Existential Orientation

0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
... who smiles all the time.” Good Omens - Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett ...... December 2007, from http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf. Emmons, R. A. ...
Existential Orientation Atheism, Theism and Individual Differences

Patrick Michael Rosenkranz

Ph.D. Newcastle University

2009 Supervisor: Dr Bruce Charlton

1

For Nelly

2

“God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of the players, (i.e. everybody), to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.”

Good Omens - Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

3

Contents Abstract.................................................................................................................................................. 7 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................. 8 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Tables ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figures.................................................................................................................................................. 13 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 15

1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Organisation of the thesis .......................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Religion in modern society ........................................................................................................ 19 1.3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 19 1.3.2 Religion ............................................................................................................................... 20 1.3.3 Secularisation ...................................................................................................................... 21 1.3.4 Sacralisation ........................................................................................................................ 24 1.3.5 Atheism................................................................................................................................ 27 1.3.6 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 29 1.4 Modern Spirituality: a thematic analysis ................................................................................. 30 1.4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 30 1.4.2 The interviews ..................................................................................................................... 30 1.4.3 Themes ................................................................................................................................ 32 1.4.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 42 2

THE EXISTENTIAL ORIENTATION SCALE ..................................................................... 43

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 43 2.1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 43 2.1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 44 2.1.3 Existential orientation .......................................................................................................... 49 2.1.4 Measurement of religion...................................................................................................... 52 2.1.5 Development of the Existential Orientation Scale............................................................... 59 2.2 Method ........................................................................................................................................ 74 2.2.1 Scale development ............................................................................................................... 74 2.2.2 Pilot study of the EOS 16 .................................................................................................... 81 2.2.3 Further development of the EOS ......................................................................................... 98 2.2.4 Method of validation study ................................................................................................ 100 2.3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 106 2.3.1 Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................................... 106 2.3.2 Religious categories........................................................................................................... 107 2.3.3 Atheists and agnostics ....................................................................................................... 108 2.3.4 Correlation analysis ........................................................................................................... 110 2.3.5 Religiousness and existential orientation........................................................................... 111 4

2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8

Principal component analysis ............................................................................................ 112 Reliability analysis ............................................................................................................ 115 Assumptions of the EOS.................................................................................................... 117

2.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 118 2.4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 118 2.4.2 Main findings..................................................................................................................... 118 2.4.3 Implications ....................................................................................................................... 126 2.4.4 Limitations......................................................................................................................... 133 2.4.5 Future research .................................................................................................................. 138 2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 139 3

EXISTENTIAL ORIENTATION AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES .......................... 141

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 141 3.1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 141 3.1.2 Religion and sex ................................................................................................................ 142 3.1.3 Religion and personality .................................................................................................... 146 3.1.4 The natural foundations of religion ................................................................................... 150 3.1.5 Existential orientation and individual differences ............................................................. 184 3.2 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 189 3.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 189 3.2.2 Pilot study .......................................................................................................................... 189 3.2.3 Methods of main study ...................................................................................................... 196 3.3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 206 3.3.1 Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................... 206 3.3.2 Validity .............................................................................................................................. 207 3.3.3 Sex differences in existential orientation ........................................................................... 210 3.3.4 Sex differences in personality............................................................................................ 211 3.3.5 Sex differences in empathising and systemising ............................................................... 213 3.3.6 Correlations between variables .......................................................................................... 214 3.3.7 Correlations by sex ............................................................................................................ 216 3.3.8 Multivariate analysis.......................................................................................................... 217 3.3.9 Principal component analysis ............................................................................................ 219 3.3.10 Reliability Analysis ....................................................................................................... 221 3.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 223 3.4.1 Existential orientation ........................................................................................................ 223 3.4.2 Reliability and validity of the EOS.................................................................................... 225 3.4.3 Existential orientation and the five-factor model .............................................................. 230 3.4.4 Existential orientation, empathising and systemising ........................................................ 236 3.4.5 Implications ....................................................................................................................... 249 3.4.6 Limitations......................................................................................................................... 258 3.4.7 Future research .................................................................................................................. 262 3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 266

5

4

EXISTENTIAL ORIENTATION AND THEORY OF MIND ............................................ 267

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 267 4.2 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 269 4.2.1 Design ................................................................................................................................ 269 4.2.2 Materials ............................................................................................................................ 269 4.2.3 Procedure ........................................................................................................................... 273 4.2.4 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 273 4.3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 274 4.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 276 5

SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 279

6

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 282

7

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................... 302

7.1 The Existential Orientation Scale ........................................................................................... 302 7.2 Distribution of variables .......................................................................................................... 305 7.2.1 Pilot of the EOS 16 ............................................................................................................ 305 7.2.2 Validation study................................................................................................................. 308 7.2.3 Existential orientation and individual differences............................................................ 310 7.3 Correlations between ESI dimensions .................................................................................... 313 7.4 Non-parametric statistics ......................................................................................................... 314 7.4.1 Pilot of the EOS 16 ............................................................................................................ 314 7.4.2 Validation study................................................................................................................. 316 7.4.3 Existential orientation and individual differences ............................................................. 318 7.4.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 321 7.5 Stratified Analysis .................................................................................................................... 321 7.6 Residual analysis ...................................................................................................................... 325 7.7 Analysis of sub-dimensions ...................................................................................................... 325 7.7.1 Scoring of the two dimensions .......................................................................................... 326 7.7.2 Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................................... 327 7.7.3 Correlations with the ESI .................................................................................................. 328 7.7.4 Correlations with the FFM ................................................................................................ 329 7.7.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 329 7.8 List of websites.......................................................................................................................... 330

6

Abstract Existential orientation denotes to what degree an individual believes in a theistic or atheistic worldview. As a construct it is akin to religiosity but extends the measurement of religion to include secular and naturalistic beliefs. This study has developed a measurement scale that conceptualises existential orientation. The scale, termed the Existential Orientation Scale (EOS), consists of 20 statements representing theistic and atheistic beliefs. The EOS was validated on a sample of internet users (N=227) and has shown promising validity and reliability measures. As a scale, it can make distinctions between atheists, agnostics, mild and strong religious believers. In a large follow up study (N=854), individual differences between different degrees of existential orientation were investigated. Evolutionary considerations suggest that religious beliefs are associated with evolved social intelligence. Moreover, previous research has shown that women tend to be more religious than men across cultures. As women on average score higher on some aspects of social intelligence, an underlying causal explanation for these sex differences can be hypothesised. This was investigated by using the empathy and systemising quotients (EQ and SQ) by Baron-Cohen (2003). Empathising represents an aspect of social intelligence and women on average score higher on this measure than men. Theistic orientation was positively associated with empathising in this study. Systemising was associated with atheistic orientation. A multivariate analysis showed that sex differences in existential orientation disappeared when empathising and systemising were entered into the analysis. This indicates that underlying dimensions of individual differences can explain existential orientation better than being male or female. Furthermore, these results point towards a possible psychological predisposition towards atheism or theism based on variation in levels of empathising and systemising.

7

Acknowledgments When I embarked on this PhD, I was not aware of what a windy road stretched out ahead of me. Of course, you can only know a road by travelling it, and now, looking back at this journey, it seems to me as if I the path that I took was not always the most direct route to my destination. There were many stops along the way, as well as diversions that lead me into unfamiliar territory; and I sometimes found myself leaving the beaten track and going down the road less travelled by. Yet, somehow, I always ended up back on course, my destination back in sight. I would still be somewhere in the woods, looking for my way, if it were not for the support and guidance of the companions that travelled with me: First and foremost, my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor, Bruce Charlton, for his consistent support, patience and wise council throughout this thesis. His ideas on animism were the core reason I started this PhD. We had countless conversations covering topics such a shamanism, systems theory, Jung, Campbell and Tolkien (Hantalye! Absenen mistatengwar), and I am very grateful for all the time he invested in me. This thesis was self-funded and I could not have done it without the generous and kind support of my father, Hans Rosenkranz and my mother, Patricia Rosenkranz. My father received his doctoral title in 1969, and I‟m proud to follow in his footsteps 40 years later. Thanks from all my heart! Many people at Newcastle University have been very supportive and helpful throughout my time as a student. In no particular order, I would like to thank Gabriele Jordan, Martin Tovee, Anthony Lyons, Candy Rowe, George Erdos, Daniel Nettle, John Lazarus, Tony Downing, and Mike Cox for their advice, comments and support. Also, many thanks go to the administrative staff of the Division of Psychology (Judy, Bev, Nikki, Christina and Jill). I am also grateful to Elaine McColl and Sally Stapley for the time they spent on explaining the properties of the SF-36 to me. As most of the studies presented here have been conducted online, I have received much 8

support from a number of web administrators who allowed me to use their websites for research purposes. Thanks go to John Krantz, Kathryn Gardner, The BeliefNet community, the Internet Infidel community, the John Randi Society web community, and all the other web communities used in this project. Special thanks to Douglas MacDonald for permission to use the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory in this study and for the helpful advice he gave. During the revisions for the thesis, I had the opportunity to recruit participants from New College, Edinburgh. Thanks to Vicki Bruce, Larry Hurtado and Fiona Menzies for making this possible. Thanks also to Joan Harvey for cutting through the complexities of qualitative analysis and Daniel Nettle for guidance throughout the revision process. A big thank you to all my friends and family, who stuck with me throughout my thesis, listened to my grumbling and moaning and supported me throughout. Special thanks go to Martin O „Gorman, who took the time to discuss my stats with me and patiently explained the intricacies of advanced statistics. Thanks to Alwin and Craig, for advice and friendship and keeping me sane. Thanks also to Nicky, Hannah, Katie, Milena, Wayne, Katja, Eirini, Karolina, Tasha and Thomas, my comrades in psychology. Thanks to Susan, Eve, Dan, Anji, Stian, Sindre, Matt, Meriel, Ed, Ju, Ann, Seth, Julie-la, Pete, B, Ronnie and Owen for always being there. A huge thank you and big hug goes to Ciara, my girlfriend, who travelled with me through the darkest part of this journey, putting up with all my moods and idiosyncrasies and supporting me with all her heart. I love you! Last, but not least, I am very grateful to all the people who participated in my study and were prepared to divulge their personal spiritual beliefs so candidly. This thesis would not have been possible without your participation and my thanks go out to all of you.

9

Abbreviations

BIR

Belief in rationality

BIT

Belief in theism

COS

Cognitive orientation towards spirituality

EDD

Eye-direction detector

EOS

Existential Orientation Scale

EPD

Experiential/phenomenological dimension

EQ

Empathising quotient

ESI

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory

ETOM

Existential theory of mind

EWB

Existential well-being

FMM

Five-factor model

HADD

Hyperactive agency-detection device

ID

Intentionality detector

IPIP

International personality item pool

PCA

Principal component analysis

PNB

Paranormal beliefs

REL

Religiousness

SAM

Shared attention mechanism

SMM

Somatic marker mechanism

SQ

Systemising quotient

TED

The emotion detector

TESS

The empathising system

TOM

Theory of mind

TOMM

Theory of mind mechanism

10

Tables Table 1.4-1: Interview participants .......................................................................................... 31 Table 2.1-1: Categories of religion and spirituality ................................................................. 47 Table 2.1-2: Categories of religion and spirituality ................................................................. 65 Table 2.2-1: Original 11-item scale ......................................................................................... 75 Table 2.2-2: 17-item version used in Pilot 1(*marks new items) ............................................ 77 Table 2.2-3: 16-item version used in Pilot 2 (*marks new items) ........................................... 78 Table 2.2-4: Final 16 -item scale ............................................................................................. 79 Table 2.2-5: Scoring scale........................................................................................................ 80 Table 2.2-6: Structure of the pilot study .................................................................................. 83 Table 2.2-7: Summary of descriptive statistics ........................................................................ 87 Table 2.2-8: Descriptive statistics of existential orientation by religious category ................. 88 Table 2.2-9: Correlations between EOS and ESI variables ..................................................... 90 Table 2.2-10: Reliability analysis ............................................................................................ 92 Table 2.2-11: Descriptive statistics for atheism and theism .................................................... 94 Table 2.2-12: Correlations between atheism, theism and religiousness .................................. 94 Table 2.2-13: Final EOS 20 ..................................................................................................... 98 Table 2.2-14: Structure of the study ...................................................................................... 101 Table 2.2-15: Religious affiliation ......................................................................................... 105 Table 2.3-1: Summary of descriptive statistics ...................................................................... 106 Table 2.3-2: Descriptive statistics of existential orientation by religious category ............... 107 Table 2.3-3: Descriptive statistics for non-religious positions .............................................. 109 Table 2.3-4: Correlations between EOS and ESI variables ................................................... 110 Table 2.3-5: One-component solution to the Existential Orientation Scale .......................... 113 Table 2.3-6: Two-component solution to the Existential Orientation Scale .......................... 114 Table 2.3-7: Reliability analysis ............................................................................................ 116 Table 2.3-8: Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................... 117 Table 2.4-1: Two-component solution of the EOS ................................................................ 125 Table 3.2-1: Structure of the pilot study ................................................................................ 190 Table 3.2-2: Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................... 192 Table 3.2-3: Descriptive statistics by sex .............................................................................. 193 11

Table 3.2-4: Correlations ....................................................................................................... 194 Table 3.2-5: Structure of the study ........................................................................................ 197 Table 3.2-6: List of websites used in study............................................................................ 203 Table 3.2-7: Religious affiliation ........................................................................................... 204 Table 3.2-8: Participants by website ...................................................................................... 205 Table 3.3-1: Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................... 206 Table 3.3-2: Descriptive statistics separated by sex .............................................................. 207 Table 3.3-3: Descriptive statistics of existential orientation by religious category ............... 207 Table 3.3-4: Descriptive Statistics of non-religious positions ............................................... 209 Table 3.3-5: Pearson‟s Correlations between EOS and scale variables................................. 214 Table 3.3-6: Correlation between EOS and scale variables ................................................... 216 Table 3.3-7 : Hierachichal multiple regression ...................................................................... 218 Table 3.3-8: One-component solution to the Existential Orientation Scale .......................... 220 Table 3.3-9: Two-component solution to the Existential Orientation Scale .......................... 221 Table 3.3-10: Reliability analysis .......................................................................................... 222 Table 3.4-1: Descriptive statistics for religious categories for study 1 and 2 ........................ 226 Table 3.4-2: Descriptive statistics for non-religious positions for study 1 and 2 .................. 227 Table 3.4-3: Relationship between existential orientation and the FFM ............................... 232 Table 3.4-4: Z-scores for comparison of coefficients with EOS ........................................... 233 Table 4.2-1: Structure of participant panel questionnaire ...................................................... 270 Table 4.3-1: Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................... 274 Table 7.3-1: Inter-correlations of the ESI dimensions ........................................................... 313 Table 7.4-1: Non-parametric correlations of the EOS with the ESI variables....................... 315 Table 7.4-2: Non-parametric correlations of the EOS with the ESI variables....................... 317 Table 7.4-3: Sex differences of scale variables ..................................................................... 319 Table 7.4-4: Non-parametric correlations between EOS and personality variables .............. 320 Table 7.5-1: Stratified categories for empathising according to quartiles ............................. 322 Table 7.5-2: Descriptive statistics for Existential orientation by empathising quartiles ....... 322 Table 7.5-3: Empathising stratified by percentiles ................................................................ 323 Table 7.5-4: Descriptive statistics for existential orientation by empathising percentiles .... 324 Table 7.7-1: Two - component solution of the EOS .............................................................. 326 Table 7.7-2: Descriptive statistics for validation study ......................................................... 327 Table 7.7-3: Descriptive statistics for individual difference study ........................................ 327 12

Table 7.7-4: Correlations with ESI ........................................................................................ 328 Table 7.7-5: Correlations between BIT, BIR and the FFM ................................................... 329 Table 7.8-1: Discussion groups on BeliefNet ........................................................................ 331

Figures Figure 2.2-1: Existential orientation by religious category ..................................................... 89 Figure 2.2-2: Religiousness and existential orientation ........................................................... 91 Figure 2.3-1: Existential orientation by religious category ................................................... 108 Figure 2.3-2: Existential orientation for atheists, agnostics and no religion ......................... 109 Figure 2.3-3: Existential orientation and religiousness.......................................................... 111 Figure 3.1-1: Baron Cohen's (2005) model of the empathising system ................................. 159 Figure 3.2-1: Existential orientation and empathising ........................................................... 194 Figure 3.3-1: Existential orientation by religious category ................................................... 208 Figure 3.3-2: Existential orientation for atheists, agnostics and no religion ......................... 210 Figure 3.3-3: Existential orientation and empathising ........................................................... 215 Figure 4.3-1: Distribution of TOM scores ............................................................................. 275 Figure 7.2-1: Distribution of Existential Orientation (EOS) ................................................. 305 Figure 7.2-2: Distribution of cognitive orientation towards spirituality (COS) .................... 305 Figure 7.2-3: Distribution of experiential/phenomenological dimension (EPD)................... 306 Figure 7.2-4: Distribution of existential well-being (EWB) .................................................. 306 Figure 7.2-5: Distribution of paranormal beliefs (PNB) ........................................................ 306 Figure 7.2-6: Distribution of religiousness (REL) ................................................................. 307 Figure 7.2-7: Distribution of existential orientation (EOS) ................................................... 308 Figure 7.2-8: Distribution of cognitive orientation towards spirituality (COS) .................... 308 Figure 7.2-9: Distribution of experiential/ phenomenological dimension (EPD).................. 309 Figure 7.2-10: Distribution of existential well-being (EWB) ................................................ 309 Figure 7.2-11: Distribution of paranormal beliefs (PNB) ...................................................... 309 Figure 7.2-12: Distribution of religiousness (REL) ............................................................... 310 Figure 7.2-13: Distribution of existential orientation (EOS) ................................................. 310 Figure 7.2-14: Distribution of agreeableness (A) .................................................................. 311 Figure 7.2-15: Distribution of conscientiousness (C) ............................................................ 311 13

Figure 7.2-16: Distribution of extraversion (E) ..................................................................... 311 Figure 7.2-17: Distribution of neuroticism (N)...................................................................... 312 Figure 7.2-18: Distribution of openness (O) .......................................................................... 312 Figure 7.2-19: Distribution of empathising (EQ) .................................................................. 312 Figure 7.2-20: Distribution of systemising (SQ) ................................................................... 313 Figure 7.6-1: Distribution of standardized residuals of the multivariate analysis ................. 325

14

1 General introduction 1.1 Overview Religious beliefs have been an object of study within psychology since its beginnings (Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger andGorsuch, 2003). Most notably, one of the founders of modern psychology, William James, set the foundations of a psychological approach to religious experience in his Gifford Lectures on “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (James, 1902). Since James, there has been a sustained research endeavour concerned with the psychological causes and consequences of religious beliefs (Spilka et al., 2003; Paloutzian and Park, 2005). This subfield of psychology can be adequately described as the psychology of religion (Gorsuch, 1988; Spilka et al., 2003; Paloutzian and Park, 2005). A major approach within this subfield is to conceptualise and measure various ways in which an individual can be religious (Gorsuch, 1988). This approach has led to the identification of a variety of dimensions of religiousness or religiosity, for instance, the differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation (Allport, 1950; Allport and Ross, 1967). As a result of this research effort, there are many different conceptualisations and measurement scales of religiosity available today (Hill and Hood, 1999). Usually, scales of religiosity measure religious beliefs from a zero point of absence of religious beliefs to a high point of strong prevalence of religious beliefs (Gorsuch, 1984). This means that scales measuring general religiosity make no differentiation between the various positions of disbelief that an individual could possibly hold. Instead, different secular or atheistic viewpoints are summarised as “no belief “in religion or the religious “nones” (Vernon, 1968). 15

Recent popular publications with a specific focus on atheism indicate a growing interest in viewpoints of belief that are explicitly secular and non-religious (Dawkins, 2006; Dennett, 2006; Harris, 2005). Within the psychology of religion, however, there have been no or few attempts to integrate atheism into the measurement of religiosity. While there a few studies that include anti-religious positions (Shaver, Lenauer and Sadd, 1980; Ross, 1990), there are no multi-item measuring scales that include atheism as a construct in the psychology of religion (see Bainbridge, 2005). Recent developments in evolutionary psychology and cognitive science have suggested biological predispositions towards religion (Bulbulia, 2004,) and atheism (Saler and Ziegler, 2006). In particular, human evolved social intelligence is seen as an underlying factor in orientation towards religiosity (Barrett, 2004; Charlton, 2001). Moreover, empirical findings suggest that women are more religious than men (Francis, 1997), while men are more atheistic than women (Jagodzinski and Greely, n.d.). As there are evolutionary based sex differences in social intelligence (Baron-Cohen, 2003), a possible explanatory connection between sex, religiosity and social intelligence can be established and tested. The first major aim of this thesis is to develop and validate a measuring scale that includes secular, atheistic beliefs alongside religious, theistic beliefs. This scale construction has the objective of creating a measurement tool that can differentiate between religious and nonreligious individuals, but also make finer distinctions between non-religious positions such as agnosticism and atheism. The second aim of this thesis is to investigate psychological differences between atheism and religion using this new scale. In particular, the connection between social intelligence, sex and religion/atheism will be investigated.

16

1.2 Organisation of the thesis The thesis has four main parts: Part 1 serves as a general introduction to the aims and organisation of the thesis. Also, religion and atheism in modern society (1.3 ) are discussed to set the social background for the two studies. This chapter concludes with a thematic analysis (1.4) presenting data from interviews on the individual expression of spirituality. This serves to provide a deeper insight into what spirituality means to members of modern society. Part 2 covers the development and validation of the Existential Orientation Scale (EOS).The introduction to this section covers previous definitions and measurements of religiosity (2.1.2 and 2.1.4) and presents the conceptualisations of religion and atheism employed in the present study (2.1.3). The methods section (2.2) describes the development of the EOS though an iterative process of pilot studies, resulting in the complete 20 item scale. Moreover, the methods employed for the validation of the full scale are laid out (2.2.4). The results section (2.3) describes the empirical findings of the validation study. The discussion section (2.4) describes the implications of these findings and sets it in context of previous work. Moreover, the range of applications of the EOS and possibilities for further study are discussed. Part 3 applies the EOS in an investigation of psychological differences between individuals with different degrees of existential orientation. The first half of the introduction to this section focuses on sex differences in religiosity (3.1.2) as well as previous research conducted on personality and religion (3.1.3). The second half describes the natural foundations of religion (3.1.4), which provides the theoretical and empirical background for the present study. The methods section (3.2) describes the initial feasibility pilot for the study. Moreover, the methods of the main investigation are laid out. The results section (3.3) 17

provides the empirical findings of the main study. The discussion (3.4) puts these findings into the context of previous work and deliberates on implications of the findings as well as the limitations of the study. Part 4 follows on from the results of Part 3 and investigates individual differences in theory of mind between theists and atheists. The rationale of this study is described in the introduction (4.1). The method (4.2) gives details on the recruitment of participants from a participant panel and the design of the study. The results are presented in section 4.3 and discussed in section 4.4. The thesis concludes with as summary of the findings (Part 5).

18

1.3 Religion in modern society 1.3.1

Overview

Religion and Spirituality are fundamental aspects of human nature and have been part of life since our evolution from simple hunter-gatherers (see Lee and Daly, 1999; Mithen, 1996). But spirituality does not happen in a vacuum: it is set within a cultural and social context (Moberg, 2002; Berry, 2005). As spirituality and religion can take on such entirely different forms as the ascetic meditation of Zen Buddhism (Austin, 1998; Watts, 1957), the ecstatic trance of the shaman (Harner, 1990; Winkelmann, 2000; Krippner, 2000; Hutton, 2001) or the holy communion of the Christian mass (for instance, Doblin, 1991), any investigation into this area first needs to outline the cultural and social setting and then delineate what aspect of the broad area of spirituality and religion is to be studied (Moberg, 2002).

Spirituality and religion are rather broad terms that have been difficult to define (Hill et al., 2000). Usually, spirituality is seen as the personal experience of a quest for the sacred, while religion is the social, cultural and institutional setting in which this quest occurs (see Zinnbauer, Pargament and Scott, 1999; Hill et al., 2000). Before going into the details of how psychologists and social scientist have come to terms with the operational definitions of these constructs, the broader social and cultural environment will be outlined.

19

1.3.2

Religion

This study focuses on modern, western societies. These societies, here represented by the UK and USA, are liberal towards religion in the sense that they allow religion to be practiced unhindered. Moreover, there is no coercion to follow any religion or spiritual path1. In western societies, the major dominant form of religious practice is monotheism, in particular, Christianity. For instance, in the 2001 Census in Britain, 71.8% identified themselves as Christian. Overall, 77.5% of the population claimed to be religious while 14.8% were not religious (National Statistics Online, 2001).In the United States2, the American Religious Identification Survey (Kosmin,Mayer and Keysar, 2001) reported that 76.5% identified themselves as Christian. Overall, 81% professed to belong to some religion, and 15% chose no religion. Christianity is the world‟s largest religion and consists of a diverse range of beliefs, practices, symbol and social institutions (Woodhead, 2002). Moreover, Christianity is split into numerous denominations, of which the largest groupings are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant (Woodhead, 2002). While each denomination has individual practices and rituals,

1

The UK does not have a written constitution which guarantees religious freedom, however it upholds and has

countersigned international guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to worship and promote one‟s belief.” (Bennet, 1998). In the treaties guaranteeing religious freedom, for instance the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights (Bennet, 1998). Moreover, the “law USA, freedom of religion is guaranteed through the first amendment to the constitution, which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 2

The USA Census Bureau in general does not collect data on religious affiliation and is therefore not a source for this kind

of data (US Census Bureau, n.d.).

20

they share in common a number of underlying beliefs, the most fundamental being the belief in a personal God. This orientation towards a personal deity classifies Christianity as a theocentric or theistic religion (Moberg, 2002). Based on these general surveys, it appears that the broad majority within the surveyed societies identify themselves as religious. What is not clear from these statistics, however, is the importance that religion plays in an individual‟s life or to what extent the individual adheres to the beliefs, teachings and rituals of the religion in question. Identifying oneself as Christian could as much be a statement of cultural identification as well as a statement of belief (Kosmin et al., 2001). When looking at different measures of religious affiliation, actual church membership and church attendance for instance, and comparing them historically over the last century, adherence to traditional religious institutions has declined (Bruce, 1996, 2002). This is generally seen as a result of secularisation and modernisation of society (Bruce, 1996, 2002; Swatos, 1999; Aldridge, 2000).

1.3.3

Secularisation

Bruce (2002) defined secularisation as “a social condition manifest in (a) the declining importance of religion for the operation of non-religious roles and institutions, such as those of the state and the economy; (b) a decline in the social standing of religious roles and institutions; and (c) a decline in the extent to which people engage in religious practices, display beliefs of a religious kind, and conduct other aspects of their lives in a manner informed by such beliefs.” (p.3). Secularisation can generally be described as the diminishing importance of religion, both within society, as well as for the individual (Berger, 2002).

21

Historically, secularisation has lead to the separation of church and state with the result that institutional religion holds far less political power than it did in the past (Swatos, 1999). Moreover, within Western Europe, church membership and attendance has declined over the last century. For instance, Bierley (2000, cited by Bruce, 2002) reports that church attendance in Britain has dropped from 12% of the adult population in 1979, over 10% in 1989 to 7.5% in 1998. Church membership was 27% of the adult population in 1900 and has dropped to 10% in 2000. In the United States, the picture is less clear: compared to Western Europe, America appears to remain a very religious country (Berger, 2002). Church attendance appears to have remained relatively stable over the last century (Bruce, 1996). Most secularisation theorists explain the decline of religion by the rise of modernity (Berger, 2001; Bruce, 2002). For instance, the advances of scientific thinking and rationalism that come with modernity can successfully explain, control and predict the natural world thus eroding the need for supernatural explanations (Berger, 2001). Furthermore, the structural and functional differentiation of society removes many of the social functions of religion into specialised secular spheres (Bruce, 2002; Casanova, 1994). Also, the separation of church and state in western societies makes religious affiliation voluntary (Berger, 2001). Strong proponents of the secularisation thesis predict that progressing modernization will inevitably lead to the complete demise of the significance of religion within society (Bruce, 2002). While the decline of the political significance of religious institutions is readily accepted, at least in Western Europe, the general claim that individuals are becoming less religious is still a point of great debate (Swatos, 1999; Stark, 1999). Peter Berger, once a strong proponent of the theory (see Berger, 1967), now views secularisation not as a direct and inevitable consequence of modernity, but as a one process amongst many. Secularisation appears to be the exception, rather than the norm (Berger, 22

2001). He locates secularisation mainly amongst international intellectuals and as a process happening in Western Europe (Berger, 2001).Within other parts of the world, for instance the United States, religion appears to be thriving, albeit in a changing form (Berger, 2001; Bruce, 1996). An alternative view to the secularisation thesis comes from “rational choice” theorists of religion (Stark and Bainbridge, 1987; Stark, 1999; see also Aldridge, 2000). They stress that humankind will always need religion. In their “theory of religion” Stark and Bainbridge (1987) propose that individuals will always seek meaning in their life and look for immortality. They introduce the concepts of “rewards” and “compensators”: Rewards are anything that an individual requires, for example solutions to questions of ultimate meaning; these reward usually come at a cost. If a reward is unavailable or unattainable, compensators can be accepted in lieu of a reward, which may involve the promise of a future reward. As full meaning in life and immortality are unattainable rewards, religion is an attractive system of beliefs because it provides “compensators” based on supernatural agency to unattainable rewards like immortality, etc. Atheism and similar naturalistic belief systems do not attract as many followers because they do not fully compensate for this general human desire (Stark and Bainbridge, 1987). Stark and Bainbridge (1987) view secularisation as self -limiting because there will always be a demand for the compensators that religious institutions can supply. Those forms of religion that fail to satisfy this need and become secularized will inevitable lose followers, while those that can provide them will flourish (Aldridge, 2000). In summary, while some aspects of secularisation, such as the separation of church and state, are readily accepted (Swatos, 1999), the general claim, that individuals are becoming less religious remains strongly debated (Stark, 1999, Bruce, 2001).

23

1.3.4

Sacralisation

Since the Second World War, the religious landscape has changed: on the one hand, active membership in traditional religions has decreased due to secularisation (see section 1.3.3), on the other hand, new forms of expression of religion have emerged (Zinnbauer et al., 1999). Heelas (2002) focuses on the move from traditional religions to a personal and subjective spirituality. He sees both secularisation (in terms of institutional religion) as well as “sacralisation” occurring within society (Heelas, 2002; Heelas, Woodhead, Seel, Szerszynski, and Tusting, 2005). The latter refers to the movement away from institutional religion as an expression of personal spirituality and towards a subjective, individual form. While the traditional religions are giving way to secularisation, there is no great observable surge in the numbers of atheist, agonistics or religiously indifferent (Heelas, 2002). Rather, the so-called” middle ground”, i.e. those who are not involved in traditional religions nor class themselves as atheist or agnostics appears to be increasing, while adherence to traditional religion is decreasing and atheism is remaining small and stable (Heelas, 2002). This middle ground is where Heelas‟ spiritual revolution is occurring. This spiritual revolution is characterised by a turn to subjective and personalised form of spirituality (Heelas, 1996; Heelas et al., 2005). The rise of the New Age movement can be seen as the visible, tip of the ice-berg of this revolution (Heelas, 1996, 2002). There are numerous forms of New Age spiritualities, starting from an increased interest in Eastern philosophies (see Watts, 1957), a revival and re-invention of pagan and celtic themes (see Hutton, 2001), and esoteric practices like tarot, astrology or crystal, to name but a few (see Heelas, 1996). The underlying theme that characterises this new spirituality is a focus on self and self-transformation. In brief, Heelas (1996, 2002) identifies three themes: Life as lived in 24

an “untransformed” or “lower” self does not work. However, the true essence of humans is spiritual and through engaging with spiritual disciplines the self can be transformed to (or returned to) a higher state of being. This transformation can only come about through own direction and pursuit, “whatever works for you” being the maxim. This move towards a personal expression of spirituality has been observed and documented by other researchers as well. Roof (1993, 1999) studied a large sample of members of the baby-boom generation. He identifies “highly active seekers”, which are those individuals who have moved away from traditional forms of worship to a more individualised and personalised form of spirituality. Compared to other baby-boomers, these highly active seekers appear to be drawn to a more “mystical” religion, containing New Age beliefs and practices. Moreover, they are less likely to hold “theistic “conceptualisations of God and perceive their faith as a spiritual journey or quest (Roof, 1993, 1999). This tendency towards an individual and personal form of religion has lead to an increased awareness within the social sciences that religion and spirituality can be seen as separate but interrelated concepts (Zinnbauer et al., 1997, 1999; Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005). In a sample of 346 individuals from a variety of religious backgrounds, Zinnbauer et al. (1997) found that 74% described themselves as both spiritual and religious, while 3% described themselves as neither spiritual nor religious. 4% saw themselves as religious but not spiritual, while 19% described themselves as spiritual but not religious. In a larger national sample of 1884 American protestants, Marler and Haddaway (2002) found similar responses for these four positions: 64% of their sample were religious and spiritual, 8% were religious and spiritual, 9% religious but not spiritual and 18% described themselves as spiritual but not religious.

25

It is mainly this latter group, those that described themselves as spiritual but not religious, that corresponds to Roof‟s “highly active seekers.” (Roof, 1993; Hill et al., 2000; Marler and Haddaway, 2002). Both of these groups had similar characteristics: they were less likely to hold orthodox or traditional Christian beliefs, more likely to hold non-traditional “New Age” beliefs, more likely to be independent from others and more likely to have had mystical experiences. (Zinnbauer et al., 1997; Hill et al, 2000). However, spirituality and religion are not so easily disentangled: as the above numbers show, most respondents saw themselves as both spiritual and religious. In summary, while religion appears to be the most common form of an expressing of spirituality in modern societies, there is a substantial proportion of individuals that have moved away from traditional religion to a more personalised and individualised form of expression. This “spiritual revolution” (Heelas et al., 2005) appears to be a continuous development within the religious landscape of modern society.

26

1.3.5

Atheism

Atheism in general is the doctrine or belief that there is no God or gods (Martin, 2007). Within the social sciences and the psychology of religion, only few studies have been directly aimed at looking at those who profess to be atheists (Bainbridge, 2005). Often, no distinction is made between those who describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, independent or indifferent to religion (Bainbridge, 2005). For instance, Vernon (1968) identified the religious “nones”, that is those individuals who when asked within the social scientific context, profess to having no religion. Similarly, Hayes (2002) looked at religious independents, i.e. those who have no formal religious affiliation and compared them to the religious individuals. She concluded that religious independents are younger, more educated, more affluent and predominately male, when compared to religious individuals. Bainbridge (2005) noted that the absence of studies examining atheism has probably three reasons: Firstly, in his eyes, atheists are rare in the population that have typically been studied and thus statistical analysis is often impossible, secondly, they are often grouped together as the already mentioned “nones”, and thirdly, surveys are costly and any additional items within them needs to be justified. In one of the few studies that have specifically been conducted on atheists, Jagodzinsky and Greeley (n.d.) distinguished between “hard core “ and “soft core “ atheists, using data from the International Social Survey Program of 1991. Hard core atheists were those who were “firmly convinced that God does not exist” and “firmly reject the possibility of a life after death”. Soft core atheists, on the other hand, were those who rejected God but did not completely reject life after death. The “softest core” atheists or “agnostics” were those who did not completely reject the possibility of the existence of God. These classifications were based upon two items in the survey that measured belief in God and belief in an afterlife. In 27

terms of numbers, this survey estimated the percentage of “hard core” atheists at around 6.3% for Britain and 0.8 % for the USA. Jagorinzky and Greeley (n.d) reported that in their sample, hard core atheism correlated with sex in that women were less likely to be atheists than men. Moreover, in their sample as a whole there was no correlation between atheism and age and education, although a high proportion of hard core atheist did profess to never have believed in God or attended church when at the age of eleven. The researchers concluded that apparently the decision to be atheistic was made early in life and sustained through the life course. Bainbridge (2005) looking at data collected from the internet and supplemented by the General Social Survey also concluded that men were more likely to be atheist then women. Moreover, testing specific hypothesis on sources of atheism based on the compensator theory of religion (Stark and Bainbridge, 1987, see also section 3.1.4.10), he found that atheism was more common amongst individuals whose social obligations are weak. In terms of numbers, Zuckerman (2007) reviewed recent social studies on the proportion of atheists, agnostics or individuals with no belief in god. Different surveys reported different percentages. Zuckerman (2007) noted that accurately identifying the proportion of belief and disbelief in God for any given nation is fraught with methodological problems, such as low response rates or non-random samples. Moreover, the term atheism is stigmatised even in liberal societies to the extent that even though individuals do not believe in god, they are reluctant to describing themselves as atheists (Zuckerman, 2007). Bearing these caveats in mind, the estimates for non-believers in Britain appear to be substantially higher than reported by census data (see section 1.3.2). For instance, Norris and Ingleheart (2004, cited by Zuckerman, 2007) reported that 39% do not believe in God. Similarly, Greely (2003, cited by Zuckerman, 2007) reported that 31% do not believe in God, with 10% identifying 28

themselves as atheist. For the United States, the proportions were smaller: Norris and Ingleheart (2004, cited by Zuckerman, 2007) estimated 6% of Americans did not believe in God. Hout and Fisher (2004, cited by Zuckerman, 2007) reported that between 3% and 4.5% of Americans were either atheists or agnostics.On a global scale, disbelief in God as a group ranks fourth in terms of commonly held belief systems after Christianity ( 2 billion), Islam ( 1.2 billion), and Hinduism (900 million) (Zuckerman, 2007). Estimates for non-theists range from 500-750 Million (Zuckerman, 2007).While this survey data included a number of caveats (Zuckerman, 2007), a general point that can nevertheless be drawn, is that a substantial proportion of individuals are non –religious and do not hold a belief in God.

1.3.6

Summary

This section has briefly outlined social data of religion and atheism in modern societies, in particular the UK and USA. While the majority of individuals identified themselves as religious, recent survey data has shows a high number of non-believers in the UK. In the USA, the number of non-believers was substantially lower. The religious landscape in these societies appears to be changing: secularisation, although strongly debated, is continuously diminishing the influence of institutional religion, especially in Western Europe. On the other hand, individual belief is still thriving and moving towards a personal and individualised spirituality.

29

1.4 Modern Spirituality: a thematic analysis 1.4.1

Overview

This chapter presents data from interviews held at the early stages of the investigation into existential orientation. These interviews were conducted to gain an insight into the perceptions that individuals hold in regards to spirituality and to some extent, religiosity. As such, these interviews were exploratory rather than hypothesis-testing. Their aim was to probe a variety of aspects of the individual perception and expression of spirituality. Interviews were conducted in the form of conversations about spirituality, with further question probing the circumstances under which an individual expresses his or her spirituality. The resulting transcripts were analysed and five themes were extracted. These five themes are: (1) religion and spirituality as distinct, (2) the role of emotions in spirituality, (3) spirituality and rationality, (4) activities and spirituality and lastly, (5) the role of other people in spirituality.

1.4.2

The interviews

Interviews were conducted between September 2004 and November 2004. These interviews were semi-structured conversations on the participants‟ view of religiosity and spirituality. Before interviews commenced, participants completed a set of questionnaires including demographic data, the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (MacDonald, 2000) and the Animist Experience Scale (Rosenkranz, 2003). During the interviews, these questionnaires were used to start the conversations, by talking about the some of the items. The rationale of the questions in the interviews was to elicit the participants‟ views on the circumstances of their spirituality. Questions involved probing on special times and places involved in 30

spirituality (e.g.: Do you have a particular time of day or time of the week where you feel that you are more spiritual than other times), objects and artefacts, ritual and activities (e.g.: Do you have any particular objects, symbols or rituals that are particularly meaningful to you?), and psychological processes (e.g.: Are decision that you make on a day-today level guided by your spirituality?). The conversations were recorded on tape and later transcribed. Participants were predominately recruited from students and staff of Newcastle University. A majority (5) were members of the Spirituality seminars that were held by Dr Bruce Charlton and Patrick Rosenkranz during 2004. The remaining 4 participants were acquaintances of the author who expressed interest in spirituality. Table 1.4-1 shows a summary of the nine participants and their characteristics. Table 1.4-1: Interview participants Participant P01 P02 P03 P04 P05 P06 P07 P08 P09

Sex male female male male female male female female female

Age 24 25 25 23 25 24 20 23 21

Self description not religious or spiritual religious and spiritual not religious or spiritual not religious or spiritual spiritual but not religious spiritual but not religious religious and spiritual not religious or spiritual spiritual but not religious

Occupation Marketing Student/support worker Businessman Bartender Medical doctor Student Student Student Student

The table shows the sex, age and occupation of the nine participants. It also shows participants‟ categorical self-descriptions in terms of religion and spirituality. This question was based on categories used by Zinnbauer et al (1997). Participants could describe themselves as: 1) I am religious and spiritual 2) I am spiritual but not religious, 3) I am religious but not spiritual 4) I am not religious and spiritual. In the present sample, 2 participants described themselves as both religious and spiritual, 3 participants as spiritual but 31

not religious, and 4 as not spiritual or religious. These latter participants were included in the interviews even though they professed to not being spiritual. As these interviews were exploratory, it was assumed that it is possible to express aspects of spirituality while not explicitly “being” spiritual. This could be expressed through periods of solitude or connectedness with nature, for instance. However, for the present analysis, a focus was on explicit formulation of spirituality to ensure unambiguous and clear themes to be extracted from the data. This means that the relative contribution of those non-spiritual and nonreligious participants to the present thematic analysis of spirituality was low. All conversations were recorded on tape and subsequently transcribed. The aim of the analysis was to extract a number of salient and clear themes pertaining to perceptions of spirituality. In general, procedures outlined by Brown and Clarke (2003) were followed. This analysis does not claim to be exhaustive: the interviews and conversations contained rich details about the individuals‟ lives and many more themes could have been extracted. For this analysis, it was important that the themes were clear and unambiguous as well as representative of the participants. A theme was considered meaningful if at least two participants clearly touched on it. However, the resulting five themes were in fact far more prevalent in the accounts of the 5 spiritual participants. For instance, the role of emotions (1.4.3.2) featured in all of the accounts.

1.4.3

Themes

1.4.3.1

Religion and spirituality as distinct

Religion and spirituality can be seen as separate or synonymous. Different individuals attach different interpretations to these terms. An emerging theme coming from the perceptions of the participants is that spirituality is associated with personal emotions and feelings, while 32

religion is seen as being associated with scripture, doctrine and teachings. One respondent when asked if she were a spiritual person replies: The thing is that I am quite religious as well and, erm, cause I am catholic and I do go to mass regularly and I do try to take the teachings on board in that sense, but I also feel that everything is quite regimented, you know the mass itself and everything[...].I also feel that I’ve got something else like another emotion towards things erm, which is more spiritually based in the sense that I feel things, I sense things, which I think is not based on my religion.(P02) Spirituality here is associated with feelings and emotions, a sense of things, whereas religion is associated with mass and teachings. Religion and spirituality surface under different circumstances. The same respondents make the distinction: I find myself …actually its quite funny, because when I’m feeling down or low, I look towards my faith more than my spirituality, you know, erm, I look towards more going to mass and really taking the time out to try and get closer to God […](P02) This exemplifies the distinction and that orientation towards religion and orientation toward spirituality surface at different times or under different circumstances. This respondent‟s faith or religiosity appears to be more salient to her than her spirituality when she feels emotionally low. A different respondent mirrors this: When I feel religious I feel like, if I’m talking to God or something like that, I feel religious then or when I go to Church or things like that, but I feel spiritual when I fell totally content with myself or I’m thinking at a different level and things like that. (P07)

33

Again, religiosity is expressed through being in church and talking to God, while spirituality expressed in terms of emotional well-being and thinking at a different level. Here, spirituality is salient in times of contentedness. It appears that religiosity and spirituality are seen as separate processes even amongst those who claim to be both. (Both of the previous respondents describe themselves spiritual and religious). If these constructs are separate, then one can be spiritual without being religious: I don’t think I am particularly religious, although my family are fairly religious. I sometime go to church and my grandma and grandpa go a lot, and I was brought up like that but I don’t particularly hold very religious beliefs. I do think I am fairly spiritual, […] (P09) While religion and spirituality are seen as separate processes by these respondents, this does not mean that they are unrelated or that there is no overlap between the two. Here the emphasis is on the connectedness of the two: I think they go hand in hand because I do believe in God and the teachings of the bible, although I always say I have my own personal issues, things that I do question, erm,, but that’s because it’s been written by man, so obviously you do question what man is, whereas I am more in synch with my spirituality side because that’s more personal to me...but I do find that both do go hand in hand because , I find like for a given situation, my instincts are really profound about something, I also look at my faith as well to see the basis the foundation of where these feelings might lie.[...] (P02) This statement underlies the distinctiveness of religiosity and spirituality in the perception of the respondent, but also emphasises the interconnectedness. 34

The overall pattern that emerges from the view of these respondents is that spirituality is distinct from religiosity, it can be held separately and it is possible to be spiritual without being religious. Being religious and being spiritual can surface at different times and under different circumstances and it appears that they take separate forms within an individual‟s life and possibly serve different purposes.

1.4.3.2

The role of emotions in spirituality

Where religion is seen as being related to the teachings and scriptures of faith, spirituality is linked to personal feelings, emotions and interpretations. One important aspect already touched upon is that spirituality is used to maintain emotional wellbeing: I think it’s a sense of an emotional well-being and trying to achieve and maintain that well-being in oneself and how one behaves with others as well, erm, and it’s the sense that what you are doing is ok. (P02) Importantly, for this respondent, spirituality is not only about his own emotional well-being, but also affects that of the people around him: […] it’s a great source of happiness, trying to generate happiness in yourself and expressing it to other people, you get that, it strengthens itself...you will find that with every other emotion as well, whether its anger or ...that when you are in a grouchy mood in the morning, and you get up and you are feeling shit, you get a bit tetchy, you generate the same feelings in everyone else. You environment mirrors it. (P06) This respondent makes the link between spirituality and emotions in a more general sense: while spirituality is source of happiness, it is implicitly also reflected as an attitude, an awareness of how our emotion life affects other people.Thus, spirituality is not only seen as 35

reflection on one‟s own emotions, but also a reflection of how our own emotions relate to those of other individuals. The link between spirituality and emotions is also apparent for those who claim not to have a spiritual dimension in their life. When asked about the meaning of spirituality and nonspirituality one respondent muses: I think someone who is spiritual, would lessen that burden somewhat by putting some of the emotional burden and the emotional weight onto the spiritual framework that they have. So I’d say that being non-spiritual is probably harder, probably makes life a bit more challenging, because you have to manage your emotions as well as your situation, erm, whereas if you feel spiritual you get support on the emotional side…(P01) This perception of spirituality sees it as a regulator of emotions, possibly contributing to managing the emotional life of the adherent. Reversely, emotional events can also stimulate spirituality: Or to give another example, would be when I felt very emotionally, at an emotional extreme, like at a death in my family, when my grandparents died, when I was extremely stricken, I felt a very strong sense of spirituality at that time.(P06) And negative emotions can dampen a connection to spirituality: […] I find that because my emotions are quite low it’s very hard to get them …you know, the spirituality side of it seems like lessened somewhat and perhaps my, erm, my instincts fly out the window really. But when I’m a lot happier a lot more ...or neutral, when I’m just my normal self...I find that, my spirituality, is...I can become

36

more in tune with it really, a lot more in tune with it. So it does depend on my mood and situations. (P02) This reflects the respondent‟s earlier attitude to religiosity: in low moods, she turns to her faith, whereas her perception of her spirituality is connected to her normal or happy mood. For all of these respondents, there is a strong connection between their emotion life and their spirituality. The language used when speaking about spirituality is also that of emotional states: “sensing” and “feeling” being often repeated in this context.

1.4.3.3

Spirituality and rationality

Spirituality is seen as an irrational process of thought, based on emotions rather than logic. Implicitly, rationality is seen as juxtaposition to spiritual thought: In terms of religion, I would describe myself as an atheist; I have no belief in a higher power of any sort. And I would describe myself as a-spiritual as well…I don’t know, a rationalist, possibly. (P08) This self-definition as a rationalist delineates this respondent‟s overall attitude towards spirituality and religious belief. But also for the spiritual, rational modes of thought hinder the experience of spirituality: And rationality doesn’t come into it, it seems to be more of a direct experience than that, sometimes when you when you try to rationalize it you seem to lose the experience (P06) In the experience of most people‟s lives, there are certain times in which we are the most rational. In fact, in most adult lives it is required to be rational for most of the day, as most 37

jobs and activities within society demand this kind of thought. Similarly, for students at University. I think , doing my work, in terms of reading and essays and all that , I have a more logical mind then […]I think I am less spiritual than when I am just free to get on with something, It’s when you have times where you got to fit in to things, when you don’t have much time to be reflective or spiritual, whereas if you got free time and you not really got anything else you are thinking about then you can sort of go to a different mind (P09) She returns to this theme later: Just times when you have a lot to do, just generally around times when you have more stress, more deadlines, that kind of thing. That’s when you tend not to be very spiritual. (P09) In a very similar vein, this respondent mirrors: I’d say during the day I wasn’t particularly spiritual, when I’m in lectures or writing essays and things like that, I don’t really give it any thought or much time.(..) (P07) This could mean that spirituality as a mode of thought is only accessible in times outside of the demands of daily routine. Moreover, those who are primarily rational in their outlook might not experience spirituality at all in their lives.

1.4.3.4

Activities and spirituality

Many respondents experience their spirituality through certain activities. Some activities are directly and obviously linked to spirituality such as meditation and prayer: 38

I d say that I felt that when I was meditating. I’ve meditated before and had an experience in which I’ve managed to achieve what is the purpose of meditation according to many doctrinal texts in Buddhist philosophy...mediating is a very relaxing and I had an experience ... a very calm serene moment, which felt intuitively quite spiritual. (P06) But the expression and experience of spirituality is not restricted to meditation and prayer or activities that unusually have a religious or sacred connotation. Often, profane activities are also linked to spirituality. In particular, activities that include creative expressions appear to be linked. For this a respondent, drama was a focus: Well, I’ve done quite a lot of drama before and I feel that helps…getting in touch with, being more spiritual, because you can become a different person and you can think about things that you would not normally think about. So, I feel like that would help me to think about spirituality and experience it…I have never tried meditation or anything like that, but I feel like drama is a form of meditation when you take on a different person and you act like them (P07) The connection between creative activity and meditation is also reflected in this respondent‟s account: I find a lot of artistic expression, or creative activates strengthen a sense of spirituality, for instance , I really enjoy painting portraits and I have found that when I get really engrossed in an activity like that, you can lose yourself in the drawing and the detail , it almost like a meditation where your mind become completely clear , although you are not meditating , you are just doing a another activity. You just feel more relaxed...it’s a deep sense of a kind of spiritual thing. (P06) 39

The similarities in the two accounts are apparent: each respondent channels a meditative state through creative activities, dramatic performance for the first and portrait painting for the second. It appears to be a deeply personal focus, in the sense that it is the individual‟s perception and even choice that makes an activity spiritual. However, it is not only activity that is associated with spirituality. For this respondent it is the exact opposite: the lack of any kind of activity that enhances spirituality When I am spiritual, I don’t tend to be active at the same time, like doing something,…like say, you were tidying up or something, I don’t think I would be reflective then, or spiritual, I think., I tend to be spiritual when I have completely stopped and my mind has focused rather than focusing on different things at the one time. (P09) It is important to note that these different accounts only appear contradictory on the surface: the connection between them is a certain state of mind that appears akin to mediation. A clear, relaxed but also focused state that for some is reached through creative action and others through silent reflection.

1.4.3.5

The role of other people

The last theme concentrates on the role of other people in terms of spirituality. Other people were already a focus of spirituality in the previous theme on the role of emotions and it appears that there is a close connection between “feelings “of spirituality and “feelings” towards other people: So, I guess spirituality for me is like a feeling inside , it’s an emotion which , like, if you are really pleased or really happy… a lot of the time I get it is when I’m with friends and I see all my friends happy for example. (P02) 40

Spirituality can be expressed in a social setting, through interaction with other people: Yeah there are lots of things …interacting with people, I find is very much something that r enhances a sense of spirituality, interacting with people whom you share different experiences with in regards to spirituality. You find out, you compare your experiences with different people, you often strike a chord with people, and that makes me feel a stronger sense of spirituality. (P06) Here, the experience of spirituality is enhanced through this social interaction. Experiences are shared and “strike a chord”. However, interaction with other people can also hinder spiritual awareness under certain circumstances: I think when it is particularly busy, or crowded areas, or when you are with lots of people, when …yeah that kind of thing, you don’t tend to be able to get to that sort of, just thinking separately from the situation, so yeah, I tend to be spiritual when I am on my own, or I guess with a few people If I were discussing it. (P09) Large busy crowds distract from a reflective and spiritual state and for this respondent, being alone is associated with spirituality. Other people can contribute to spirituality in small numbers. As spirituality is often about very personal thoughts, it is likely that it can only be shared with certain likeminded or trusted individuals. For the following respondent, close relations were those who were the most affected by her own spirituality: Yes I’d say my social relationships with people, like friends and family, I think they are affected by spirituality because I think about them a lot when I think about spirituality and I’d say they were affected more by it than work or anything like that. (P07)

41

Family and friends are the most affected by her spirituality because they are the content and focus of her thoughts while being spiritual. As social relationships count amongst the most important aspects of people‟s lives, it makes sense that they lie at heart of spiritual reflection.

1.4.4

Conclusion

This chapter has discussed five themes that were extracted from interviews about individual expression of spirituality. Although each theme has an individual focus, they are clearly interconnected and contribute to an emerging pattern of the meaning of modern spirituality: Spirituality is related but clearly distinct from faith and religiosity. It surfaces at different times and under different circumstances than an individual‟s engagement with religion. Emotional processes lie at the heart of spiritual reflection, with personal feelings and sensations being a constant focus. Reflections on these feelings, especially feelings towards other people, are an important part of spirituality and contribute to the maintenance of emotional well-being. The language of spirituality is also that of emotion: highly personal and subjective. Rationality and the constraints of daily routine tend to hinder and prevent engagement with spiritually. A trigger associated with spirituality is creative activity such as painting, writing, acting etc. There is a social aspect to spirituality: often, spiritual reflections are about relationships to other people and also, spirituality can be stimulated through certain social interaction.

42

2 The Existential Orientation Scale 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1

Overview

Within modern societies, religious beliefs are still very prevalent, however, recent numbers also suggest that a substantial proportion of individuals describe themselves as atheists or profess having no belief in God (see section 1.3.5). Within the measurement of religion, atheistic positions have been neglected. By creating a new scale, an attempt is made to extend the psychology of religion to include atheism and other positions of non –belief as constructs of relevance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a measurement scale that can locate an individual‟s position of belief between atheism and theism. As such, this scale aimed at extending measures of religiosity to include positions of non-belief. The overall intent was to create a scale that can distinguish not only between religious and non-religious individuals, but also within these general positions, that is, to be able to distinguish between atheists and agnostics, as well as mildly and strongly religious individuals. The next section (2.1.2) discusses definitions of religion and atheism. The operational definitions used in this study are described in section 2.1.3. Moreover, the measurement of religious beliefs is discussed (2.1.4). The main part of this chapter describes the rationale behind the creation of the scale, as well as process of item development (2.1.5).

43

2.1.2

Definitions

Religion is a multivalent concept that is notoriously difficult to define in a simple manner. William James noted that “the very fact that there are so many [definitions] and so different from one another is enough to prove that the word 'religion' cannot stand for any single principle or essence, but is rather a collective name.” (James, 1902; p.35). In his own definition, James already associated numerous psychological concepts with religion, i.e. feelings, behaviour, experiences. Existing definitions within the social sciences often reflect the preference and the focus of the researcher and a full consensus of an operational definition is not yet in sight (see for instance, Zinnbauer et al., 1999; Spilka et al., 2003; Palutzian and Park, 2005): Traditional conceptualisations tend to focus on either substantive or functional perspectives (Zinnbauer et al, 1999; Bruce, 1996). Substantive definitions look at the substance of religion, what religion is, e.g. the beliefs, practices and emotions related to a higher power (Bruce, 1996). An example for such a definition is offered by Argyle and Beith-Hallahmi (1975, p.1), who see religion as “a system of beliefs in a divine or superhuman power, and practices of worship or other rituals directed towards such a power”. The functional approach focuses more on what purpose religion serves in the life of the individual (Zinnbauer et al, 1999, Bruce, 1996, Pargament, 1997). For instance, Batson, Schoenrade and Ventis (1993, p.8) describe religion as “whatever we as individuals do to come to grips personally with the questions that confronts us because we are aware that we and others like us are alive and that we will die. “ Characteristic for the traditional approach to conceptualisation is that religion is treated as a broad –band construct

44

that incorporates both the institutional, organised system of worship as well as personalised beliefs and emotions (Zinnbauer et al, 1999). More recent approaches have distinguished spirituality from religion, an awareness which reflects the changing reality of the religious landscape (Roof, 1993, 1999; see section 1.3.4). The introduction of the term “spirituality” in academic discourse and as a social reality has lead to differentiating it from the term “religion”. In general terms, spirituality refers more to the personalised beliefs and emotions of an individual, while religion refers to the institutional and organisational system of worship (see for instance, Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005, p.25). Where traditional approaches used these two concepts interchangeably, recent definitions attempt to define these separately as narrow -band constructs. This has lead to religion losing some of its meaning to spirituality and the two constructs being polarised into a dualistic framework, where religion is seen as institutional, objective, substantive and even negative, whereas spirituality as personal, subjective, functional and positive (for detailed review of polarised definitions, see Zinnbauer et al, 1999; Hill, et al., 2000; Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005). While spirituality and religion can be seen as separate constructs, they are to some extent interwoven, related and overlap. By placing them into dichotomies, the actual character of each of these constructs becomes oversimplified and biased. Moreover, in many instances, religiousness and spirituality co-occur (Hill et al., 2000; Zinnbauer et al., 1997; Zinnbauer et al, 1999; Marler and Hadaway, 2002; see section 1.3.4). As an attempt to unify the research effort and the varying definitions of the constructs, Hill et al. (2000) set out definitional criteria for both religion and spirituality by which future 45

definitions can be evaluated. They define spirituality as “the feelings, thoughts, experiences, and behaviours that arise from a search for the sacred” (p.66), where sacred refers to “a divine being, divine object, ultimate reality, or ultimate truth as perceived by the individual.” In addition, the criteria for religion include non-sacred goals, such as identity or meaning, and “the means and methods (e.g., rituals or prescribed behaviours) of the search that receive validation and support from within an identifiable group of people” (Hill et al., 2000; p.66). In line with these criteria, Zinnbauer (Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005; p.35) suggests that spirituality is a broader construct than religiousness. He defines spirituality as “a personal or group search for the sacred.” Religiousness is “defined as a personal or group search for the sacred that unfolds within a traditional sacred context.” Pargament, on the other hand sees religiousness as the broader construct. He defines spirituality as “a search for the sacred.” and religiousness as “a search for significance in ways related to the sacred (Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005; p.36). Both definitions see spirituality as the heart of religion. Zinnbauer‟s definition sees religiousness as a specific form of spirituality, i.e. one that unfolds in a traditional context. Pargament sees religiousness as having a broader set of ends than spirituality: whereas spirituality has the sacred as its prime goal, religiousness can include other goals that can be profane in nature, i.e. material strivings or community (Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005). It emerges then, that an individual can be spiritual or religious, as well as both or neither. Zinnbauer et al., (1997) explored how individuals define themselves in regard to these two constructs:

46

Table 2.1-1: Categories of religion and spirituality

Religious Non-religious Spiritual

SR

Non-spiritual NSR

SNR NSNR

Table 2.1-1 shows a model of the relationship between spirituality and religion. Any individual can be classed as being either spiritual or religious (SR), spiritual and nonreligious (SNR), non-spiritual and religious (NSR) or non-spiritual and non-religious (NSNR). In Zinnbauer‟s et al. (1997) sample, the highest proportion of respondents defined themselves as being both spiritual and religious. Similar distributions were replicated in other studies (Marler & Hadaway, 2002, see also section 1.3.4). These individuals appeared to be part of organised religion or church (Catholic, Protestant, Islam, etc.) and practising their faith had spiritual meaning for them (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Being spiritual and religious corresponded with frequency of prayer, church attendance, intrinsic religiosity and religious orthodoxy (Zinnbauer et al., 1997; Maler and Haddaway, 2002). The other religious category, those describing themselves as religious but not spiritual (RNS) had the lowest number of respondents (Zinnbauer, et al., 1997; Marler & Hadaway, 2002). Defining oneself as religious without a spiritual meaning behind it, appears to be a socially undesirable position to take, as it implies adheernce to an institution without the emotional conviction.This might explain the low responses in this position. Marler and Hadaway (2002) argued that this group might react against a popular perception of spirituality, which can be 47

seen as insubstantial (see also Bruce, 2002). Furthermore, they might not be able to speak about religion and spirituality as seperate from each other (Marler & Hadaway, 2002), leading to the conclusion that they might be actually “spiritual and religious”, but make no distinction between the terms. Gordon Allport made the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religion, extrinsic being an orientation towards religion with non-religious goals like social standing or safety as a motivation, intrinsic being oriented towards religion for the sake of religion itself (Allport, 1950, 1966). Extrinsic religion is “strictly utilitarian: useful for the self in granting safety, social standing, solace and endorsement of one‟s chosen way of life.” (Allport, 1966; p.455) and intrinsic religion “regards faith as a supreme value in its own right. It is orientated toward a unification of being, takes seriously the commandment of brotherhood, and strives to transcend all self-centred needs.... A religious sentiment of this sort floods the whole life with motivation and meaning (Allport, 1966; p.455). It is possible that the category RNS corresponds to an extrinsic view of religion, i.e. a religious outlook that is held because of non-spiritual or faith-based reasons. While there is no conclusive data available on this suggestion, the RS category does appear to correspond to Allport‟s intrinsic religious orientation (Zinnbauer et al, 1997; Marler & Hadaway, 2002). The two non-religious categories can either describe themselves as spiritual (SNR) or nonspiritual (NSNR). Those defining themselves as non- spiritual and non-religious can be seen as religious independents ( Hayes, 2000) and might describe themselves as atheist or agnostic, and have no (subjectively defined) orientation towards spiritual matters ( see also section 1.3.5). The spirituality of those describing themselves as “spiritual not religious” is removed from traditional churches and organisations. This group corresponds with the Roof‟s “highly active seekers” (see section 1.3.4). 48

These broad, conceptual categories describe the different positions towards religion and spirituality and are helpful in narrowing down operational definitions. This model however ignores the fact that these phenomena, i.e. spirituality and religion, are fluctuating and fluid and can change both in intensity and over time: Spirituality can be found or lost, in different stages of life different positions can be held by an individual to varying degrees, etc (Wink and Dillon, 2002; Roof, 1993,1999). Nor does the model, at this stage, make differences between individuals within any of the four positions. The main focus of the present study is on conceptualising and measuring the spiritual and religious (SR) category and the non-spiritual and non-religious” (NSNR) category and to incorporate and formulate these broad positions within a multi –item measuring scale.

2.1.3

Existential orientation

The approach taken here in defining the two broad categories of spiritual and religious (SR) and non-spiritual and non-religious (NSNR) is by formulating the two most common worldviews that represent these positions. These two worldviews are broadly defined as theism and atheism. At the heart of these two worldviews lie fundamental beliefs about the nature of existence. Existential orientation is a neutral term that denotes what position an individual takes between these two worldviews. The development and operation of this construct is described in section 2.1.5. The following two sections define the two worldviews that constitute existential orientation.

49

2.1.3.1

Theism

The major aspect of religion and spirituality that this project focuses on is the general belief in a supernatural agent, often termed God that is the ultimate source of life, knowledge and existence in general. This system of beliefs is often referred to as theism (Robinson, 1969b; Cross and Livingstone, 1974). Theism lies at the heart of the major monotheistic world religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam (Woodhead et al., 2002). Hinduism and Buddhism can also be seen as theistic in the sense that both include a focus on supernatural agents, however this definition focuses predominately on the monotheistic worldview and system of beliefs, mainly because this is the most common religious worldview within the Western world (see section1.3.2). This definition of religion is in essence substantive, as it focuses on a set of beliefs (see section 2.1.2). Furthermore, the definition is sufficiently broad to encapsulate both religion as a concept as well as spirituality. Theism is a shared set of beliefs that can be expressed within institutional settings such as the Christian church and is laid out and documented in religious doctrine and scripture (see Woodhead, 2002). At the same time, theism can also represent the personal, individual and subjective relationship to a deity. Theism as an aspect of religion and spirituality conforms to the definitional criteria of Hill et al. (2000). The focus of theism is a supernatural agent or god which is the divine being and ultimate reality that Hill et al. (2000) define as sacred. The spiritual components in theism, in line with those criteria are the individual thoughts, feelings and experiences that arise from a relationship or search for God. The additional religious component in theism is that these beliefs are shared with a wider community and organised into ritualistic and institutional

50

practice. Common theistic beliefs include the general belief in God, the belief that God is the ultimate creator of the universe, as well as the belief in an afterlife.

2.1.3.2

Atheism

The term “atheism” refers to a doctrine that denies the existence of a supernatural realm and agency (Martin, 2007). However, atheism is not only disbelief but is characterised by a belief in naturalistic order of the universe (Fales, 2007). For instance, the association of “Brights” (www.the-brights.net) are an organisation that represents a reformulation of atheism (see Dawkins, 2003; Dennett, 2003). They define themselves: (1) a bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview and (2) a bright‟s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. (3) The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview. Atheism in this study is used as an umbrella term for general secular belief system. This conceptualization of atheism does not make distinctions between secularism, humanism, atheism etc, but rather attempts to identify the shared characteristics of these non-religious belief systems. Thus, it incorporates “humanism” and “secularism” in this conceptualization. Hobson and Jenkins (2000; p.1) write: “Today, Humanism refers to those who reject the supernatural views of Christianity and other theistic religions based largely on faith and ancient writings and who concentrate on searching for reasoned answers to the problems facing people during their life. Humanism of this type is variously known as Non-theistic, Scientific, Evolutionary or Secular.” The key beliefs that characterise this system are: rejection of supernatural agency (Theism), acceptance and endorsement of the scientific method and worldview as the best known way of gaining knowledge, morality as being defined and maintained by human society (Hobson and Jenkins, 2000; Grassby, 2005).

51

Atheism then in this study is not merely a negative response to religious belief, i.e. a denial of supernatural agency, but also incorporates a positive belief in the scientific method, rationality and human morality.

2.1.3.3

Summary

This section has discussed different approaches to conceptualising religion and spirituality. Traditional approaches employ both substantive and functional definitions. More recent approaches separate the concept of spirituality from religion. While this reflects recent changes in the religious landscape, a danger lies in polarising these concepts. Most individuals appear to define themselves both spiritual and religious. Employing Zinnbauer et al. (1997) categories of self-definitions, a broad model of positions towards religion and spirituality was discussed. Using the categories of spiritual and religious (SR) and nonspiritual and non-religious (NRNS) as a starting point, this study conceptualises religion and spirituality as theism, the general system of beliefs in a supernatural agent. Atheism is the denial of the existence of such an agent as well as the belief in a naturalistic, rational universe. Existential orientation is defined as the position an individual takes between theism and atheism.

2.1.4

Measurement of religion

In an influential article, Gorsuch (1984) described measurement as being the current paradigm of the psychology of religion. Most research studies to date have employed questionnaires as the measurement tool for data collection (Gorsuch, 1984, Splika et al., 2003). More recently, there have been other techniques employed to study aspects of religion (for instance, using experimental methods to study God concepts, Gibson, 2006), and the field is moving from the predominant focus of measurement to what Emmons and Paloutzian 52

(2003) call “the multilevel interdisciplinary paradigm” which “recognises the value of data at multiple levels of analysis while making non-reductive assumptions concerning the value of spiritual and religious phenomena” (p.395). New developments in the fields of evolutionary psychology of religion (e.g. Kirkpatrick, 1999, 2005; Atran, 2002; Boyer, 2002), the cognitive science of religion, (e.g. Barrett, 2002; Bulbulia, 2004), behavioural genetics (e.g. D‟Onofrio et al., 1999) and the neurobiology of religious experience (e.g. Azari et al., 2001; Laughlin et al., 1992) inform the psychology of religion and are moving the research forward into new and interesting areas. However, the predominant measuring device employed within the investigation of religion and spirituality is still the questionnaire (Emmons and Paloutzian, 2003) and this review will therefore focus on the measurement of religion and spirituality through questionnaire methods. In Gorsuch‟s (1984) words, measurement is both the “boon “and “bane” of investigating religion .The positive aspects, the boon, are that there now exist a high number of scales that measure domains of religion and spirituality with satisfactory reliability and validity (Gorsuch, 1984; Hill and Hood, 1999; Hill, 2005). An authoritative work by Hill and Hood (1999) collects and reviews over 100 measurement scales of religion and its various aspects, grouped in 17 clusters including beliefs, practices, fundamentalism etc. Similar to the conceptualisations of religion and spirituality, scales can take a substantive approach, measuring the contents of religion, as well as a more functional approach, interested in the process of religion (Gorsuch, 1984). The breath of scales available ranges from religious beliefs and attitudes (for example, Christina Liberalism Scale, Christian Conservatism Scale, Steinway 1973, cited by Hill and hood, 1999, Attitude towards Christianity Scale, Francis, 1978 cited by Hill and Hood, 1999) to religious experience (Religious Experience Questionnaire, Edwards, 1976, cited by Hill 53

and Hood, 1999) and spirituality (Index of Core Spiritual Experiences, Kass et al. 1991, cited by Hill and Hood, 1999). Different scales attempt to conceptualise and capture various aspects of religion and spirituality, which exemplifies the multi-dimensional nature of these constructs (Miller and Thoerensen, 2003). The downside, the “bane” of the measurement paradigm is that the research into religion has focused too much on devising accurate measuring tools and is therefore more interested in the measurement of religion, rather than religion itself (Gorsuch, 1984). Moreover, the plethora of existing measures makes comparisons between studies difficult (MacDonald, 2000). Different scales employ varying operational definitions of religion and spirituality and therefore the development of a coherent body of empirical research based on theory is problematic (MacDonald et al., 1995, 1999). Addressing this problem and attempting to unify the various approaches to measuring religion and spirituality, MacDonald et al. (1995, 1999) surveyed the existing literature on transpersonal constructs and reviewed a large number of scales. Based on these reviews, MacDonald (2000a) factor -analysed 11 of the most prominent scales and found five underlying dimensions of spirituality. These dimensions “may be seen as encompassing five broad and somewhat inter correlated content areas, which express the expressive modalities of spirituality that form core descriptive components of the construct.” (MacDonald 2000a, p. 185). These five dimensions are :( 1) Cognitive orientation towards spirituality (COS): The cognitive-perceptual expressions of spirituality, including beliefs, attitudes and perceptions on the nature of spirituality as well as significance for personal functioning. (2)Experiential/phenomenological dimension of spirituality(EPD): These are the experiential expressions of spirituality including experience described as spiritual, transcendental, 54

mystical, peak, etc.(3) Existential well-being(EWB): This refers to expressions regarding a sense of positive existentiality, including a sense of meaning and purpose of existence.(4)Paranormal beliefs (PNB): This regards the belief in paranormal phenomena, including ESP, precognition, witchcraft, and spiritualism.(5) Religiousness (REL): The expression of spirituality through religious means (MacDonald, 2000a).Implicit in this formulation is the fact that spirituality forms a broader construct than religiousness, as the latter appears to be one specific aspect of spirituality. Thus this framework of measuring spirituality appears to be in line with Zinnbauer‟s view (Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005, see also section 2.1.2). MacDonald‟s (2000a, 2000b) framework constitutes a helpful addition to the measurement of religion and spirituality, as it organises the various approaches to religion and spirituality in a coherent descriptive model. He suggests that this model be used to guide future research in the area (2000a). He presents a measurement scale termed the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI) which measures the above five dimensions with satisfactory reliability and validity (2000a, 2000b). Employing the ESI as a reference scale and model overcomes one of the problems or “banes” of measurement within the psychology of religion (Gorsuch, 1984). Most researchers agree that religion and spirituality are latent and complex, multidimensional traits ( Miller and Thoerensen, 2003) and the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory represents this multi-dimensionality ( MacDonald, 2000a).However, some measures of religiosity employ only a single item questions to differentiate between religious people from nonreligious people and it has been suggested, that there is a general dimension of religiosity, which “reflects an intrinsic commitment to a traditional, gospel orientated interpretation of the Christian faith “(Gorsuch, 1984; p.232). Gorsuch further argued that a new paradigm of measurement should transcend the question of uni-dimensionality versus multidimensionality 55

and integrate the two perspectives (Gorsuch, 1984). The general one-dimension of religion is sufficient to separate religious individuals from non-religious individuals but can be subdivided into further dimensions to account for the multi –dimensional nature of the construct (Gorsuch, 1984, Slater, Hall, and Edwards, 2001). For the present study, religion and spirituality are conceptualised as theism (see section 2.1.3.1). This conceptualisation aims at representing this general dimension of religiosity that can differentiate between believers and non-believers. In addition, however, atheism as a worldview is incorporated into this scale. Based on the survey of existing scales within the psychological literature, no scale exists that measures the core values and beliefs of a nonreligious and secular worldview alongside those of a religious perspective. Usually, scales designed to measure religious beliefs start from a “zero” point of no belief in a specific item to full endorsement of a belief. This means that differences in the non –religious perspective are grouped together and scored similarly and therefore cannot be separated. So for instance, both convinced atheists (i.e. those that are positively convinced that there is no supernatural or transcendental reality) and agnostics (i.e. those that are not sure about the existence of a transcendental or supernatural reality or believe that its existence cannot be ascertained) are scored similarly as having “no” belief in religious items ( see Jagodzinski & Greely, n.d, for a similar distinction between atheists and agnostics; see also section 1.3.5). However, there are some indications that very anti-religious individuals are more similar in measures of psychological distress to very religious individuals than to unconvinced or moderate believers. In a early study, Shaver et al. (1980) surveyed 2500 American women and found a curvilinear relationship between religiosity and measures of psychological and mental health: both the anti-religious as well as the strongly religious were less unhappy and showed less physical and mental symptoms than those of no or slight belief. In a similar vein, 56

Ross (1990) found that those who had strong religious beliefs and those who rejected all religious beliefs had lower levels of distress than those who professed weak religious beliefs. Both of these studies used single –item response scales to differentiate between anti-religious and non-religious individuals (Shaver et al., 1980; Ross, 1990). These studies indicate that there might be psychological differences between strongly convinced atheists and those who are indifferent to religion. However, as there are no scales that can make finer distinctions between strongly non-religious individuals and mildly non-religious or religious indifference, possible differences cannot be explored. Gorsuch (1984) suggested that researchers move away from developing new scales and instead utilize those that have trialled and tested. New scales can only add to the existing knowledge if they incorporate a construct that is independent of factors already measured. There appears to be no multi-item response scale for atheism that corresponds to the multitude of scales developed for religious constructs. The present study is aimed at developing a scale that conceptualises and incorporates atheism as a construct within the psychology of religion. As previous research has not included fine differentiations of positions of non-belief, the development of such a scale is necessary and justified according to Gorsuch‟s (1984) criteria. In summary, this section has discussed issues in the measurement of religious and spiritual constructs. A wide range of measurement scales exist that conceptualise different aspects of religion and spirituality. These can be organised and summarised into five dimensions according to MacDonald (2000a). The Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI) represents a valid and reliable measuring instrument that conceptualise these five dimensions and constitutes a helpful tool in guiding future research. The present study is aimed at extending

57

the general dimension of religiosity to incorporate positions of non-belief in religion in order to explore possible differences between positions of non-belief and belief.

58

2.1.5

Development of the Existential Orientation Scale

2.1.5.1

Overview

The first aim of this project was to develop a psychological measurement scale that can measure non-religious systems of belief alongside religious systems of belief and can classify and describe different standpoints of belief. Although there is an abundance of measurement scales within the psychology of religion, there is no scale that incorporates secular beliefs as anything else but an absence of religion (see section 2.1.4). However, the worldview that can be generally classed as “atheism” has positive and affirming beliefs that require investigation (see section 2.1.3.2). A new scale was designed to be able to differentiate between strong atheists, moderate atheists, agnostics, moderate religious believers and strong religious believers in a continuous fashion. The following sections describe the development and validation of the Existential Orientation Scale. The rationale of the scale development is described in section 2.1.5.2 followed by the rationale of validation in section 2.1.5.3. The methods chapter (2.2) consists of four sections that in sequence describe the stages of scale development (2.2.1), the major pilot study that examines the first version of the scale (2.2.2), further development of the EOS based on the results of the pilot (2.2.3) and finally the methods of the validation study (2.2.4).The results section (2.3) describes the results of the validation study. These results are discussed in section 2.4.

59

2.1.5.2

Rationale of scale construction

This study takes as substantive approach to conceptualising atheism and theism, i.e. it defines the terms through the content of beliefs rather than through the function that these beliefs hold (see section 2.1.3).This approach to conceptualising the constructs is advantageous as it does not presuppose a possible function of the beliefs. Moreover, it simplifies the generation of items, as each item can be seen as representing a particular statement of belief from either an atheistic and theistic perspective. For the development of the scale the focus was on formulating complementary core beliefs from both perspectives. The rationale of defining the different perspectives was based upon identifying beliefs relating to core “existential” or ultimate questions. The nature of life, the universe, death etc. are all aspects that religious beliefs commonly address (see for instance Batson, Schoenrade and Ventis 1993; Beit-Hallhami and Argyle, 1997; Spilka et al., 2003); however, there are similar naturalistic equivalents or alternatives that address these questions (see section 2.1.3; Hobson and Jenkins, 2000; Martin, 2007; Grassby, 2005). So, for instance, a common theistic belief is that here is life after death (Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, 1997; Bering, 2002). Atheistic beliefs stress a naturalistic worldview, based on science and rationality. Commonly, atheists deny that there is an afterlife and that death is the end of conscious existence (Hobson and Jenkins, 2000). Thus, theism is defined as the general belief in a supernatural agent that is the ultimate source of knowledge, morality and creation. Atheism is defined as the general belief in a naturalistic order, identifiable through science and rationality (see section 2.1.3).The theistic side of the scale focused on beliefs from a monotheistic worldview, as this is the most common form that spirituality takes within modern, western societies (see section 1.3.2). The atheistic side of the scale focused on general naturalistic and humanistic principles. The focus of item 60

creation then was to formulate these “existential” beliefs from both perspectives. As the scale is intended to measure where an individual stands on a spectrum from very atheistic to very theistic, defined by endorsement of “existential “ beliefs from the respective perspective, the scale was termed the Existential Orientation Scale ( EOS). As such the development of the scale was aimed at creating a single compound score for all the items in the EOS. This is the usual procedure for Likert-type rating scales (e.g. Kline, 2000). However, this assumes that the items themselves measure one underlying dimension. As the assumption of uni-dimensionality is built in to the scoring of the EOS items, it needs to be tested as part of the construct validity of the scale. One problem with this assumption can be identified at the outset: The items of the EOS were formulated to measure similar areas of beliefs from both theistic and atheistic perspectives. By prior definition of atheism and theism, these items reflect opposing alternatives in terms of worldview and can as such be seen as the opposing extreme points of one bipolar dimension. In reality, however, it is possible that some of the beliefs that constitute the items can be held simultaneously by the same individual. In particular, it can be expected that atheistic beliefs are more likely to be endorsed by theists than theistic beliefs are endorsed by atheists. This is based on the consideration that within modern society, rationality and scientific thinking are strongly prevalent and have led to technological and social progress (see section 1.3.3). While it is acceptable to reject religious beliefs, it is unlikely that an individual within society fully rejects rationality and scientific thinking. Thus, it can be expected that the extreme point of atheism (rejecting all theistic beliefs and endorsing atheistic beliefs) is more frequent then the extreme point of theism (rejecting all atheistic beliefs and endorsing all theistic beliefs). However, this consideration is only problematic if the constructed scale fails to discriminate between atheists and theists in general, i.e. if the compound score cannot reliably differentiate 61

between different response-patterns that could be expected from religious or non-religious respondent. It can be expected that an average religious respondent will agree with most theistic items and disagree with some atheistic items while rejecting others. A non-religious respondent can be expected to agree with all atheist items while rejecting most or all theistic items. The resulting compound score was required to be sensitive enough to reflect these differences in response-patterns and thus accurately reflect the different positions towards atheism and theism. Testing this is an important aspect of the construct validity of the scale, the rationale of which is described in the next section. The detailed procedure of developing the items that constitute the Existential Orientation Scale is described in the first part of the method section (2.2.1).

2.1.5.3

Rationale of scale validation

The main aim of the construction of the EOS was to create a scale that accurately measures both atheistic and theistic beliefs on a single dimension, with the underlying assumption that atheism and theism are opposing worldviews. Both the underlying assumptions of the EOS, as well as the reliability and validity characteristics of the scale needed to be established. In order to construct a meaningful and applicable measuring scale, it needs to show a number of characteristics. A test needs to show high reliability and evidence of validity, especially construct validity (Kline, 1998, 2000; Loewenthal, 2001).

2.1.5.3.1

Reliability

Reliability is generally seen as the consistency of a scale (Kline, 1998, 2000) and can be expressed through the test –retest method, in which the stability of responses over time are measured and by assessing internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach, 1951; Cortina, 1993; 62

Kline, 2000). For the validation of the EOS, the focus was on establishing the internal consistency as a measure of reliability. Although a test-retest study would add to the indices of reliability, it was not included in the design of the present study. The focus of this study was to establish the accuracy and internal consistency of the scale. Test –retest measures can be the focus of future research, once initial validity of the new scale has been tested. The internal consistency of a scale is usually assessed by correlating the item scores with the total scores of the scale. Cronbach‟s alpha is the most common form of reporting this and measures the average correlation between pairs of items and the number of items in a scale (Cronbach, 1951; Kline 1998, 2000; Brace, Kemp and Rosemary,2006). High internal consistency is a prerequisite for good validity (Kline, 2000), as a test cannot correlate with anything more highly then with itself, and validity is usually established through correlating the scale with some other criteria (Kline, 2000). The rule of thumb for acceptable reliability score is an alpha value of .7 or higher (Kline, 2000).

2.1.5.3.2

Validity

An important aspect of any new scale is to establish if it measures what it sets out to measure, in other words, if it has validity. Validity can be assessed in a variety of ways. Face validity and content validity are initial forms of validity that purport that the scale “looks as if” it measures what it is supposed to measure (Kline, 1998). Face validity can be detrimental to certain tests as there is a possibility of distorting or deliberately falsifying responses if the item in question appears to shine a negative light on the respondent (for example in measurements of anxiety) (Kline, 1998). The EOS, however, purports to measuring beliefs that are held or not held to certain degrees. These beliefs are expected to be held explicitly and if a respondent endorses a belief, s/he should readily admit so, as there are no

63

conceivable negative consequences for doing so (given the anonymity of the study). Item construction was explicitly aimed at representing beliefs from two existential worldviews. Face validity was not formally tested in this study and the focus was to establish measures of construct validity. Construct validity (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Kline, 2000) assesses if the scale measurement conforms to a theoretical construct. Existential orientation is the proposed onedimensional measure of the EOS and consists of atheistic and theistic beliefs. To establish construct validity of the EOS, the new scale was compared to independent measures of religiosity. Two main measures were used in the present validation to investigate aspects of construct validity. The first were broad, self-descriptive categories taken from Zinnbauer et al. (1997) and employed here to measure criterion validity. The second was an independent measure of religiousness taken from an established and validated measurement scale, the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (MacDonald, 2000). This measure was used to establish concurrent validity. Lastly, in order to examine the assumption that the atheistic and theistic beliefs can indeed be scored on one dimension, a principal component analysis was conducted.

2.1.5.3.3

Criterion validity

Criterion validity was assessed by using self descriptive categories delineating the position an individual takes towards religion and spirituality. Zinnbauer et al. (1997, see also section 2.1.2) used four defining categories as self-descriptive measures of religiosity and spirituality. Table 2.1-2 shows these categories. These were framed as statements: 1) I am neither spiritual nor religious (NSNR) 2) I am spiritual but not religious (SNR) 3) I am religious but not spiritual (RNS) 4) I am spiritual and religious (SR). 64

Table 2.1-2: Categories of religion and spirituality NSNR

Non- spiritual and non- religious

SNR

Spiritual and non- religious

RNS

Religious and non- spiritual

SR

Spiritual and religious

These categories have the advantage of identifying different levels of religion and spirituality in a forced-choice, categorical question, that formalises an individual‟s position in four broad definitive groups. Predictions were made about these groups in terms of their response on the EOS: group NSNR was expected to score low (atheist) on the scale, while group SR was expected to score high (theist). Categories SNR and RNS were expected to fall between the two other categories. As the EOS was constructed to measure disbelief and belief in religion, RNS was expected to score higher on the EOS than SNR, as the latter excludes religion from the self-description. If the EOS performed according to these predictions, first evidence for criterion validity is given, because this would mean that the scale can differentiate between broad positions towards religion and spirituality. As the EOS is a new scale that extends the measurement of religious beliefs to include beliefs from an atheistic perspective, it was important to examine in how far the EOS can distinguish between different positions of atheism. Using responses to a question on religious affiliation, those describing themselves as atheist could be compared to those describing themselves as agnostic or having no-religion. Previous studies showed that on some measures there are distinctions between these groups (see section 2.1.4). The sensitivity of the EOS in measuring differences between these non-religious positions was examined.

65

2.1.5.3.4

Concurrent validity

A further measure of validity is if the scale correlates with an established scale, assessing a similar construct (Loewenthal, 1999; Kline, 1998). This type of validity, usually termed concurrent validity, thus assess how far a scale conforms to related constructs. One danger in employing this measure of validity is the problem of redundancy: if a new scale correlates highly with an already established scale, then the question arises why it is necessary at all. It has to be then shown that the new scale has advantages over the established one in terms of better reliability, validity, ease of administration etc (see Loewenthal, 2001; Gorsuch, 1984). To establish concurrent validity, the EOS was measured against independent scales of religiosity. In this case, the measure to be examined was an independent measure of religious belief, which forms a sub-dimension of the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory by Douglas MacDonald (2000a). The ESI is an amalgamation of existing scales that was constructed to provide “…a validated measure of spirituality which incorporates existing psychometric conceptualisations into a coherent organisational framework on which to understand and research the various elements of the construct. “ (MacDonald 2000b, p.2). The ESI constitutes a validated and reliable overall measure of spirituality that builds upon existing conceptualisations and scales and integrates them into a concise and consistent five factor model. It is inclusive of a wide variety of components of spirituality that reflect unique content areas of the construct. Although most previous scales address one or more of these factors, none covers all five (MacDonald, 2000a, 2000b). As such the ESI is a suitable overall measurement of the expression of modern spirituality. Religiousness (REL) is a sub-dimension of the ESI that measures “ the expression of spirituality through religious means” (MacDonald, 2000a; p.187). It was expected that the EOS strongly correlates with religiousness, as the theistic items are very similar. The 66

relationship between the atheistic items and religiousness was not so straightforward: it was assumed in the formulation of the EOS that the two directions of orientation are mutually exclusive and bi-polarly opposed. If this is the case, then a strong linear relationship between REL and EOS should be apparent in which the eight religious items correlate positively and the atheistic items negatively. This would establish concurrent validity. Lastly, the EOS was compared to the remaining five sub dimensions of the ESI to investigate in an exploratory manner the relationship between the two scales.

67

2.1.5.3.5

Principal component analysis

A principal component analysis of the items of the EOS had two objectives: An important aspect of the construct validity of a scale that uses a summation score is that it measures one underlying construct (Brace et al. 2006, Gardner, 1995). This was especially important for the EOS as one of the assumptions of the scoring procedure is that atheistic and theistic items can be scored on one dimension (see section 2.1.5.2 ). Often internal consistency or Cronbach‟s alpha is used to indicate how strongly items correlate with each other within a scale, i.e. how much variance the items share in common (Gardner, 1995) However, internal consistency by itself is not sufficient for an assessment of unidimensionality (Gardner, 1995). Instead, Factor or Principal Component Analysis is suggested as being the method of choice to support a claim that a scale is uni-dimensional (Gardner, 1995). Gardner asserts that “A finding that all items have substantial loadings on a single factor can be used to justify adding the item scores together to generate a single score.” However, because of the nature of the construction of the EOS, that is incorporating atheistic and theistic beliefs in one scale, it was possible that there are two actual components underlying the scale, atheism and theism, as different response-patterns could indicate (see section 2.1.5.2). It was assumed that these positions are opposites of each other and can therefore be scored on one dimension, albeit in opposing directions. A principal component analysis was used to test this assumption formally: Firstly, to examine if there were sufficient loadings on one underlying factor to justify the use of a single scoring-scale and secondly, to assess the underlying structure of the EOS in an exploratory fashion.

68

2.1.5.3.6

Internet sample

The general strategy for conducting the studies in this project was to enable the questionnaire batch for the internet. Using internet as a research tools has both advantages and disadvantages. One clear advantage of having the survey online is that there is little restriction on how many participants can be recruited in comparison to paper and pencil methods (Couper, 2000, 2001). The only prerequisite is that respondents have access to a computer with internet connection. Moreover, there is some evidence that individuals disclose more information about themselves on online surveys when compared to face to face interviews (see Buchanan, Johnson and Goldberg, 2005). However, there are also a number of challenges and disadvantages that arise when using the internet as a research tool. The nature of online research implies a lack of control of the environmental settings in which the survey is completed (Couper, 2000, 2001, Kraut et al., 2003). While this is more of a problem for online experiments (Reips, 2002) than for surveys, a problem that can arise for survey studies is that the anonymous nature of the internet might encourage intentionally damaging forms of data submission (Kraut et al., 2003). Even without negative intent, data distortion can arise through multiple submissions (Couper, 2000; Kraut et al., 2003) or high dropout rates (Kraut et al., 2003). These potentially detrimental forms of submission can be addressed through a number of means, for example by tracking IP addresses or careful scanning of data. A further caveat in internet based research is that of sampling. As the responses are restricted to the internet and most online surveys rely on opportunity samples of volunteers, the generalization of results is compounded (Kraut, et al., 2003). However, for psychological investigations such as the present study, a sample of internet users is preferable to one of

69

university students, on which most psychological theory is tested (Kraut, et al. 2003). As the present study aims at investigating religious and non-religious beliefs, a wide range of respondents with varying beliefs are desirable. University students might constitute a too homogenous group in terms of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. As there is a wide presence of both religious and explicitly secular and non-religious groups on the web, an internet sample was seen as more appropriate for the aims of this study. However, the limitations of internet sampling need to be considered in the interpretation of the results.

2.1.5.3.7

Analysis strategy

Most data analysis within psychology employs parametric statistics and use the arithmetic mean and standard deviation as measures of central tendency and dispersion (see for instance Loewenthal, 2001). For differences between in mean between two groups, the independent two- sample t-test is generally employed, while analysis of variance is used in more complex grouping situations. As a measure of the relationship between two continuous variables, the Pearson‟s product moment coefficient is used (see Loewenthal et al., 2001). Parametric tests assume a number of properties regarding the distribution of the data collected. One important assumption is that the distribution of the variable being tested follows a normal distribution (Tabachnik and Fidell, 2001; Field 2005; Brace et al., 2006). However, Miceri (1989) surveyed 440 large sample studies using psychometric measures and employing parametric statistics. He found that all of these violate the assumptions of the normal distribution. He concluded that normality is probably a “myth” in most real life data and that “extremes of asymmetry and lumpiness are more rule than exception” (p.161). When assumptions of parametric statistics are violated, a number of measures can be taken to ensure a robust analysis. One possibility is the transformation of variables so that the 70

transformed data conform to normality (Tabachnik and Fidell, 2001). However, transformation of the key variables to normalise their distribution was judged as being a sub – optimal solution for this study, as transformation, for instance using a logarithm, makes the interpretation of the variables difficult. As the Existential Orientation Scale is a descriptive scale, indicating relative strengths of beliefs, transforming the resulting scores was inappropriate in this case because this would change the construct in question (Greyson, 2004). A further possible alternative is the use of non-parametric tests that make no assumptions about the distribution of the data (Field, 2005). When choosing between parametric and nonparametric statistics, Motulsky (1995) asserts that when sample sizes are large enough (>100) the decision becomes less important, as nonparametric statistic are powerful enough to detect differences in normally distributed data, and parametric statistic robust enough to detect differences in non-normally distributed data. As this study aims towards a large sample size to validate the scale, the strategy of data analysis was to use parametric statistics. This was deemed a more appropriate solution then using non-parametric statistics for the following reasons: Firstly, based on the central limit theorem, in large sample sizes parametric statistics perform robustly (Motulsky, 1995; King and Minium, 2003).Secondly, as Miceri (1989) shows, most analysis in the behavioural science employs parametric statistics even under conditions of non-normality. Perpetuating a flawed strategy of analysis, i.e. using parametric statistics, when the underlying assumptions are breached, is not an optimal solution. However, it is important that the results of this study can be compared with the wider psychological literature and therefore parametric analysis appears more desirable. Thirdly, parametric tests are seen as robust against some deviations of normality (King and Minium, 2003; LeVoi, 2005). 71

Based on the above considerations, parametric statistics were used to examine the data: for differences between two means, the independent twos sample t-test was employed. For differences between more than two means, the one way analysis of variance was employed. Both of these tests are seen as robust in large samples even under violation of the normality assumption (Sullivan and D'Agostino, 1992; LeVoi, 2005). For associations between continuous variables, the Pearson‟s product moment correlation was employed. This test also shows satisfactory robustness in large samples even under conditions of non-normality (Fowler, 1987) and when skewness is not too extreme (S), (2) the male brain, in which systemising is more developed than empathising (S