and J. E. Martin,

13-23. NewburyPark, CA:Sage.

Osgood, C. E. and J. G. Snyder, editors. 1969. Semantic differential technique; A sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Co.
Pargament, K I. 1997. The psychology of religion and coping. New York: Guilford Press
. 1996, August. What is the difference between religiousness and spirituality? Symposium conducted at the

meeting of the AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Toronto,Canada.

Pargament, K. I., M. S. Sullivan, W. K. Balzer, K S. Van Haitsma, and P. H. Raymark. 1995. The many meanings of
religiousness:A policycapturing approach Journal of Personality63: 953-83.
Roof, W. C. 1993. A generation of seekers: The spiritual journeys of the baby boom generation. San Francisco: Harper.

Schwehn, J. and C. G. Schau. 1990. Psychotherapyas a process of value stabilization. Counselingand Values 35: 2430.

Shafranske, E. P. and R. L. Gorsuch. 1984. Factors associated with the perception of spirituality in psychotherapy.
Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 16: 231-41.
Spilka, B. 1993. August Spirituality: Problems and directions in operationalizing a fuzzy concept. Paper presented at

the AmericanPsychologicalAssociationannual conference,Toronto,Canada.

Spilka, B and D. N. McIntosh. 1996. August. Religion and spirituality: The known and the unknown. Paper presented

at the AmericanPsychologicalAssociationannual conference,Toronto,Canada.

Tart, C. 1983. Transpersonalpsychoklies. El Cerrito,CA:PsychologicalProcesses Inc.
Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview press.

Turner, R. P., D. Lukoff,R. T. Barnhouse and F. G. Lu. 1995. Religious or spiritual problem:A culturally sensitive
diagnosticcategoryin the DSM-IV.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 183: 435-44.
Vaughan, F. 1991. Spiritualissues in psychotherapy.Journal of TranspersonalPsychology,23: 105-19.
Zinnbauer,B. J. 1997. Capturing the meanings of religiousness and spirituality: One way down from a definitional
Towerof Babel. Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,BowlingGreen State University.
APPENDIX: BELIEFS ABOUT GOD ITEMS
Pantheistic: 'I believe that God is all around us. I look to nature to see God. I see God in every person I meet. I
believe Godis involved in everything we do and touches every person."
Theistic:
'I believe God is a personal being who reigns over all creation, who looks after us and listens to our
prayersand praise. He respondsto our needs and protectsus fromevil."
Deistic:
'I believe God created the world and everything in it and then left us to fend for ourselves. God is no
longer involved in the happenings of this world and looks down on us from above without ever intervening in out lives."
Agnostic:
'I am not sure what or who God is but I do think that it is beyond our understanding to comprehend
such ultimate things. I often wonderif there is a Godbut I do not think that I will ever know for sure."
Atheistic:
'I do not believe there is a God.I do not believe that Godcreatedthe world or controlsour affairs.There
is no higher power that can intervene in our lives."