12 - 3 Persoane PDF

Spirituality: Description, Measurement,
and Relation to the Five Factor Model

of Personality
Douglas A. MacDonald
University of Windsor
ABSTRACT The present article focused on the development and measure-

ment of a factor model of the expressions of spirituality. Study 1 (N = 534)
involved the use of factor analysis to examine the latent factor structure in a
sample of 11 measures of spiritual constructs. Study 2 (N = 938) focused on the
replication of Study 1 results and on the construction and initial validation of an
instrument to operationalize the factor model of spirituality. Results indicate that
at least 5 robust dimensions of spirituality underlie the spirituality test domain.
These dimensions were labeled Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality
(COS), Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension (EPD), Existential Well-Be-
ing (EWB), Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), and Religiousness (REL). The measure
developed, named the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI), takes the form
of a 98-item instrument that generated scores demonstrating satisfactory
This article is based on the doctoral dissertation of the author completed at the University
of Windsor.
The author would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in the
completion of this project: Dr. Cornelius J. Holland, Bob Dario, Joel Gagnier, Kris Gene,
Clementina Iampietro, Jeff Kuentzel, and Andrew Taylor. As well, the author would like
to thank the associate editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their numerous helpful
comments.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Douglas A. MacDon-
ald, at Special Services, Greater Essex County District School Board, 451 Park Street
West, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9A 5V4 or at 3115 Morris Drive, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada N9E 2K1.
Journal of Personality 68:1, February 2000.

Copyright © 2000 by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.
154 MacDonald
reliability and adequate initial validity. Examination of the relation of spirituality

to the Five Factor Model (FFM) as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory-
Revised revealed that the dimensions of the FFM appear to differentially relate
to the major elements of spirituality but are nevertheless conceptually unique,
pointing to the possible existence of major aspects of personality not represented
in the FFM.
Throughout the history of scientific psychology, spirituality has held an

ambiguous status, traditionally relegated to the realm of religion and
religiousness, and often being perceived as a construct that is not acces-
sible to empirical research methodologies, and/or indicative of pathology
(e.g., Ellis, 1985, 1986; Ellis & Yeager, 1989; Freud, 1985; Grof, 1985;
Hill & Smith, 1985; Hoge, 1996; Jones, 1994; Leuba, 1925; Skinner,
1953; Walsh & Vaughan, 1991; Wilber, 1990; Zinnbauer et al., 1997).
Nevertheless, in recent years, an increasing amount of theoretical, scien-
tific, and professional literature has appeared that is concerned with the
conceptualization and/or measurement of spirituality (e.g., Hood, Spilka,
Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 1996; Ingersoll, 1994), as well as with the
exploration of its relevance to human functioning and the practice of
psychology, medicine, and counseling (e.g., Kelly, 1995; Krippner &
Welsh, 1992; Lawlis, 1996; Richards & Bergin, 1997; Scotton, Chinen,
& Battista, 1996; Shafranske, 1996).
Interestingly, this growing corpus of literature, especially the empirical
investigations, provides compelling indications not only that spirituality
may be meaningfully studied but that it also has a high degree of import
for most human beings. For example, research suggests that (a) a fair
proportion of people have spiritual experiences; 5–40% of the general
population and 50% of psychologists surveyed report having had at least
one spiritual experience (Allman, de la Roche, Elkins, & Weathers, 1992;
Davis & Smith, 1985; Greeley, 1974; Kass, Friedman, Leserman, Zutter-
meister, & Benson, 1991; Lukoff & Lu, 1988; Lukoff, Turner, & Lu,
1993; Ring, 1985; Thomas & Cooper, 1978); (b) the practice of spiritual
disciplines such as prayer or meditation, irrespective of an acceptance of,
or adherence to, a specific religious faith, is associated with increased
numbers of spiritual experiences (e.g., Glueck & Stroebel, 1978; Murphy,
1992; Walsh & Vaughan, 1980); and (c) the occurrence of spiritual
experiences has been associated with psychological and physical well-
being (e.g., Hay & Morisey, 1978; Hood, 1974, 1977a, 1977b; Hood,
Hall, Watson, & Biderman, 1979; Maslow, 1962, 1970; Murphy, 1992).
Spirituality and the Five Factor Model 155
Incidentally, while psychologists appear to adopt an ambivalent stance

regarding the importance of religion (e.g., 50–60% of psychologists
surveyed refer to themselves as agnostics or atheists), research suggests
that spirituality may be seen as personally relevant by a higher proportion
of them; 33–68% of psychologists report that spirituality is important
(Bergen & Jensen, 1990; Lukoff, Turner, & Lu, 1992, 1993; Shafranske
& Gorsuch, 1984).
Certainly, given the findings of the available research and the blossom-
ing interest witnessed in psychology, it appears that the study of spiritu-
ality is currently viewed by the scientific and professional community as
a more acceptable, and perhaps even more important, enterprise than it
has ever been in any time previous.When a close examination of the
existing literature is undertaken, however, it becomes readily apparent
that one is not dealing with a coherent and identifiable body of theory
and research. Instead, one encounters largely unrelated clusters of work
spanning several disciplines including anthropology, comparative reli-
gious studies, sociology, medicine, nursing, philosophy, as well as from
a number of subareas of psychology (e.g., analytical psychology, human-
istic/existential psychology, psychology of religion, clinical psychology,
and transpersonal psychology). By association, the numerous conceptual
models and measures of spirituality that have been already developed,
though impressive, present a largely confusing picture as to the actual
nature and content of the construct and do not readily lend themselves to
rigorous comparison, thereby compromising the development of a cumu-
lative body of knowledge. For example, a recent literature review uncov-
ered over 70 psychometric instruments designed to assess spirituality and
related constructs (MacDonald, LeClair, Holland, Alter, & Friedman,
1995). Though a handful of measures have found some success in
generating empirical research such as Hood’s (1975) Mystical Experi-
ences Scale and Paloutzian and Ellison’s (1982) Spiritual Well-Being
Scale, most of the instruments were developed from different theoretical
influences and for varying research purposes. Moreover, the tests reflect
unique and independent operationalizations of their respective con-
structs. Ostensibly, cogent comparison of research findings based upon
these measures is difficult, if not impossible. The general status of
spirituality as a scientific construct can be summarized by Hoge (1996,
p. 21): “. . . the term spiritual has such vague and unbounded meanings
that it is barely useful, and it fits poorly—if at all—with prevailing
psychological theories.”
156 MacDonald
At present, in response to the amorphous nature of the concept of

spirituality, research has appeared that has taken a more broad-based
methodological approach to its definition and measurement. For exam-
ple, based upon an original item pool that was constructed from a wide
sampling of opinion obtained from various social sources ranging from
experts to laypersons, Wolman (1997) completed a study aimed at
generating a measurement model of spirituality and obtained a seven-
dimensional model. In a somewhat different vein, Zinnbauer et al.
(1997) completed an investigation combining both qualitative and quan-
titative methods aimed at clarifying the relation between spirituality and
religiousness and observed that these constructs are unique but related in
significant ways. None of these more integrative and critical studies,
however, addresses, explains, or incorporates the already existing models
and measures of spirituality. Consequently, though they provide some
assistance in concretizing the conceptual nature of spirituality, it is
difficult to ascertain whether they offer anything more valid or useful
than what is currently available. In fact, from an empirical scientific
standpoint, it may be argued that until serious efforts are made to organize
existing formulations of spirituality, any future research will likely only
contribute to a further fragmentation and obfuscation of scientific
knowledge regarding spirituality.
The purpose of the present investigation was to develop and measure
a descriptive organizational model of spirituality that could be used as
framework for structuring existing scientific knowledge and as a basis
for guiding future research. Recognizing the success of factor analysis
within psychology for bringing order to construct domains such as
personality, self-esteem, and self-concept (Briggs & Cheek, 1986; Costa
& McCrae, 1992), and the fact that no efforts have been made to apply
such methods to the organization of available measures of spirituality and
associated constructs, the author elected to focus this research on the use
of factor analytic procedures to explore the existence of a meaningful
factor structure underlying spirituality assessment instruments and then
to use this factor structure to develop a comprehensive measure.
In addition, the present research aimed at examining the association
of spirituality to personality, and in particular, the Five Factor Model of
personality (FFM). Research directly investigating the relation of the
FFM to variables of a religious or spiritual nature is virtually nonexistent
in the literature. This is surprising given that the FFM has been success-
fully utilized in studies looking at the relation of personality to a wide
range of constructs including intelligence, health, and psychopathology

(Costa & McCrae, 1992; Holland, Holland, Dollinger, & MacDonald,
1995). The research that has been completed has found the FFM to be
largely unrelated to spiritual constructs and natural language adjectives
associated with spirituality and religiousness (MacDonald, Tsagarakis,
& Holland, 1994; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998; Svrakic, Whitehead, Przy-
beck, & Cloninger, 1993).
In order to accomplish the goals of this investigation, two studies were
completed. The first centered on the use of exploratory factor analysis to
devise a common factor model of spirituality based upon empirical
relationships found to exist between a sample of measures of spiritual
constructs selected to be representative of the spirituality test domain.
The second study was oriented at replicating the factor structure of
spirituality found in Study 1 using a pool of original items as well as a
number of marker variables taken from Study 1 measures. Furthermore,
Study 2 worked toward the development and initial validation of a
psychometric measure of the common factor model. Finally, both factor
analytic and correlational analyses were completed examining the rela-
tion of the common factor measure of spirituality to personality.
Study 1
Study 1 concerned the use of exploratory factor analytic procedures to
determine whether coherent latent factors underlie existing measures of
spiritual constructs that could be used as the basis of an organizational
model of spirituality. The application of exploratory procedures was done
in a manner largely consistent with the recommendations of statisticians
and experts in factor analysis (e.g., Comrey, 1973, 1988; Gorsuch, 1983,
1997; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). The essential components of this
procedure consisted of (a) analysis of available theory and research,
(b) selection of representative measures, and (c) selection of factor
extraction and rotation procedures. Matters pertaining to the selection of
computational procedures can be found in the Results section. The former
two elements are briefly outlined below.
Analysis of theory and research. Extensive surveys of both the theoreti-

cal and empirical literature were completed in order to generate initial
inclusionary and exclusionary assumptions regarding the content domain
comprising spirituality (see MacDonald, 1997, for detailed discussion of
158 MacDonald
literature review and assumptions). These assumptions can be summa-

rized as follows: (a) spirituality is a multidimensional construct that
includes complex experiential, cognitive, affective, physiological, behav-
ioral, and social components; (b) spirituality is inherently an experiential
phenomenon/construct that includes experiences labeled spiritual,
religious, peak, mystical, transpersonal, transcendent, and numinous;
(c) spirituality is accessible to all people and qualitative and quantitative
differences in the expressions of spirituality can be measured across
individuals; (d) spirituality is not synonymous with religion but reflects
a construct domain that includes intrinsic religiousness; and (e) spiritu-
ality includes paranormal beliefs, experiences, and practices.1
Selection of representative measures. Based upon the delineation of the

content domain as per the assumptions, the author then examined the
instruments presented in MacDonald et al. (1995) and selected those that
seemed to be representative of the content domain of spirituality. Selec-
tion of instruments was guided by the use of three criteria. First, to have
been selected for use, an instrument must have tapped into an aspect of
spirituality that not only was assumed to be a part of spirituality but that
also was unique relative to other available measures. Uniqueness of the
measure could have concerned its construction as well as its content. This
“representative-uniqueness” criterion aided in ensuring that the widest
range of measures was selected. Second, for an instrument to be selected
its scores must have been shown to demonstrate satisfactory validity and
reliability. Third, the measures had to be parsimonious; that is, instru-
ments needed to be made up of as few test items as possible. When the
task of applying the selection criteria was completed, it resulted in the
selection of 11 instruments that assessed the following constructs: spiri-
tuality, spiritual orientation, spiritual experience, mystical experience,
peak experience, intrinsic religious motivation, paranormal beliefs, trans-
personal self-concept, transpersonal orientation to learning, Eastern ver-
sus Western worldview, and ego grasping.
1. Though the inclusion of paranormal beliefs, experiences and practices as an element

of spirituality may appear to be questionable, available literature clearly indicates that
spiritual and religious systems accommodate belief in the existence of such phenomena
(Feuerstein, 1989; Murphy, 1992; Taimni, 1961).
METHOD
Participants
Participants consisted of 567 University of Windsor undergraduate students who
were recruited from psychology classes in Fall 1994. The sample consisted of
144 males and 423 females. The ratio of male to female participants is similar
to that observed in existing research that has used samples drawn from the same
university student population (e.g., MacDonald, Anderson, Tsagarakis, & Hol-
land, 1994). Ages ranged from 17 to 52 years with a mean of 20.94 years (SD
= 4.06). All persons participated based upon written informed consent and each
received a three mark experimental credit that applied toward their psychology
course grade.
Measures
The measures utilized consisted of the following:
(a) Spirituality Assessment Scale (SAS; Howden, 1992), a 28-item measure
that operationalizes spirituality in terms of four dimensions (i.e., Unifying
Interconnectedness, Innerness, Transcendence, and Purpose and Meaning
In Life).
(b) Spiritual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Elkins, Hedstrom, Hughes, Leaf, &
Saunders, 1988), an 85-item instrument that consists of nine subscales
(Transcendent Dimension, Altruism, Awareness of the Tragic, Idealism,
Material Values, Sacredness in Life, Mission in Life, Fruits of Spirituality,
Meaning and Purpose in Life).
(c) Index of Core Spiritual Experience (INSPIRIT; Kass, Friedman, Leser-
man, Zuttermeister, & Benson, 1991), a 7-item measure of spiritual
experience that defines the construct as involving an experience that
results in the belief in the existence of a higher power and the perception
of a personal relationship with that higher power.
(d) Mystical Experiences Scale (MES; Hood, 1975), a 32-item operationali-
zation of eight of the nine dimensions of mystical experience delineated
by Stace (1960) (e.g., Unifying Quality, Ineffability, Inner Subjective
Quality, Temporal-Spatial Quality, Positive Affect, Religious Quality,
Noetic Quality, and Ego Quality).
(e) Peak Experiences Scale (PES; Mathes, Zevon, Roter, & Joerger, 1982), a
70-item instrument designed to tap the tendency to have peak experiences
as defined by Maslow (1970).
160 MacDonald
(f) Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale (IRMS; Hoge, 1972), a 10-item scale
constructed to tap the aspect of intrinsic religious motivation identified
and defined by Hunt and King (1971) as ultimate versus instrumental
religious motivation.
(g) Self-Expansiveness Level Form (SELF; Friedman, 1983), a measure of
self-concept that consists of 18 items divided into three subscales repre-
sentative of varying levels of identity (i.e., Personal, Middle, and Trans-
personal).
(h) Transpersonal Orientation to Learning (TOTL; Shapiro & Fitzgerald,
1989), a 40-item instrument designed to assess the extent to which an
individual adopts a transpersonal or spiritual stance to learning and
education and consists of four subscales labeled Fantasy Techniques
Applied in Schools, Mysticism Preferred to Science as an Epistemology,
Mystical/Occult/Paranormal Techniques Applied to Schools, and Tran-
scendent Consciousness.
(i) Ego Grasping Orientation (EGO; Knoblauch & Falconer, 1986), a mea-
sure of Taoist orientation that assesses ego grasping and is composed of
20 true/false items.
(j) East-West Questionnaire (EWQ; Gilgen & Cho, 1979), a 68-item
inventory that is designed to measure the degree to which a person
maintains traditional Eastern and Western worldviews and values and
consists of scales that assess specific areas of values such as the
relationship of humans to nature, society, spirituality, rationality, and
to themselves.
(k) Paranormal Beliefs Scale (PBS; Tobacyk & Milford, 1983), an instrument
made up of 25 items that are divided across seven subscales seen to
comprise the major areas of paranormal belief (e.g., Traditional Religious
Belief, Spiritualism, Precognition, Psi Beliefs, Witchcraft, Superstitious-
ness, and Extraordinary Life Forms).
All instruments have been shown to generate scores that have adequate reliabil-
ity. As well, most instruments have satisfactory evidence in support of score
validity (see MacDonald et al., 1995, for detailed descriptions of the measures
and their psychometric properties).
Procedure
The instruments were administered in the form of a larger standardized
battery (see MacDonald, 1997), which was completed by all participants
at 1 of 18 prearranged testing sessions. After the completion of a simple
pilot study that indicated that order or fatigue effects did not have a systematic
impact on responses due to the sequence in which the tests were completed, 2
the test battery consisted of the measures administered in the following
order: INSPIRIT, SELF, EGO, EWQ, PBS, IRMS, MES, TOTL, SAS, SOI, and
PES. Most participants were able to complete the battery in approximately 2 to
2½ hours. The number of participants at each session ranged from 8 to 60, with
a mean of about 32 students per session.
RESULTS
After eliminating 33 participants due to incomplete materials or spoiled
responses (as reflected in perseverative or random response patterns), the
final sample used in Study 1 consisted of 534 students made up of 136
males and 398 females. The age mean was 21.00 years (SD = 4.16; range
= 17–52). With the exception of the EWQ, all instruments were scored
as per the instructions of the test authors (Elkins et al., 1988; Friedman,
1983; Hoge, 1972; Hood, 1975; Howden, 1992; Kass et al., 1991;3
Knoblauch & Falconer, 1986; Mathes et al., 1982; Shapiro & Fitzgerald,
1989; Tobacyk & Milford, 1983). For the EWQ, instead of using the
recommended scoring procedure, which involves calculating the percentage
2. The pilot study consisted of administering two quasirandomly determined orderings

of questionnaires to two groups of 36 participants and calculating one-way ANOVAs
using test order as the independent variable and all questionnaire scale scores as
dependent variables. Group One completed materials presented in the following order:
INSPIRIT, SELF, EGO, EWQ, PBS, IRMS, MES, TOTL, SAS, SOI, and PES, while
Group Two completed materials arranged as follows: MES, SAS, EGO, SELF, PES,
TOTL, IRMS, PBS, EWQ, SOI, and INSPIRIT. As well, an additional measure, not
included in this investigation, was included at the end and beginning of the respective
test batteries. Of all the ANOVAs calculated, only four were significant. These included
EWQ-Man and Society-Western, F(1, 70) = 7.12, p < .01, Group One mean = 23.67,
Group Two mean = 25.97; EWQ-Western Total, F(1, 70) = 7.95, p <. 01, Group One
mean = 102.17, Group Two mean = 109.17; SELF-Personal subscale, F(1, 70) = 4.67,
p < .05, Group One mean = 20.75, Group Two mean = 22.39; and SELF-Middle subscale,
F(1, 70) = 7.05, p < .01, Group One mean = 29.22, Group Two mean = 32.36. Given the
small number of significant ANOVAs and the absence of a more notable trend of score
differences across all the instruments used, it was concluded that order and fatigue effects
did not appear to present as a serious issue.
3. For the INSPIRIT, it was unclear as to how to score “can’t answer” responses
(e.g., Kass et al., 1991, do not indicate if a numerical weight should be assigned to
these responses or if they should be dropped from scale score calculations). In light
of this, the author elected to code such responses zero and to include them in scale
score computations.
162 MacDonald
of Eastern orientation score (see Gilgen & Cho, 1979), scoring simply
consisted of summing item responses for each subscale across both
Eastern and Western orientations independently thereby creating sepa-
rate subscale and total scores for these respective orientations (i.e., 12
scores in total; 5 subscale and 1 total score for Eastern and Western,
respectively).
Descriptive statistics and scale reliability coefficients were calculated
for all instruments used. Means, standard deviations, and minimum-
maximum scores obtained for all spirituality measures generally fell
within expected ranges. Calculation of coefficient alpha to examine the
reliability of the scale scores revealed that most spirituality measures
generated coefficients falling between .70 and .96. Scores from a number
of scales, however, produced less than satisfactory alphas (i.e., alphas
ranging from .23 to .66), including all 10 of the EWQ subscales, three
subscales from the MES (Ego Quality, Positive Affect, and Inner Subjec-
tive Quality), the Transcendence subscale of the SAS, and the SOI-
Awareness of the Tragic subscale. The mean alpha across all measures
was .72.
Factor Analyses of Spirituality Measures

A series of principal axis factor analyses was performed on the instru-
ments used in Study 1. In an effort to ensure that the largest number of
constructs were represented in the analyses, subscale scores were utilized
as opposed to total scores where possible. Thus, for example, total scores
for the EGO, INSPIRIT, IRMS, and PES were used since they have no
subscales. Subscales were employed, however, for the EWQ, MES, PBS,
SAS, SELF, SOI, and TOTL. Though items might have been used in place
of subscales for analyses, the author decided against it on the basis that
items tend to be less reliable than composite scores for factor analytic
purposes (Gorsuch, 1997).
Preliminary analysis. A preliminary analysis that indiscriminately used

all scales/subscales as described above was completed in order to get an
initial sense of the complexity of the factor solution and to determine
which, if any, scales should be excluded from subsequent analyses.
Calculations resulted in the extraction of 11 factors with eigenvalues
greater than one, which accounted for 54.8% of the score variance.
Following varimax rotation, the pattern of rotated factor loadings
obtained revealed that all but two of the variables employed (i.e., EWQ-
Man and Himself-Eastern and TOTL-Mysticism Preferred to Science as
an Epistemology) obtained a loading of at least .30 on one or more
factors. Moreover, with the additional exclusion of EWQ-Man and
Society-Eastern, EWQ-Rationality of Man-Eastern, SELF-Middle
subscale, SELF-Transpersonal subscale, and TOTL-Fantasy Techniques
Applied to Schools, all variables produced one or more loadings of .30
or greater on the first seven factors.
In recognition of the fact that the stability and meaningfulness of factor
structures are negatively impacted by the inclusion of variables that have
poor reliability and/or do not correlate highly with other variables in the
analysis, the author chose to eliminate variables that did not produce
scores with adequate reliability coefficients and/or demonstrate direct
theoretical relevance to the construct of spirituality. Once the purging
process was completed, the following scales were identified as generat-
ing unreliable scores and/or scores minimally relevant to the construct of
spirituality: EWQ-Man and Himself-Eastern, EWQ-Man and Himself-
Western, EWQ-Man and Nature-Eastern, EWQ-Man and Nature-Western,
E W Q- M a n a n d Society-Ea stern, EWQ-Man and Society-
Western, EWQ-Rationality of Man-Eastern, EWQ-Rationality of Man-
Western, SELF-Personal subscale, and SELF-Middle subscale. These
variables were excluded from all further factor analyses.
Factor analyses of remaining spirituality scales. Three principal axis

factor analyses4 were completed on the remaining 39 scales/subscales
using the entire sample (N = 534) and two quasirandomly selected
subsamples (n = 267). In the case of all three analyses, initial solutions
(generated through the liberal extraction criterion of R > 1) were varimax
rotated and the rotated factor loadings examined to determine which
factors showed stability (as indicated by appreciable replication across
all three analyses) and interpretability (as indicated by a factor containing
three of more elevated factor loadings, i.e., a loading .30 or greater).
4. In order to assess the impact of zero score substitutions for missing item responses
on the INSPIRIT on the obtained seven factor solution, two principal axis factor analyses
were run, the first including only participant data that did not contain any such substitu-
tions, and a second that excluded the INSPIRIT all together. The resulting solutions were
largely identical to those done using data containing zero score response substitutions.
164 MacDonald
Calculations for the total sample and two subsamples resulted in

solutions consisting of eight, eight, and nine factors, which accounted for
54.6, 57.0, and 56.5% of the score variance, respectively. Inspection of
the obtained factor loadings revealed that the first seven factors in all
three solutions appeared similar in terms of the number and pattern of
significant loadings. Table 1 presents the salient loadings obtained in the
analysis using the entire sample.
The development of preliminary descriptive labels for each of the
seven stable factors involved examining the conceptual relatedness of the
scales that loaded on each factor as well as detailed inspections of relevant
Table 1
Salient Factor Loadings Obtained From Principal Axis Factor
Analysis of Measures of Constructs Deemed Representative of the
Spirituality Test Domain
Scale/Subscale Loading
Factor One: Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension
Mystical Experiences Scale-Unifying Quality .74
Mystical Experiences Scale-Time-Space Quality .68
Mystical Experiences Scale-Positive Affect .68
Mystical Experiences Scale-Ego Quality .65
Mystical Experiences Scale-Noetic Quality .65
Mystical Experiences Scale-Inner Subjective Quality .58
Mystical Experiences Scale-Religious Quality .55
Mystical Experiences Scale-Ineffability .52
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Transcendent Dimension .40
Peak Experiences Scale .39
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Sacredness in Life .31
Spirituality Assessment Scale-Transcendence .30
Factor Two: Cognitive-Affective Orientation to Spirituality
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Idealism .75
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Mission in Life .73
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Meaning and Purpose in Life .71
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Altruism .68
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Sacredness in Life .64
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Awareness of the Tragic .51
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Material Values .48
Spirituality Assessment Scale-Unifying Interconnectedness .42
Spirituality Assessment Scale-Innerness .32
Table 1 (cont.)
Factor Three: Paranormal and Occult Beliefs
Paranormal Beliefs Scale-Spiritualism .79
Paranormal Beliefs Scale-Psi Beliefs .76
Paranormal Beliefs Scale-Witchcraft .70
Paranormal Beliefs Scale-Precognition .63
Transpersonal Orientation To Learning-Transcendent
Consciousness .50
Paranormal Beliefs Scale-Extraordinary Life Forms .48
Paranormal Beliefs Scale-Superstitiousness .34
Transpersonal Orientation To Learning-Mystical/Occult/
Paranormal Techniques Applied to Schools .34
Factor Four: Religiousness
East-West Questionnaire-Man and the Spiritual, Western .77
Paranormal Beliefs Scale-Traditional Religious Beliefs .75
Index of Core Spiritual Experience .63
Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale –.57
East-West Questionnaire-Man and the Spiritual, Eastern –.56
Mystical Experiences Scale-Religious Quality .42
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Meaning and Purpose In Life .30
Factor Five: Products of Spirituality
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Fruits of Spirituality .73
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Transcendent Dimension .71
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Material Values .51
Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale –.51
Index of Core Spiritual Experience .42
Spiritual Orientation Inventory-Meaning and Purpose In Life .33
Factor Six: Existential Well-Being/Positive Self-Appraisal
Spirituality Assessment Scale-Innerness .70
Spirituality Assessment Scale-Purpose and Meaning In Life .69
Ego Grasping Orientation –.51
Spirituality Assessment Scale-Unifying Interconnectedness .51
Spirituality Assessment Scale-Transcendence .44
166 MacDonald
Factor Seven: Styles/Techniques of Learning Which
Involve the Manipulation of States of Consciousness
Transpersonal Orientation to Learning-Mystical/Occult/
Paranormal Techniques Applied to Schools .68
Transpersonal Orientation to Learning-Fantasy Techniques
Applied to Schools .58
Transpersonal Orientation to Learning-Transcendent
Consciousness .38
Note. N = 534. Reported factor loadings based on varimax rotated solution. Loadings for
each factor are organized in decreasing order of magnitude. For Intrinsic Religious
Motivation Scale, it should be noted that the measure is scored such that lower scores
reflect higher levels of intrinsic religious motivation.
item content. Based on such an examination, the following factor labels

were generated: factor one—Experiential/Phenomenological Dimen-
sion, factor two—Cognitive-Affective Orientation to Spirituality, factor
three—Paranormal and Occult Beliefs, factor four—Religiousness, fac-
tor five—Products of Spirituality, factor six—Existential Well-Being/
Positive Self-Appraisal, and factor seven—Styles/Techniques of Learn-
ing Which Involve the Manipulation of States of Consciousness.
Study 2
Study 2 was comprised of a number of interdependent phases. These
included (a) generating evidence regarding the invariance of the common
factor model of spirituality by replicating the Study 1 factor structure
with marker variables selected from Study 1 instruments as well as with
an original pool of items/variables, (b) using the original item pool as the
basis of a new instrument that assesses the common factors, (c) providing
initial evidence regarding the score validity and reliability of the new
instrument by examining its scale score reliability, factorial validity,
empirical relatedness to measures of theoretically similar and dissimilar
constructs, and relationship to external variables (e.g., age, sex, religious
affiliation, religious involvement and reported spiritual experience), and
(d) employing the new factorial measure of spirituality to examine the
relation of spirituality to the Five Factor Model of personality.
METHOD
Participants
Participants consisted of 993 undergraduate students (286 males, 706 females)
at the University of Windsor who were enrolled in psychology classes during
Fall 1996 and Winter 1997. The ratio of male to female participants is generally
consistent with that observed in Study 1. The mean age was 21.02 years (SD =
4.45) with a range of 17 to 55 years. All students who participated did so based
upon written informed consent and all participants received up to three experi-
mental point credits that applied toward their final psychology course grade.
Measures
Expressions of Spirituality Scale (ESS; MacDonald, 1997). The ESS is a
218-item preliminary measure that was developed by the author from an original
rationally constructed item pool of 400 items, which were intended to reflect
and extend upon six of the seven stable factors obtained in the Study 1 factor
analysis of spirituality measures. The Study 1 factor labeled Styles/Techniques
of Learning Which Involve the Manipulation of States of Consciousness was
not included, since it did not appear to reflect the degree of complexity observed
in the other replicated Study 1 spirituality factors (e.g., unlike the other six
factors that were composed of two or more measures, Styles/Techniques of
Learning contained scales only from the TOTL).
Consistent with this, items were developed to tap Cognitive-Affective Orien-
tation to Spirituality, Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension, Existential
Well-Being, Paranormal and Occult Beliefs, Products of Spirituality, and Reli-
giousness. Several items were constructed that were intended to assess elements
of spirituality not adequately represented in the instruments used in Study 1
including paranormal experience (e.g., near-death, out-of-body), religious ex-
perience, identification with the spiritual (i.e., spiritual identity), and spirituality
and approach to problem solving (e.g., spiritual intuition or insight). Moreover,
a number of items were included that were aimed at extending the Products of
Spirituality Dimension by focusing on areas such as the positive impact of
spirituality on physical health, psychoemotional functioning, psychosocial func-
tioning, and lifestyle. Lastly, the author extended the Paranormal and Occult
Beliefs dimension by incorporating items that were designed to assess belief in
shamanism.
The ESS employed a 5-point response scale ranging from 0 (Strongly Disagree)
to 4 (Strongly Agree). The items of the ESS were rationally divided into seven
dimensions that were labeled as follows: Cognitive-Affective Orientation Dimen-
sion (CAOD—44 items), Experiential-Phenomenological Dimension (EPD—44
items), Existential Well-Being (EWB—20 items), Paranormal and Occult
168 MacDonald
Beliefs (POB—20 items), Religiousness (RELD—30 items), Products of Spiri-

tuality (PSD—50 items), and Identity (ID—10 items). In order to combat
response sets, half of the items of each dimension were negatively worded.
Positive and negative items were ordered in an alternating fashion throughout
the test. Dimension scores were obtained by first reverse scoring the negatively
phrased items and then summing the item responses.
Supplementary Spirituality Scale (SSS). The SSS is a measure that was con-
structed to serve as an empirical representation of the instruments, and obtained
factors, from Study 1 (i.e., marker variables). The SSS was developed using an
empirical test construction strategy. In particular, the items, taken verbatim from
the Study 1 measures, were selected based on the following criteria: (a) the item
belonged to a scale that obtained a factor loading of .35 or higher in Study 1
factor analyses, (b) the subscale to which the item belonged loaded consistently
on the same factor in Study 1 analyses, and (c) the item had the highest corrected
item-to-scale total correlation of all items belonging to the scale. The only
exception to the use of these selection criteria involved the items from the
EWQ-Man and the Spiritual-Eastern and Western subscales, respectively.
Though these scales reliably loaded higher than .35 in Study 1 analyses, they
are composed of only two items each. As a result, the author opted to incorporate
all EWQ-Man and the Spiritual-Eastern and EWQ-Man and the Spiritual-
Western items in the SSS. Consequently, nine items were utilized from the SOI,
eight from the MES, six from the PBS, four from the SAS, four from the EWQ,
and one each from the PES, EGO, INSPIRIT, IRMS, and TOTL.
The SSS was made up of 36 items that were rated by respondents on a 5-point
scale ranging from 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). The items were
unevenly divided into six dimensions or subscales, Cognitive-Affective Orien-
tation (CAOD—8 items), Experiential-Phenomenological Dimension
(EPD—10 items), Existential Well-Being (EWB—5 items), Religiousness
(RELD—8 items), Paranormal and Occult Beliefs (POB—6 items), and Prod-
ucts of Spirituality (PSD—4 items). Dimension scores were obtained by reverse
scoring negatively phrased items and summing the item responses.
Additional instruments employed. A variety of instruments were utilized in
Study 2. These included
(a) Assessment Schedule for Altered States of Consciousness (ASASC; van
Quekelberghe, Altstotter-Gleich, & Hertweck, 1991), a 325-item inven-
tory designed to serve as a comprehensive measure of altered states of
consciousness that consists of 14 subscales of which all but the Personal
Data subscale were used in this investigation (e.g., Extraordinary Mental
Processes, Parapsychology-Own Experiences, Parapsychology-
Own View, Esoterics, Positive Mystic Experiences, Negative Mystic
Experiences, Imagination, Dreams, Dissociation, Hallucinations, Hyper-

sensitiveness, Changed Feeling of Time and Space, and Change).
(b) Death Transcendence Scale (DTS; Hood & Morris, 1983; Vandecreek &
Nye, 1993), a 25-item scale that assesses the five modes of death transcen-
dence proposed by Lifton (Lifton, 1976, 1979; Lifton & Olson, 1974) (i.e.,
Nature, Biosocial, Religious, Creative, and Mystical).
(c) Ego Permissiveness Inventory (Taft, 1969), a measure of ego permissive-
ness which includes 72 items that tap nine dimensions labeled Peak
Experiences, Dissociated Experiences, Acceptance of Fantasy, Belief in
the Supernatural, Automatic Thought, Confidence in Cognitive Control,
Cognitive Adaptability, Playfulness Versus Endogenous Arousal, and
Emotional Arousal from Social Sources.
(d) Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale (IEROS; Allport & Ross,
1967), a 20-item instrument which consists of two subscales, Extrinsic
and Intrinsic Orientation.
(e) Spirituality Self-Assessment Scale (SSAS; Whitfield, 1984; Corrington,
1989), a scale consisting of 35 items and designed to assess general
spirituality.
(f) Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire (SWBQ; Moberg, 1984), a measure
made up of 43 items divided into seven dimensions that are said to
represent various indices of spiritual well-being (e.g., Christian Faith,
Self-Satisfaction, Personal Piety, Subjective Spiritual Well-Being, Opti-
mism, Religious Cynicism, and Elitism).
(g) Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS; Ellison, 1983; Paloutzian & Ellison,
1982), a 20-item instrument comprised of two subscales designed to assess
Moberg’s conception of spiritual well-being (Moberg, 1971; Moberg &
Brusek, 1978).
(h) Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Crowne & Mar-
lowe, 1960).
(i) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding—Version 6 (BIDR; Paul-
hus, 1988), a 40-item instrument designed to tap a two component model
of social desirability (i.e., Impression Management and Self-Deception).
(j) NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R, Form S; Costa &
McCrae, 1992), a well-researched measure of the Five Factor Model of
personality.
Most of these measures have been shown to generate scores that have
satisfactory reliability and validity (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Crowne & Marlowe,
170 MacDonald
1960; Genia, 1993, Paulhus, 1988; Wulff, 1991; see MacDonald et al., 1995, for
descriptions of the ASASC, DTS, and SWBS). Information for the Ego Permis-
siveness Inventory, the Spirituality Self-Assessment Scale, and the Spiritual
Well-Being Questionnaire, however, was limited in terms of their psychometric
properties.
A general survey form also was included in the test battery that obtained
information regarding religious affiliation (i.e., religion to which participants
identified having membership), religious involvement (i.e., the presence or
absence of any involvement with religion), and spiritual experience (i.e.,
whether participants perceived themselves as having had a spiritual experience).
Procedure
The instruments were administered as parts of three larger test batteries used in
a related investigation (MacDonald, 1997), which participants completed at one
of 39 prescheduled test sessions. Participants were able to complete the measures
in approximately 2 to 2½ hours. The number of participants at each session
ranged from 6 to 55, with a mean of about 25 students per session.
RESULTS
After eliminating the data from 55 participants due to problems with
response validity (e.g., out-of-range responses, perseverative or random
responding) and/or incomplete materials, the final sample consisted of
938 participants, which was made up of 263 males and 675 females. The
mean age was 20.95 years (SD = 4.32) and ages ranged from 17 to 51
years. All questionnaires were scored as per the scoring procedures
specified by the test developers (Allport & Ross, 1967; Costa & McCrae,
1992; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Hood & Morris, 1983; Moberg, 1984;
Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982; Paulhus, 1988; Taft, 1969; vanQuekelberghe
et al., 1991). In the case of the IEROS, in addition to the original scoring
procedures, more recently developed revised scoring procedures were
used in order to address the current literature, which has shown that the
Intrinsic subscale is confounded with behavior and that the Extrinsic
subscale is best represented by two factors: Use of Religion for Personal
Gain (Personal-Extrinsic), and Use of Religion for Social Reward
(Social-Extrinsic) (Genia, 1993).
Phase One: Replication of Study 1

In order to determine if the common factors observed in Study 1 were
replicable, principal axis factor analyses were completed using the item
scores of the Supplementary Spirituality Scale (SSS) and Expressions of
Spirituality Scale (ESS), respectively.5
SSS item analyses. A factor analysis was completed with the number of
factors extracted preset at six. Thereafter, the solution was varimax
rotated. Examination of both the unrotated and rotated solutions indicated
that the first five factors contained numerous elevated loadings, while the
sixth factor housed too few to allow for a meaningful interpretation.
Following this, a second analysis was done, which extracted and varimax
rotated five factors. Inspection of the factor loadings indicated that with
the exception of two items belonging to Existential Well-Being (EWB)
and Religiousness (REL), all items obtained a loading of .30 or greater
on at least one factor and each factor contained 5 to 12 significant
loadings. Factor one was comprised of appreciable loadings from ten
Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension (EPD) items as well as one
item each from Products of Spirituality (PSD) and EWB. Factor two
contained a number of loadings from Cognitive-Affective Orientation
Toward Spirituality (COS), REL, and PSD. Factor three was made up of
loadings from all six Paranormal and Occult Beliefs (POB) items. Factor
four housed strong loadings from four COS items, three EWB items, and
one item from EPD. The fifth factor was composed of elevated loadings
from five REL items. Based upon the pattern of salient factor loadings
and examination of relevant item content, the following labels were
generated: factor one—Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension; fac-
tor two—Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality; factor three—
Paranormal and Occult Beliefs; factor four—Existential Well-Being, and
factor five—Traditional (Judeo-Christian) Religious Beliefs.
5. Due to space limitations, tables reporting the results of item-level factor analyses
involving the SSS, ESS and ESI are not included in this article. These tables, any others
that also were excluded due to space constraints (e.g., factor analysis of NEO-PI-R with
the ESI in Study 2), or a copy of the ESI may be obtained from the author at the address
provided.
172 MacDonald
ESS item analyses. In response to the fact that the ESS consists of
rationally developed items that were constructed not only to represent
and extend upon the content of the factors found in Study 1 but also to
tap content areas not well represented in that study, no attempt was made
in the initial calculations to preset the number of factors extracted, since
it was difficult to determine exactly how many factors might emerge.
Instead, a preliminary analysis was completed using all 218 items of the
ESS, which relied on the factor extraction criterion of R > 2. The resulting
10-factor solution was then varimax rotated. Examination of the rotated
and unrotated loadings, along with a scree test, indicated that the first five
factors appeared to be the most statistically and conceptually substantial.
Subsequently, a second analysis was completed that preset the number
of factors to be extracted at five and then varimax rotated the solution.
Inspection of the content of the items producing salient loadings (i.e., .30
or greater) on these factors resulted in the following labels: factor
one—Cognitive Orientation Toward Spirituality (COS), factor two—
Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension (EPD), factor three—
Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), factor four—Religiousness (REL), and fac-
tor five—Existential Well-Being (EWB).
Relative to the results of Study 1, three of the dimensions were
appreciably replicated in this analysis (i.e., Experiential/Phenomenologi-
cal Dimension, Existential Well-Being, and Religiousness) as was re-
flected in the second, third, and fifth factors, which were comprised of
items designed to tap these dimensions. The remaining two factors,
namely, Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality (factor one) and
Paranormal Beliefs (factor four), though largely the same as Study 1
factors, nonetheless contained somewhat different content. In terms of
the former, which was identified as Cognitive-Affective Orientation to
Spirituality in Study 1, the ESS item analysis indicated that items
pertaining to affect (e.g., compassion) did not load on factor one. In
response, the label of the dimension was modified (i.e., “affective” was
no longer included). Second, items belonging to the ESS-Identity and
ESS-Products of Spirituality dimensions were observed to load markedly
and consistently on factor one. Examination of the content of these items,
however, suggested that they could be interpreted as reflecting a cogni-
tive-perceptual element of spirituality (i.e., the perception that spirituality
plays a role in contributing to one’s identity and/or level of personal
functioning) and thus were not seen as detracting from the overall
meaning of the dimension. In terms of the Paranormal Beliefs dimension,
ESS items that explicitly queried about occult beliefs were seen not to
load on the same factor in the ESS item analysis as the remaining
Paranormal Beliefs items. Thus, the label of the factor was simplified to
reflect this change in content (i.e., “occult” was no longer included).
Stability analyses of ESS factor structure. Examination of the stability

of the factor structure was completed via two split-sample principal axis
factor analyses using two quasirandomly created groups of 469 partici-
pants. Comparison of the two factor solutions indicated that the factors
corresponded to Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality (COS),
Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension (EPD), Existential Well-Being
(EWB), Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), and Religiousness (REL). Items from
the ESS-Identity and ESS-Products of Spirituality scales reliably loaded
upon the factor identified as Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality.
Phase Two: Development of the Expressions

of Spirituality Inventory
Before any further analyses were completed, attention was given to the
refinement of the psychometric properties of the ESS, hereafter called
the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI; MacDonald, 1997), for
its use in further analyses. Given the results of the ESS and SSS item
factor analyses already reported, the development of the modified instru-
ment focused on the five common factors observed, namely Cognitive
Orientation Towards Spirituality (COS), Experiential/Phenomenological
Dimension (EPD), Existential Well-Being (EWB), Paranormal Beliefs
(PAR), and Religiousness (REL). In consideration of the fact that the
items of ESS-Identity and ESS-Products of Spirituality consistently
loaded on Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality, it was decided that
these items would be reassigned to be incorporated into that dimension.
Item revision procedure. The revision of the ESS items involved a sys-
tematic item-selection procedure that relied upon the use of factor and
reliability analyses of both the entire instrument and the dimensions
independently. Items that were ultimately retained for use in the ESI met
several criteria for inclusion. The criteria were as follows: The items must
(a) load .35 or stronger on their expected factors in the three 218-item
factor analyses of the ESS (i.e., analyses using the total sample and two
split-samples), (b) meaningfully contribute to the intradimensional factor
174 MacDonald
structure as reflected in loadings of .35 or greater in factor analyses of

items for each dimension independently, (c) produce a corrected-item-
to-scale/dimension correlation falling between .40 and .80, and (d)
contribute to the scale reliability of the dimensions such that reliability
coefficients are .85 or higher.
Factor analysis of ESI items. At the completion of instrument refine-

ment there remained 98 items. These items were submitted to a principal
axis factor analysis and their stability investigated through two inde-
pendent split-sample analyses. All obtained factors were varimax rotated.
In all three analyses, the five factors clearly represented Cognitive
Orientation Towards Spirituality (COS), Religiousness (REL), Experi-
ential/Phenomenological Dimension (EPD), Paranormal Beliefs (PAR),
and Existential Well-Being (EWB), respectively. All items for each
dimension produced high stable loadings on the expected dimensions. It
is noteworthy that substantial overlap was observed between COS and
REL in the three analyses with many REL items also obtaining strong
loadings on COS but not vice versa.
Factor analysis of ESI items using oblique rotation. In order to deter-

mine the degree of correlation between the factors, a principal axis factor
analysis was completed in which the author preset the number of factors
to be extracted at five. Thereafter, the five factors were obliquely rotated
using a direct oblimin procedure.
Examination of the pattern matrix revealed that the items for all
dimensions produced strong loadings on their expected factors. Only one
item from Religiousness obtained a strong loading on more than one
factor. Inspection of the structure matrix revealed that Cognitive Orien-
tation Towards Spirituality, Religiousness, and Experiential/Phenom-
enological Dimension share a fair degree of common score variance as
reflected in appreciable secondary loadings of items on these dimensions.
Factor correlations were found to range from –.07 to .63 (see Table 2).
Three correlations were observed to be .25 or greater; COS and EPD
(r = .39), COS and REL (r = .63) and PAR and EPD (r = .28).
The means, standard deviations, score ranges, scale score reliability
coefficients, and scale intercorrelations based on dimensional, as op-
posed to factor, scores for the final 98-item version of the ESI can be seen
in Table 3.
Table 2
Factor Intercorrelations Obtained From a Principal Axis Factor
Analysis of the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory
Items Using Oblique Rotation
Factor
1 2 3 4
Factor 2 .13
Factor 3 .39 .28
Factor 4 .08 –.07 .02
Factor 5 .63 –.01 .12 .02
Note. N = 938. Factor labels were assigned as follows: factor one—Cognitive Orientation
Toward Spirituality (COS), factor two—Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), factor three—
Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension (EPD), factor four—Existential Well-Being
(EWB), and factor five—Religiousness (REL).
Higher-order factor analyses of ESI dimensions. In light of the inter-

correlations of the ESI dimensions, a principal axis factor analysis of ESI
dimension scores was undertaken to explore the existence of second-
order factors. The final solution consisted of two factors. The first factor
contained strong loadings from Cognitive Orientation Towards Spiritu-
ality and Religiousness and was named Cognitive and Behavioral Orien-
tation Towards Spirituality and Religion. The second factor contained
elevated loadings from Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension and
Paranormal Beliefs and was labeled Non-Ordinary Experiences and
Beliefs. Existential Well-Being was not observed to load appreciably on
either factor.
Phase Three: Initial Validation of ESI Dimensions

In order to investigate the validity of the ESI, product-moment correla-
tions were calculated between the ESI dimension scores and age, sex,
measures of social desirability, and all measures of spirituality and related
constructs used in Study 2 (see Table 3).
ESI and demographic variables. Inspection of the correlations be-

tween the ESI dimensions and age and sex indicates that Cognitive
Orientation Towards Spirituality and Experiential/Phenomenological Di-
mension were the only dimensions to significantly correlate with age
while all dimensions, save Existential Well-Being, correlated notably
176 MacDonald
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliabilities and Scale Intercorrelations
for ESI and Product-Moment Correlations Between
ESI Dimensions and Age, Sex and Measures of Social Desirability
and Spirituality used in Study 2
ESI Dimensions
COS EPD EWB PAR REL
Number of Items 40 19 9 13 17
Mean 89.86 33.32 21.86 26.91 41.08
Standard Deviation 29.12 12.60 6.20 10.49 14.65
Score Range 3–159 0–73 2–36 0–52 0–68
Alpha .97 .91 .85 .91 .94
Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI)a
COS-Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality
EPD-Experiential/ Phenomenological
Dimension .47
EWB-Existential
Well-Being .09 .00
PAR-Paranormal Beliefs .13 .35 –.04
REL-Religiousness .73 .27 .06 .01
Age .16** .10* .05 –.04 .05
Sexb –.19** –.08* .01 –.19** –.16**
Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale .15** .09 .25** .01 .18**
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
Total Score .14 .08 .27** .05 .11
Self Deceptive
Enhancement .02 .06 .30** .05 .02
Impression Management .21* .07 .15 .02 .15
Assessment Schedule for Altered States of Consciousness (ASASC)
A2-Extraordinary Mental
Processes .12 .40** –.26** .21** –.04
P3-Parapsychology, Own
Experiences .18* .42** –.08 .35** .00
P4-Parapsychology,
Own View .11 .19** –.01 .72** –.04
E5-Esoterics .06 .28** –.15* .44** –.07
ESI Dimensions
COS EPD EWB PAR REL
M6-Positive Mystic
Experiences .39** .54** –.01 .13 .19**
M7-Negative Mystic
Experiences .04 .26** –.39** .10 –.03
I8-Imagination .26** .30** –.08 .24** .09
T9-Dreams .16* .35** –.19** .27** .03
D10-Dissociation .16* .36** –.19** .22** –.03
H11-Hallucinations .23** .44** –.21** .30** .10
H12-Hypersensitiveness .21** .41** –.12 .13 .05
Z13-Changed Feeling of
Time and Space .12 .45** –.14 .21** .05
C14-Change .41** .43** –.01 .11 .18*
Death Transcendence Scale (DTS)
BIOS-Biosocial .08 .09 .03 .02 .07
CRE-Creative –.13 .01 –.13 .09 –.19**
MYS-Mystical .29** .61** .06 .16* .13
NAT-Nature –.05 .04 .03 .15* –.08
REL-Religious .59** .26** .06 .24** .56**
Ego Permissiveness Inventory (EPI)
F1-Peak Experiences .38** .59** .02 .20** .14
F2-Dissociated
Experiences .23** .54** –.09 .27** .02
F3-Acceptance of Fantasy .15* .30** –.09 .20** .02
F4-Belief in the
Supernatural .27** .48** –.01 .53** .02
F5-Automatic Thought .10 .24** –.05 .18** –.05
F6-Confidence in Cognitive
Control –.15* –.16* .22** –.08 –.19**
F7-Cognitive Adaptability .06 .02 .17* .02 –.03
F8-Playfulness vs.
Endogenous Arousal –.10 –.04 .08 .09 –.16*
F9-Emotional Arousal
from Social Sources –.03 .02 .03 .03 –.01
178 MacDonald
ESI Dimensions
COS EPD EWB PAR REL
Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale (IEROS)
EXT-Extrinsic –.02 –.07 –.15* –.11 .05
INT-Intrinsic .72** .30** –.05 –.04 .79**
Revised Intrinsic .64** .29** –.11 –.04 .71**
Personal-Extrinsic .32** .09 –.08 –.05 .36**
Social-Extrinsic .15* .05 .02 –.15* .24**
Spirituality Self-
Assessment Scale (SSAS) .43** .29** .50** .14 .21**
Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire (SWBQ)
CF-Christian Faith .60** .17* .01 –.06 .83**
ELI-Elitism –.31** –.06 –.12 –.10 –.17*
OPT-Optimism .08 .14 .04 .16* .06
PP-Personal Piety .64** .22** .02 –.15* .81**
RC-Religious Cynicism –.48** –.02 –.03 .04 –.64**
SS-Self Satisfaction .39** .16 .65** .05 .23**
SSWB-Subjective Spiritual
Well-Being .66** .22** .20** .05 .55**
Total Score .66** .25** .12 –.04 .79**
Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS)
EWB-Existential
Well-Being .33** .12 .62** .01 .27**
RWB-Religious
Well-Being .66** .26** .03 –.04 .88**
Total Score .64** .25** .32** –.02 .78**
Supplementary Spirituality Scale (SSS)
CAOD-Cognitive/Affective Orientation
to Spirituality .68** .42** .04 .23** .51**
EPD-Experiential/Phenomen-
ological Dimension .50** .85** .00 .28** .31**
EWB-Existential Well-
Being .41** .38** .28** .28** .22**
POB-Paranormal and
Occult Beliefs .12** .33** –.04 .87** –.02
PSD-Products of Spirituality .78** .59** .03 .15** .65**
ESI Dimensions
COS EPD EWB PAR REL
REL-Religiousness
Dimension .66** .32** .02 .05 .84**
Note. aCoefficients reported for the ESI represent intercorrelations of dimension scores.
bFemale coded 0 and Male coded 1 for analyses; for age, sex and SSS, N = 938; for
Marlowe-Crowne, n = 555; for Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding, n = 195;

for IEROS, n = 376; for all other measures, n = 296. *p < .01. **p < .001.
with sex.6 The absolute magnitude of correlations with age and sex
ranged between .01 and .19.
ESI and social desirability. Correlations between the ESI and the two
measures of social desirability employed are of magnitudes ranging
between .01 and .30. The Existential Well-Being dimension is the most
appreciably related dimension to both the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
followed by Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality and Reli-
giousness. Within the BIDR, ESI-Cognitive Orientation Towards Spiri-
tuality produced the strongest association with Impression
Management, while ESI-Existential Well-Being correlated most notably
with Self-Deception.
Correlations between ESI and measures of spirituality employed in

Study 2. Product-moment correlations calculated between the ESI and
the eight other measures of spirituality and related constructs used in Study
2 produced a large number of statistically significant associations. With an
inspection of the patterning and magnitude of correlations, however, it is
indicated that each of the ESI dimensions produced its most exceptional
associations with measures of conceptually similar constructs.
For example, ESI-Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension ob-
tained its strongest correlations with measures of mystical and peak
6. To determine if sex had an impact on the ESI factor structure, separate item-level
analyses were run for males and females. Items associated with each dimension were
observed to comprise separate and identifiable factors in both analyses.
180 MacDonald
experiences, including the Positive Mystical Experience subscale of the

Assessment Schedule for Altered States of Consciousness (ASASC), the
Death Transcendence Scale (DTS) Mystical Experience subscale, the
Ego Permissiveness Inventory (EPI) Peak Experiences subscale, and the
Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension of the Supplementary Spiri-
tuality Scale (SSS). Relative to the other dimensions, ESI-Experien-
tial/Phenomenological Dimension also produced the most consistently
elevated correlations with all scales of the ASASC and most subscales of
the EPI.
ESI-Paranormal Beliefs is seen to correlate quite appreciably with
measures of belief in the paranormal such as ASASC-Parapsychology-
Own View, EPI-Belief in the Supernatural, and SSS-Paranormal and
Occult Beliefs. ESI-Existential Well-Being also obtained strong associa-
tions with theoretically similar measures including the Self-Satisfaction
subscale of the Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire (SWBQ) and the
Existential Well-Being subscale of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale
(SWBS).
As well, even though ESI-Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality
and ESI-Religiousness produced similar patterns of correlations (both
dimensions obtained their strongest correlations with measures tapping
spiritual and religious beliefs and practices), which is consistent with the
fact that these two ESI dimensions are intercorrelated, closer examination
indicates that there is a differential pattern to the coefficients, with
Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality producing more substantial
correlations with measures of spiritual beliefs and practices that do not
formally operationalize their constructs in explicitly religious terms (e.g.,
SWBQ-Subjective Spiritual Well-Being), whereas ESI-Religiousness
related strongest to formal measures of religious constructs (e.g., SWBQ-
Christian Faith; SWBQ-Personal Piety, SWBQ-Religious Cynicism, and
SWBS-Religious Well-Being). Moreover, ESI-Cognitive Orientation To-
wards Spirituality obtained significant correlations of moderate strength
with other scales that are generally consistent with its conceptual nature
(e.g., several subscales of the EPI and ASASC including ASASC-Change
subscale, SSS-Products of Spirituality, Spirituality Self-Assessment
Scale), while ESI-Religiousness produced less notable relations with
these same measures.
A last noteworthy finding is that the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious
Orientation Scale (IEROS) Intrinsic scale, scored using both original and
revised procedures, appreciably correlated with ESI-Religiousness
followed by slightly less elevated associations with ESI-Cognitive Ori-

entation Towards Spirituality, and then considerably weaker, though still
significant coefficients, with ESI-Experiential/Phenomenological Di-
mension. The IEROS Extrinsic scale, on the other hand, when scored
conventionally, did not produce any statistically significant correlations
with the ESI dimensions. Interestingly, the revised Personal-Extrinsic
and Social-Extrinsic scales generated significant positive correlations
with ESI-Religiousness and ESI-Cognitive Orientation Towards Spiritu-
ality, while the Social Extrinsic scale also produced a significant and
negative association with ESI-Paranormal Beliefs. As can be readily seen
in Table 3, however, the magnitude of the correlations with these revised
Extrinsic scales is considerably lower than those obtained with both the
original and revised Intrinsic scales.
Factor analysis of ESI and Study 2 spirituality measures. To clarify

the meaningfulness of the pattern of relations between the ESI and the
other spirituality measures, and to provide further evidence of the robust-
ness of the five factors of spirituality, the ESI dimensions along with
seven of the eight other measures of spirituality and related constructs
(i.e., all but the IEROS) were utilized in a principal axis factor analysis.
The IEROS was not included in calculations due to the fact that it was
not administered with the same test battery during Study 2 data collection
and was thus not available for this analysis. Examination of the final
varimax rotated solution indicated that factors corresponding to Experi-
ential/Phenomenological Dimension, Existential Well-Being, and Para-
normal Beliefs were clearly represented, as was the higher-order factor
labeled Cognitive and Behavioral Orientation Towards Spirituality and
Religion. Though additional interpretable factors were obtained, they
were seen to reflect technical factors (Gorsuch, 1997) or constructs only
tangentially related to spirituality (e.g., a general factor emerged that
contained loadings from all measures tapping an aspect of experience,
both spiritual and nonspiritual, including all experience scales from the
ASASC and EPI tapping such experiences as dissociation, hallucina-
tions, hypersensitiveness, and the like).
ESI and external religious and experience variables. In order to pro-

vide a preliminary indication of the relation of the ESI dimensions to
external variables and to generate evidence regarding the potential use-
fulness of the factor model of spirituality, information regarding the
182 MacDonald
religious affiliation, religious involvement, and reported spiritual expe-

rience of participants was used to perform three independent sets of
one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using the ESI dimensions as
dependent variables. It should be noted that for religious affiliation, the
generation of four general groups (i.e., Catholics, Other Christians, Other
Religion, No Religion) was done to reduce the multiplicity of religious
affiliations reported by participants and to better ensure adequate group
sizes for analyses (e.g., some religious affiliations, such as Catholicism,
contained over 400 participants, while others, for example, Judaism and
Buddhism, had as little as six and nine, respectively). In terms of religious
involvement, participants who did not report a religious affiliation were
excluded from analyses. Last, for reported spiritual experience, partici-
pants who reported that they were unsure as to whether they had had a
spiritual experience were not included in calculations. The results of these
ANOVAs can be seen in Tables 4 and 5.
For religious affiliation, significant results were obtained for three ESI
dimensions (i.e., Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality, Experien-
tial/Phenomenological Dimension, and Religiousness). Post hoc analy-
ses revealed that the No Religion group produced significantly different
(lower) scores from all other groups on these three ESI dimensions. With
respect to religious involvement, significant results were obtained for all
five ESI dimensions with the Active group producing higher scores on
all dimensions except Paranormal Beliefs where the Not Active group
obtained the significantly higher score. Finally, in terms of reported
spiritual experience, significant results were found for all ESI dimensions
except Existential Well-Being. In all instances, the group reporting
definitely having had a spiritual experience obtained higher scores than
the group reporting definitely not having had a spiritual experience.
Relation of ESI to NEO-PI-R

ESI-NEO-PI-R correlations. Product-moment correlations were calcu-
lated between the scores of the five ESI dimensions and the NEO-PI-R
domains (see Table 6). Inspection of the pattern and magnitude of
correlations reveals that the Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension
obtained its strongest correlations with NEO-PI-R Openness followed by
Extraversion. Paranormal Beliefs obtained its most notable association
with Openness. ESI-Religiousness associates most clearly with NEO-PI-
R Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and correlates the weakest with
Table 4
One-Way ANOVA Results for ESI Dimension Scores as a Function of Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation
ESI Dimension C OC OR NR F Significant Post Hoc Analyses
COS 89.65 96.95 93.05 67.13 31.56*** NR-C, NR-OC, NR-OR, C-OC
EPD 33.90 33.52 34.21 29.70 3.53* NR-C, NR-OC, NR-OR
EWB 21.83 21.88 21.78 22.05 0.04
PAR 27.10 26.21 28.95 26.21 2.05
REL 43.60 44.03 42.63 21.64 94.32*** NR-C, NR-OC, NR-OR
Note. For Religious Affiliation, df = 3, 934. C = Catholic (n = 408), OC = Other Christian (n = 312), OR = Other Religion (n = 109), NR = No Religion
(n = 109). All post hoc analyses were Tukey-HSD. Reported post hoc results significant at p < .05. For ESI dimensions, COS = Cognitive Orientation
Towards Spirituality, EPD = Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension, EWB = Existential Well-Being, PAR = Paranormal Beliefs, REL =
Religiousness.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p <.001.
Table 5
One-Way ANOVA Results for ESI Dimensions Scores as a Function of Religious Involvement
and Reported Spiritual Experience
Religious Reported Spiritual

Involvement Experience
ESI Dimension Active Not Active F Yes No F
COS 104.32 82.39 155.83*** 104.79 75.05 171.14***
EPD 35.31 32.39 11.54*** 41.33 24.49 338.66***
EWB 22.32 21.40 4.56* 21.79 22.57 2.25
PAR 25.62 28.31 13.74*** 29.78 23.85 47.32***
REL 51.39 36.48 404.97*** 46.01 35.53 76.85***
Note. For Religious Involvement, participants reporting no religious affiliation were excluded from analyses. Active— n = 400; Not Active— n = 422,
df = 1, 820. For Reported Spiritual Experience, Yes—n = 313; No—n = 280, df = 1, 591. For ESI Dimensions, COS = Cognitive Orientation Towards
Spirituality, EPD = Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension, EWB = Existential Well-Being, PAR = Paranormal Beliefs, REL = Religiousness.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p <.001.
Openness. ESI-Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality dimension is

shown to relate most markedly with Agreeableness and Conscientious-
ness, trailed by Openness, and then Extraversion. Finally, ESI-Existential
Well-Being is seen to correlate strongly and negatively with NEO-PI-R
Neuroticism, while producing statistically significant positive coeffi-
cients with Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness.
ESI-NEO-PI-R factor analyses. Last, for the function of exploring the

structural relatedness between the NEO-PI-R and the ESI, two principal
axis factor analyses were completed, the first using ESI items and the
NEO-PI-R facets and the second employing the ESI dimension scores
along with the SSS dimension scores and the NEO-PI-R facets. In the
ESI item-NEO-PI-R facet analysis, factors emerged that corresponded
to the five ESI dimensions and the five domains of personality. NEO-PI-R
Neuroticism facets were observed, however, to produce strong loadings
on two factors: On the factor identified as Existential Well-Being,
Neuroticism facets were found to produce strong negative loadings. On
a less statistically substantial factor, five of the six Neuroticism facets
obtained loadings of sufficient elevation to warrant the labeling of the
factor as Neuroticism. In the ESI/SSS dimension score and NEO-PI-R
facet analysis, factors corresponding to the five NEO-PI-R domains as
well as Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension and Paranormal Be-
liefs were clearly generated. The ESI Cognitive Orientation Towards
Spirituality and Religiousness and the SSS dimensions of Cognitive-
Affective Orientation to Spirituality, Religiousness, and Products of
Spirituality were all seen to load highly on a factor that was identified as
Cognitive and Behavioral Orientation Towards Spirituality and Religion.
In both analyses, outside of the appreciable overlap of Neuroticism and
Existential Well-Being, there were no other notable points of conver-
gence between the ESI and the NEO-PI-R factors.
DISCUSSION
Factor analytic and correlational evidence generated in two studies and
involving a total of 20 measures supports the existence of five robust
dimensions of spirituality. These dimensions may be seen as encompass-
ing five broad and somewhat intercorrelated content areas, which reflect
the expressive modalities of spirituality that form core descriptive
Table 6
Product-Moment Correlations Between ESI Dimensions and NEO-PI-R Domains
NEO-PI-R Domains
ESI Dimensions N E O A C
COS-Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality –.06 .15** .22** .30** .26**
EPD-Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension –.06 .14** .33** .02 .10
EWB-Existential Well-Being –.66** .32** .08 .13** .33**
PAR-Paranormal Beliefs .00 .08 .37** .09 .03
REL-Religiousness –.03 .15** .00 .25** .21**
Note. n = 595. For NEO-PI-R, N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, and C = Conscientiousness.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
components of the construct. Based on the findings of the present

investigation, these dimensions may be described as follows:
Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality. This dimension appears to

pertain to the expressions of spirituality that are cognitive-perceptual in
nature. By cognitive-perceptual is meant beliefs, attitudes and percep-
tions regarding the nature and significance of spirituality, as well as the
perception of spirituality as having relevance and import for personal
functioning. This dimension does not overtly involve religiousness or the
expression of beliefs through religious means, though it does appear to
be highly related to them.
Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension of Spirituality. This dimen-

sion concerns the experiential expressions of spirituality. Included within
the rubric of “experiential” are experiences that are described as spiritual,
religious, mystical, peak, transcendental, and transpersonal. Though this
dimension appears to have some relation to broader altered states of
consciousness and nonordinary experiences, empirical evidence suggests
that it is a unique and identifiable construct.
Existential Well-Being. This dimension involves the expressions of

spirituality that may be seen to be associated with a sense of positive
existentiality. That is, it pertains to spirituality as expressed through a
sense of meaning and purpose for existence, and a perception of self as
being competent and able to cope with the difficulties of life and limita-
tions of human existence.
Paranormal Beliefs. This dimension of the expressions of spirituality

concerns belief in the paranormal. Based upon the analyses completed,
it appears to be mostly related to beliefs of paranormal phenomena of a
psychological nature (e.g., ESP, precognition, psychokinesis), though it
is also composed of beliefs in witchcraft and spiritualism (e.g., ghosts or
apparitions).
Religiousness. This dimension relates to the expression of spirituality

through religious means. Based upon the empirical findings, it appears
to better reflect religiousness that is Western oriented (i.e., it is related to
Judeo-Christian forms of religious belief and practice). Moreover, it
seems to focus on intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic religiousness. This
188 MacDonald
dimension includes not only beliefs and attitudes of a religious nature,

but also behavior and religious practice. Factor analytic work suggests
that this dimension is highly related to the Cognitive Orientation Towards
Spirituality dimension but is nonetheless conceptually unique.
These five dimensions of spirituality may be seen in at least two ways
as offering a compelling and scientifically satisfying framework for the
understanding and study of spirituality. First, the dimensions appear to
reflect unique content areas that are clearly represented in the spirituality
test domain. Thus, despite observed intercorrelations between some
dimensions, it may be argued that these traits of spirituality are non-
redundant and contribute important information about central elements
of spirituality as reflected in the available testing and theoretical litera-
ture. Second, the dimensions constitute a rigorously developed and
parsimonious constellation of traits that encapsulate more constructs than
are represented in any one previously existing spirituality instrument
(e.g., though the significant majority of instruments contributed to at least
one factor, no scales were found to comprise aspects of all five factors).
Consequently, it may be asserted that the common factor model allows
for a more inclusive and efficient conceptualization of spirituality than
most current formulations can provide.
The potential applications of the common factor model to the
organization of existing theoretical and empirical formulations of
spirituality are wide ranging. Perhaps the most salient example con-
cerns the spirituality test domain. As indicated in the introduction,
there are a myriad of spirituality instruments but no available means
of organizing them into a conceptually coherent framework, since they
are all seemingly grounded on disparate theoretical models. Within
the context of this investigation, 19 measures of spiritual constructs
were found to differentially contribute to the conceptual substance of
each of the five factors and/or to strongly relate in theoretically
consistent ways to the common dimensions. Each dimension is well
represented across the spirituality instruments used. More impres-
sively, there is a high degree of specificity in the empirical categori-
zation of constructs across the five dimensions. That is, there is not
only a rationally cogent differentiation of instruments on a total scale
level but also on a subscale level (i.e., specific constructs represented
at the subscale score level for many instruments were shown to
empirically contribute to different dimensions). Based on these find-
ings, it appears that many of the spirituality measures employed are
factoriallycomplex. It also seems that each of the five dimensions

represents essential components of spirituality (i.e., they are found in
most existing instruments).
Not only can the common factor model of spirituality help aid in
organizing and clarifying the spirituality test domain, it also may be
viewed as a framework to organize information within various discipli-
nary approaches to the study of spirituality. For example, because they
reflect essentially unique content areas, each dimension may be concep-
tualized as being most associated with a number of specific disciplines
and theoretical orientations that have concerned themselves in large part
with the study of spirituality and related constructs (e.g., analytical
psychology, humanistic/existential psychology, psychology of religion,
and transpersonal psychology). Following from this, theoretical and
empirical work in each of these areas may be organized so as to best
elucidate the fundamental content and characteristics of each dimension
with a minimum of cross-disciplinary redundancy. Stated differently, the
common factors may allow for an integration of theory and research that
could maximize the contributions of each unique area of study.
Finally, the common factors may be used to give direction to future
research on spirituality. For example, due to their broad scope and
inclusiveness relative to other spiritual models/measures, the dimensions
can help to ensure that important aspects of spirituality are not excluded
or neglected in empirical developments. Moreover, because the dimen-
sions are fairly autonomous from one another, they could be used
collectively to assess the extent to which various core elements of
spirituality differentially relate to other constructs and phenomena (e.g.,
personality, health, social functioning, coping).
Though the empirical support obtained may make it tempting to
characterize the five dimensions as a complete and scientifically defini-
tive representation of the content domain of spirituality, to do so at the
present time would be erroneous for at least three reasons. First, there is
evidence in Studies 1 and 2 of the existence of more than five conceptu-
ally meaningful factors. For instance, Study 1 uncovered seven stable
factors, of which only six were subsequently developed in Study 2.
Moreover, the Study 2 factor analysis of the ESI dimensions and the
seven other measures of spirituality and related constructs showed that
some interpretable factors emerged in addition to the main replicated
dimensions. Thus, there is some question as to the completeness of the
five common factors in capturing the content domain of spirituality.
190 MacDonald
Consequently, though the five factors may be seen as well represented in

the spirituality test domain (e.g., of the 20 measures of spirituality and
related constructs used throughout the present study, only one [SELF]
was not observed to reliably contribute to the conceptual substance of at
least one of the five factors), these dimensions should not be viewed as
an all- inclusive definition of spirituality, since there are elements of the
construct which may not be adequately embodied in the common factors.
Second, even though the five replicated factors obtained in Study 2
reflect the essential content and structure of the six Study 1 factors,
discrepancies in some of the specific content of the factors were observed,
most notably in the dimensions labeled Cognitive Orientation Towards
Spirituality and Paranormal Beliefs. In consideration of the variations in
specific factor content, efforts should be made to avoid reification of five
main dimensions. Extensive research beyond these investigations will be
needed to deepen and clarify the conceptual nature of the common
factors.
Third and most generally, the type of samples used in this investigation
have a delimiting impact on the external validity of the factor model. In
particular, the use of samples drawn from university populations places
a notable constraint on the degree to which the results and interpretations
of the present investigation can be generalized to different populations.
Consequently, future research that explores the structure of spirituality
constructs using samples drawn from differing populations is strongly
recommended.
The Expressions of Spirituality Inventory

Following the development of the actual factor model, the next most
important outcome of the present research was the construction of the
Expressions of Spirituality Inventory. The findings indicate that the ESI
consisting of 98 items, is an instrument that has reasonably good score
reliability and appears to hold promise as a valid operationalization of
the five dimensional model of spirituality. For instance, Study 2 findings
indicate that ESI dimension scores (a) do not appear to be confounded
with sex, age, or social desirability though they are modestly related;
(b) correlate in a conceptually consistent manner with eight measures of
theoretically similar and related constructs; (c) appear to be sensitive to
the simple presence or absence of a religious affiliation but not to
differences in identifiable religious affiliations; (d) correlate strongly
with intrinsic Religiousness; and (e) differ as a function of religious

involvement and reported spiritual experience. The findings regarding
religious affiliation and Extrinsic religiousness are especially note-
worthy, since they suggest that a confound between institutional or
exoteric religion may be minimized in the ESI. This is important, since
some researchers have criticized many spirituality instruments on the
basis that they confound spirituality with specific religious constructs and
terminology, usually of a Judeo-Christian nature (Lukoff, Turner, & Lu,
1993).
In terms of its applications, the ESI at present is ideally designed for
further research on the factor model of spirituality itself. As such, it would
be the most appropriate and parsimonious tool for researchers to use if
they wish to explore the replicability and validity of the factor model. In
a different vein, because of its inclusiveness, the ESI could serve as a
general screening measure to arrive at an initial sense of how the elements
of spirituality relate to other psychological constructs. Nevertheless, due
to the limitations inherent in the exclusive use of university student
samples and in light of the fact that this investigation was very explora-
tory, complete confidence in the validity of the instrument is not war-
ranted. Further studies that establish the psychometric properties of the
instrument scores (including both test-retest reliability and all aspects of
validity, especially criterion and content) in differing populations are
encouraged.
Spirituality and the Five Factor Model

of Personality
The findings from Study 2 indicate that the Five Factor Model of
personality relates to spirituality in highly specific ways. In particular,
based upon the correlational results, it appears that Cognitive Orientation
Towards Spirituality and Religiousness relate most notably with Agree-
ableness and Conscientiousness, followed by Extraversion. Openness
was seen to be mildly related to Cognitive Orientation Towards Spiritu-
ality but unrelated to Religiousness. The Experiential/Phenomenological
Dimension is most related to Openness then Extraversion. Existential
Well-Being is strongly and inversely related to Neuroticism, and Para-
normal Beliefs is most associated with Openness. These results appear
to be generally consistent with available research. For example, reli-
giousness has been shown to be related to Psychoticism and unrelated to
192 MacDonald
Neuroticism as defined by Eysenck’s three factor model of personality

(Francis, 1991). Constructs similar to Openness have been shown to
relate to experiences and beliefs consistent with the Experiential/
Phenomenological Dimension and Paranormal Beliefs (Campbell, 1983;
McCrae & Costa, in press; Nelson, 1989, 1991–92). Finally, measures of
existential well-being have been shown to be inversely related to depres-
sion and general psychopathology (Fehring, Brennan, & Keller, 1987;
Frantz, 1988).
Even though these results are impressive and indicate that there is a
conceptual relatedness between spirituality and the Five Factor Model,
when the magnitude of correlations and the factor analytic results involv-
ing the NEO-PI-R facets and ESI are taken into consideration, it is
demonstrated that four of the five dimensions of spirituality (i.e., all
dimensions save Existential Well-Being, which appears to reflect the
positive pole of Neuroticism) seem to be conceptually unique relative to
the five factor model of personality. Extending from this, in so far as
spirituality may be viewed as falling within the parameters of the study
of personality, it may be argued that the Five Factor Model of personality
is incomplete, lacking a domain that addresses spirituality. This interpre-
tation of the results is consistent with the theory and research of Cloninger
and his associates (e.g., Cloninger, Svrakic, & Pryzbeck ,1993), who have
proposed a conception of personality that explicitly incorporates spiritu-
ality through the inclusion of a Self-Transcendence dimension. Referred
to as the seven factor model of character and temperament, research explor-
ing its relation to the NEO-PI has indicated that Self-Transcendence is
unrelated to the Five Factor Model (Svrakic, Whitehead, Przybeck, &
Cloninger, 1993). Nonetheless, due to the exploratory nature of the
present study, further research oriented at exploring the existence of
robust spirituality dimensions independent of the Five Factor Model
of personality is clearly needed and warranted.
Conclusion
The results of the present investigation indicate that spirituality is a
complex yet identifiable construct that includes but extends beyond
religion and religiousness. Contrary to arguments that spirituality should
be subsumed within the psychology of religion (e.g., Zinnbauer et al.,
1997), it appears that theoretical and empirical formulations about spiri-
tuality need to incorporate a greater degree of cross-disciplinary
complexity than what has been observed in most conceptions to date in

order to ensure a complete understanding of the construct. Consistent
with this, future scientific efforts should be directed not only toward
further clarifying and extending the dimensional model, but also at
exploring the available literature found across disciplines in order to give
rise to a methodologically and theoretically comprehensive psychol-
ogy of spirituality.
REFERENCES
Allman, L. S., de la Roche, O., Elkins, D. N., & Weathers, R. S. (1992). Psychotherapists’
attitudes towards clients reporting mystical experiences. Psychotherapy, 29(4),
564–569.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443.
Bergin, A., & Jensen, J. (1990). Religiousness of psychotherapists: A national survey.
Psychotherapy, 27, 3–7.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and
evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148.
Campbell, O. M. (1983). An investigation into the distinguishing personality correlates
of mysticism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Pryzbeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model
of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.
Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and
clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 754–761.
Corrington, J. E., Jr. (1989). Spirituality and recovery: Relationships between levels of
spirituality, contentment and stress during recovery from alcoholism in AA. Alcohol-
ism Treatment Quarterly, 6(3/4), 151–165.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.
Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (1985). General social surveys, 1972–1985. Chicago:
National Opinion Research Center.
Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Leaf, J. A., & Saunders, C. (1988). Toward
phenomenological spirituality: Definition, description and measurement. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 28(4), 5–18.
Ellis, A. (1985). Two forms of humanistic psychology: Rationale-emotive therapy vs.
transpersonal psychology. Free Inquiry, 15(4), 14–21.
Ellis, A. (1986). Fanaticism that may lead to a nuclear holocaust: The contributions of
scientific counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65,
146–151.
194 MacDonald
Ellis, A., & Yeager, R. (1989). The dangers of transpersonal psychology. Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus.
Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal
of Psychology and Theology, 11(4), 330–340.
Fehring, R. J., Brennan, P. F., & Keller, M. L. (1987). Psychological and spiritual
well-being in college students. Research in Nursing and Health, 10, 391–398.
Feuerstein, G. (1989). Yoga: The technology of ecstasy. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy Tarcher.
Francis, L. J. (1991). Personality and attitude towards religion among churchgoers in
England. Psychological Reports, 69, 791–794.
Frantz, J. L. (1988). MMPI and DSM-III diagnoses related to selected measures of
religious and demographic variables in adult outpatients. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 48, 3678B.
Freud, S. (1985). The origins of religion. London: Penguin.
Friedman, H. L. (1983). The Self-Expansiveness Level Form: A conceptualization and
measurement of a transpersonal construct. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
15(1), 37–50.
Genia, V. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the Allport-Ross I/E scales in a religiously
heterogeneous sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32(3), 284–290.
Gilgen, A. R., & Cho, J. H. (1979). Questionnaire to measure Eastern and Western
thought. Psychological Reports, 44, 835–841.
Glueck, B. C., & Stroebel, C. F. (1978). Meditation in the treatment of psychiatric illness.
In A. Sugarman & R. Tartar (Eds.), Expanding dimensions of consciousness. New
York: Springer.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68(3), 532–560.
Greeley, A. (1974). Ecstasy: A way of knowing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grof, S. (1985). Beyond the brain: Birth, death and transcendence in psychotherapy.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hay, D., & Morisy, A. (1978). Reports of ecstatic, paranormal, or religious experience
in Great Britain and the United States—A comparison of trends. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 17(3), 255–268.
Hill, L., & Smith, M. (1985). Self-care nursing: Promotion of health. Norwalk, CT:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369–376.
Hoge, D. R. (1996). Religion in America: The demographics of belief and affiliation. In
E. P. Shafranske (Ed.). Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 21–41).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Holland, D. C., Dollinger, S. J., Holland, C. J., & MacDonald, D. A. (1995). The
relationship between psychometric intelligence and the five factor model of person-
ality using a rehabilitation sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(1), 79–88.
Hood, R. W. (1974). Psychological strength and the report of intense religious experience.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13(1), 65–71.
Hood, R. W. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported

mystical experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 29–41.
Hood, R. W. (1977a). Differential triggering of mystical experience as a function of
self-actualization. Review of Religious Research, 18(3), 264–270.
Hood, R. W. (1977b). Eliciting mystical states of consciousness with semi-structured
nature experiences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16(2), 155–163.
Hood, R. W., Hall, J. R., Watson, P. J., & Biderman, M. (1979). Personality correlates of
the report of mystical experience. Psychological Reports, 44(3), 804–806.
Hood, R. W., & Morris, R. J. (1983). Toward a theory of death transcendence. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22(4), 353–365.
Hood, R. W., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (1996). The psychology of
religion: An empirical approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Howden, S. W. (1992). Development and psychometric characteristics of the Spirituality
Assessment Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas Woman’s University,
College of Nursing, Denton, TX.
Hunt, R. A., & King, M. (1971). The intrinsic-extrinsic concept: A review and evaluation.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 339–356.
Ingersoll, R. E. (1994). Spirituality, religion and counseling: Dimensions and relation-
ships. Counseling and Values, 38, 98–111.
Jones, S. L. (1994). A constructive relationship for religion with the science and
profession of psychology: Perhaps the boldest model yet. American Psychologist,
49(3), 184–199.
Kass, J. D., Friedman, R., Leserman, J., Zuttermeister, P. C., & Benson, H. (1991). Health
outcomes and a new index of spiritual experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 30(2), 203–211.
Kelly, E. W. (1995). Spirituality and religion in counseling and psychotherapy: Diversity
in theory and practice. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Knoblauch, D. L., & Falconer, J. A. (1986). The relationship of a measured Taoist
orientation to Western personality dimensions. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
18(1), 73–83.
Krippner, S., & Welsh, P. (1992). Spiritual dimensions of healing: From native shaman-
ism to contemporary health care. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Lawlis, G. F. (1996). Transpersonal medicine: A new approach to healing body-mind-
spirit. Boston: Shambhala.
Leuba, A. H. (1925). The psychology of religious mysticism. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Lifton, R. J. (1976). The life of the self: Toward a new psychology. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Lifton, R. J. (1979). The broken connection. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lifton, R. J., & Olson, E. (1974). Living and dying. New York: Praeger.
Lukoff, D., & Lu, F. (1988). Transpersonal psychology research review topic: Mystical
experience. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20(2), 161–184.
Lukoff, D., Turner, R., & Lu, F. (1992). Transpersonal psychology research review:
Psychoreligious dimensions of healing. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 24(1),
41–60.
196 MacDonald
Lukoff, D., Turner, R., & Lu, F. (1993). Transpersonal psychology research review:
Psychospiritual dimensions of healing. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 25(1),
11–28.
MacDonald, D. A. (1997). The development of a comprehensive factor analytically
derived measure of spirituality and its relationship to psychological functioning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
MacDonald, D. A., Anderson, P. E., Tsagarakis, C. I., & Holland, C. J. (1994). Exami-
nation of the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the NEO
Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 74, 339–344.
MacDonald, D. A., LeClair, L., Holland, C. J., Alter, A., & Friedman, H. L. (1995). A
survey of measures of transpersonal constructs. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
27(2), 171–235.
MacDonald, D. A., Tsagarakis, C. I., & Holland, C. J. (1994). The validation of a measure
of transpersonal self concept and its relation to Jungian and Five Factor Model
conceptions of personality. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 26(2), 175–201.
Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.
Maslow, A. (1970). Religions, values and peak-experiences. New York: Viking.
Mathes, E. W., Zevon, M. A., Roter, P. M., & Joerger, S. M. (1982). Peak experience
tendencies: Scale development and theory testing. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
22(3), 92–108.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (in press). Conceptions and correlates of openness to
experience. In S. R. Briggs, W. H. Jones, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of personality
psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Moberg, D. O. (1971). Spiritual well-being: Background and issues. Washington, DC:
White House Conference on Aging.
Moberg, D. O. (1984). Subjective measures of well-being. Review of Religious Research,
25(4), 351–359.
Moberg, D. O., & Brusek, P. M. (1978). Spiritual well-being: A neglected subject in
quality of life research. Social Indicators Research, 5, 303–323.
Murphy, M. (1992). The future of the body: Explorations into the further evolution of
human nature. Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher Perigee.
Nelson, P. L. (1989). Personality factors in the frequency of reported spontaneous
praeternatural experiences. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 21(2), 193–209.
Nelson, P. L. (1991–92). Personality attributes as discriminating factors in distinguishing
religio-mystical from paranormal experients. Imagination, Cognition, and Personal-
ity, 11(4), 389–406.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and the quality
of life. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A source book of current
theory, research and therapy (pp. 224–237). New York: John Wiley.
Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-re-
ports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Version 6. Unpublished
manual: University of British Columbia.
Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (1997). A spiritual strategy for counseling and psycho-
therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ring, K. (1985). Heading toward omega. New York: William Morrow.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of
Personality, 66(4), 495–524.
Scotton, B. W., Chinen, A. B., & Battista, J. R. (1996). Textbook of transpersonal
psychiatry and psychology. New York: Harper Collins.
Shafranske, E. P. (Ed.). (1996). Religion and the clinical practice of psychology. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Shafranske, E. P., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Factors associated with the perception of
spirituality in psychotherapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(2), 231–241.
Shapiro, S. B., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1989). The development of an objective scale to
measure a transpersonal orientation to learning. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 49, 375–384.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Stace, W. T. (1960). Mysticism and philosophy. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Svrakic, D. M., Whitehead, C., Przybeck, T. R., & Cloninger, C. R. (1993). Differential
diagnosis of personality disorders by the seven-factor model of temperament and
character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 991–999.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New
York: Harper Collins.
Taft, R. (1969). Peak experiences and ego permissiveness: An exploratory factor study
of their dimensions in normal persons. Acta Psychologica, 29, 35–64.
Taimni, I. K. (1961). The science of yoga. Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House.
Thomas, L. E., & Cooper, P. (1978). Measurement and incidence of mystical experiences:
An exploratory study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17(4), 433–437.
Tobacyk, J., & Milford, G. (1983). Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment
instrument development and implications for personality functioning. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 1029–1037.
Vandecreek, L., & Nye, C. (1993). Testing the Death Transcendence Scale. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 32(3), 279–283.
van Quekelberghe, R., Altstotter-Gleich, C., & Hertweck, E. (1991). Assessment Sched-
ule for Altered States of Consciousness: A brief report. Journal of Parapsychology,
55, 377–390.
Walsh, R. N., & Vaughan, F. E. (1980). Beyond ego: Transpersonal dimensions in
psychology. Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher.
Walsh, R. N., & Vaughan, F. E. (1991). Comparative models of the person and psycho-
therapy. In S. Boorstein (Ed.). Transpersonal psychotherapy (pp. 12–27). Stanford,
CA: JTP Books.
Whitfield, C. L. (1984). Stress management and spirituality during recovery: A transper-
sonal approach. Part I: Becoming. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 1(1), 3–54.
Wilber, K. (1990). Eye to eye: The quest for the new paradigm. Boston: Shambhala.
Wolman, R. (1997, September/October). Spirituality: What does it mean to you? New
Age Journal, 78–81.
Wulff, D. M. (1991). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary views. New York:
John Wiley.
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., Belavich, T. G.,
Hipp, K. M., Scott, A. B., & Kadar, J. L. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying
the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(4), 549–564.

12 - 3 Persoane PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

12 - 3 Persoane PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Spirituality: Description, Measurement,

and Relation to the Five Factor Model

ABSTRACT The present article focused on the development and measure-

Journal of Personality 68:1, February 2000.

reliability and adequate initial validity. Examination of the relation of spirituality

Throughout the history of scientific psychology, spirituality has held an

Incidentally, while psychologists appear to adopt an ambivalent stance

At present, in response to the amorphous nature of the concept of

range of constructs including intelligence, health, and psychopathology

Analysis of theory and research. Extensive surveys of both the theoreti-

literature review and assumptions). These assumptions can be summa-

Selection of representative measures. Based upon the delineation of the

1. Though the inclusion of paranormal beliefs, experiences and practices as an element

2. The pilot study consisted of administering two quasirandomly determined orderings

Factor Analyses of Spirituality Measures

Preliminary analysis. A preliminary analysis that indiscriminately used

Factor analyses of remaining spirituality scales. Three principal axis

Calculations for the total sample and two subsamples resulted in

item content. Based on such an examination, the following factor labels

Beliefs (POB—20 items), Religiousness (RELD—30 items), Products of Spiri-

Experiences, Imagination, Dreams, Dissociation, Hallucinations, Hyper-

Phase One: Replication of Study 1

Stability analyses of ESS factor structure. Examination of the stability

Phase Two: Development of the Expressions

structure as reflected in loadings of .35 or greater in factor analyses of

Factor analysis of ESI items. At the completion of instrument refine-

Factor analysis of ESI items using oblique rotation. In order to deter-

Higher-order factor analyses of ESI dimensions. In light of the inter-

Phase Three: Initial Validation of ESI Dimensions

ESI and demographic variables. Inspection of the correlations be-

Marlowe-Crowne, n = 555; for Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding, n = 195;

Correlations between ESI and measures of spirituality employed in

experiences, including the Positive Mystical Experience subscale of the

followed by slightly less elevated associations with ESI-Cognitive Ori-

Factor analysis of ESI and Study 2 spirituality measures. To clarify

ESI and external religious and experience variables. In order to pro-

religious affiliation, religious involvement, and reported spiritual expe-

Relation of ESI to NEO-PI-R

Religious Reported Spiritual

Openness. ESI-Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality dimension is

ESI-NEO-PI-R factor analyses. Last, for the function of exploring the

components of the construct. Based on the findings of the present

Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality. This dimension appears to

Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension of Spirituality. This dimen-

Existential Well-Being. This dimension involves the expressions of

Paranormal Beliefs. This dimension of the expressions of spirituality

Religiousness. This dimension relates to the expression of spirituality

dimension includes not only beliefs and attitudes of a religious nature,

factoriallycomplex. It also seems that each of the five dimensions

Consequently, though the five factors may be seen as well represented in

The Expressions of Spirituality Inventory

with intrinsic Religiousness; and (e) differ as a function of religious

Spirituality and the Five Factor Model

Neuroticism as defined by Eysenck’s three factor model of personality

complexity than what has been observed in most conceptions to date in

Hood, R. W. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported

S-ar putea să vă placă și