ORI GIN AL PA PER

Convergent/Divergent Validity of the BriefMultidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality:Empirical Support for Emotional Connectednessas a ‘‘Spiritual’’ Construct

Brick Johnstone • Guy McCormack • Dong Pil Yoon • Marian L. Smith

Published online: 12 October 2011� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The objective of this article is to determine the convergent/divergent validity of

the Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality (BMMRS; Fetzer

Institute & National Institute on Aging Working Group 1999) subscales by correlating it

with the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) Self-Transcendence subscales (i.e.,

Mysticism, Transpersonal Identification, Self-Forgetfulness; Cloninger et al. 1994). The

cross-sectional analysis of 97 undergraduate/graduate students from a Midwestern uni-

versity was made. The results are (1) all five BMMRS spirituality subscales were signif-

icantly correlated with the TCI Mysticism scale; (2) two BMMRS scales (i.e., DailySpiritual Experiences, Values/Beliefs) were significantly correlated with the TCI Trans-personal Identification scales; (3) no BMMRS spiritual subscales were significantly cor-

related with the TCI Self-Forgetfulness scale; and (4) of the BMMRS religion scales, only

the Organizational Religiousness subscale was correlated with any TCI subscale (i.e.,

Mysticism). The BMMRS appears to have adequate convergent/divergent validity,

although the need exists to determine specific dimensions of spirituality. Inspection of the

specific items of the BMMRS and TCI spiritual subscales that were most consistently

correlated (i.e., BMMRS Daily Spiritual Experiences, Values/Beliefs; TCI Mysticism,Transpersonal Identification) suggests the existence of a distinct spiritual construct that is

best conceptualized as the experience of emotional connectedness to the divine, nature,

and/or others.

Keywords Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality �Temperament and Character Inventory � Religion � Spirituality �Emotional connectedness � Construct validity

B. Johnstone (&) � M. L. SmithDepartment of Health Psychology, DC116.88, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65212, USAe-mail: johnstoneg@health.missouri.edu

G. McCormackDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Samuel Merritt College, San Francisco, CA, USA

D. P. YoonSchool of Social Work, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

123

J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541DOI 10.1007/s10943-011-9538-9

Introduction

There is increasing interest in evaluating the relationships that exist among religious,

spiritual, and health variables (e.g., Fitchett et al. 1999; George et al. 2002; Hackney and

Sanders 2003; Koenig et al. 2001; Miller and Thoresen 2003; Powell et al. 2003). In the

past, considerable confusion existed regarding the manner in which ‘‘religion’’ and

‘‘spirituality’’ were conceptualized, defined, and measured (Mokuau et al. 2001; Miller and

Thoresen 2003; Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). These terms were often used inter-

changeably and described in terms such as intrinsic religion, extrinsic religion, religiosity,

religiousness, spirituality, spiritual transcendence, and mysticism. Critics have appropri-

ately argued that advances in religion, spirituality, and health research will only be made

when there are more clear definitions and measures of these constructs (Sloan et al. 1999).

Fortunately, over time, the constructs of religion and spirituality have been more clearly

delineated. In general, religion has been defined in behavioral terms which are more easily

defined and measured, including the frequency of and/or participation in culturally based

behaviors and organizational activities (e.g., prayer/meditation, attendance at services,

reading religious texts, performance of rituals). In contrast, spirituality has generally been

defined in emotional or experiential terms which are more vague and difficult to measure,

primarily by referring to feelings or experiences of awe, wonder, harmony, peace, or

connectedness with the universe or a higher power.

The Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality (BMMRS; Fetzer

Institute & National Institute on Aging Working Group 1999) is one measure which is

being increasingly used in religion, spirituality, and health research as it was developed to

measure a range of distinct religious versus spiritual domains. Specifically, several

BMMRS scales assess theoretically distinct aspects of religiosity (i.e., Private ReligiousPractices, Organizational Religiousness, Religious Support), several subscales assess

theoretically distinct aspects of spirituality (i.e., Daily Spiritual Experiences, Meaning,

Values/Beliefs, Forgiveness), and one subscale combined both religious and spiritual

dimensions (i.e., Religious and Spiritual Coping).

Although the BMMRS shows promise as a measure of both religious and spiritual

variables, to date only preliminary psychometric analyses of the BMMRS have been

performed. For example, previous studies have reported high reliability estimates for each

subscale of the BMMRS, ranging from .71 to .87 (Kendler et al. 2003; Yoon and Lee 2004;

Mokuau et al. 2001; Underwood and Teresi 2002; Pargament 1999; Pargament et al. 2000).

These analyses indicate that items within each scale are generally scored in the same

direction and to the same degree. However, the specific constructs measured by the

BMMRS, and particularly its spiritual subscales, are unclear. Factor analytic studies of the

BMMRS have also been performed, with most clearly indicating distinct differences

between religious and spiritual constructs (Neff 2006; Piedmont et al. 2007; Stewart and

Koeske 2006; Johnstone et al. 2009). For example, Stewart and Koeske (2006) identified

three primary factors that differentiated spirituality from religion (i.e., Meaning, Spiritu-ality, Religious Practices) and two secondary factors (i.e., Guilt vs. God’s Grace, Loving/Forgiving God). Piedmont et al. (2007) also differentiated spiritual from religious con-

structs and identified three distinct factors which the authors labeled Spirituality, Religi-osity, and Spiritual Distress. The BMMRS factors were correlated with measures of

transcendence, personality, and family functioning, and the authors concluded that, in

general, the BMMRS measures religious and spiritual constructs which are distinct from

one another, as well as from personality constructs. Furthermore, Johnstone et al. (2009)

identified distinct six BMMRS factors (i.e., positive spirituality, negative spirituality,

530 J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541

123

forgiveness, religious practices, positive congregational support, negative congregational

support) and suggested that the BMMRS be conceptualized as measuring three general

domains (instead of the commonly accepted two, religion vs. spirituality) including (1)

Spirituality (i.e., experience of emotional connectedness with the divine/universe); (2)

Religious Practices (i.e., culturally based activities/behaviors such as prayer, meditation,

reading religious texts); and (3) Congregational Social Support. The conceptualization of

religious and spiritual domains in this manner is generally consistent with other researchers

who suggested that religious and spiritual variables be conceptualized in psychological

terms (i.e., emotional, behavioral, social; Elkins et al. 1988; Ray 2004). In fact, recent

studies based on this revised conceptualization of the BMMRS have indicated that the

physical and mental health of individuals with significant health conditions is primarily

related to spiritual (i.e., emotional) and congregational support (i.e., social) factors, but not

religious practices (i.e., behavioral; Campbell et al. 2010; Cohen et al. 2009).

Rationale for the Current Study

Although some of the basic psychometric properties of the BMMRS have been investi-

gated (i.e., alpha reliabilities, factor structure), research on the convergent and divergent

validity of the BMMRS is lacking but absolutely necessary and particularly if its spiri-

tuality subscales are to be adequately used in health research (i.e., the initial rationale for

the development of the BMMRS). Specifically, the need for convergent validity studies of

‘‘spirituality’’ exists given the relative ease of defining and measuring ‘‘religious’’ variables

(e.g., frequency and type of behaviors/activities related to specific systems of belief

regarding the divine). Review of the religious constructs identified in the previous

BMMRS factor analytic studies shows the relative consistency of identified religious

factors, including Religious Practices (Stewart and Koeske 2006), Religiosity (Piedmont

et al. 2007), and Religious Practices (Johnstone et al. 2009). However, review of the

spiritual constructs identified in the previously cited BMMRS factor analytic studies shows

the confusion inherent in defining and measuring spiritual constructs. For example, distinct

spiritual domains identified in previous factor analyses of the BMMRS have been alter-

natively labeled Meaning, Spirituality, Guilt versus God’s Grace, Loving/Forgiving God(Stewart and Koeske 2006), Spirituality, Spiritual Distress (Piedmont et al. 2007), and

Positive Spirituality and Negative Spirituality (Johnstone et al. 2009). Although the items

on each of these indentified spiritual factors are from the same measure (i.e., BMMRS),

they are conceptualized and labeled in different terms. As a result, the need exists to

complete convergent validity studies to determine whether there are specific spirituality

constructs that need to be individually identified, conceptualized, and measured

accordingly.

Of primary interest, the current study attempted to determine whether the BMMRS

Spirituality scales were correlated with other dimensions of spirituality as characterized by

the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI; Cloninger et al. 1994) Self-Transcen-

dence Scale. The TCI conceptualizes spirituality in terms of mystical experiences (i.e.,

feelings of relatedness to the divine/nature, belief in things which cannot be described by

science), transpersonal identification (i.e., emotional connection with all things in nature),

and self-forgetfulness (i.e., getting lost in thought/experience). Of secondary interest, the

divergent validity of the BMMRS Religious subscales was assessed by comparing them to

the TCI Self-Transcendence subscales with the expectation that they would not be

significantly correlated (i.e., that they would have divergent validity).

J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541 531

123

Methods

Participants

The sample consisted of undergraduate/graduate students (n = 97) from programs in the

health professions (i.e., occupational, physical therapy) in a Midwestern university. Par-

ticipants were recruited if they were at least 18 years old, spoke English, and provided

informed consent. Demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.

Procedures

The study design was cross-sectional and used a convenience sample. Participants were

recruited from courses in a school of health professions. Students were read a recruitment

script during class and a sign-up sheet was distributed. If individuals expressed an interest

in the study, they were contacted by a research team member to learn more about the study

protocol. At that time, a description of the research was provided and written informed

consent was obtained per procedures approved by the institutional review board. Partici-

pants were asked to complete a research packet consisting of the BMMRS, TCI, and

demographic information (i.e., gender, age, race, and years of education). Respondents

received $10 compensation for their participation.

Measures

Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality (BMMRS)

The BMMRS is a 38-item self-report survey, with Likert scale formats, designed by the

Fetzer Institute and the National Institute on Aging for use in health-related research

Table 1 Characteristics of theparticipants (n = 97)

Variable Frequency Percentage

Gender

Male 8 8.2

Female 89 91.8

Age

18–20 21 21.6

21–22 51 52.6

Older than 22 25 25.8

M = 22.2, SD = 3.0, range = 18–40

Ethnicity

Caucasian 95 98.0

African American 1 1.0

Asian 1 1.0

Years of education

13–14 16 16.5

15–16 59 60.9

17–21 22 22.6

M = 15.7, SD = 1.4

532 J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541

123

(Fetzer Institute & National Institute on Aging Working Group 1999). For the purpose of

this study, reference to ‘‘God’’ from the original BMMRS items was changed to ‘‘higher

power’’ in order to make the measure meaningful for individuals of all faith traditions.

Lower scores are representative of a greater degree of religiosity or spiritual experience for

all BMMRS items.

For the current study, based on the most recent factor analysis of the BMMRS (John-

stone et al. 2009), the BMMRS subscales were conceptualized as measuring three specific

domains, including Spirituality (i.e., experience of emotional connectedness to a higher

power), Religious Practices (i.e., culturally based activities), and Congregational Support(i.e., perceived social support from fellow congregants).

Spirituality Scales Daily Spiritual Experience measures the individual’s connection with

a higher power in daily life (e.g., ‘‘I feel the presence of a higher power;’’ ‘‘I feel the love

of a higher power for me, directly or through others;’’ ‘‘I desire to be closer to or in union

with a higher power.’’). This subscale consists of 6 items rated on a 6-point response

format, ranging from 1 (many times a day) to 6 (never). The internal consistency reliability

(Cronbach’s alpha) was .90.

Meaning measures a sense of meaning in life (e.g., ‘‘The events in my life unfold

according to a divine or greater plan;’’ ‘‘I have a sense of mission or calling in my own

life.’’). This subscale is composed of 2 items with a 4-point response format, ranging from

1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). The internal consistency reliability was .66.

Values/Beliefs measures religious values and beliefs (e.g., ‘‘I feel a deep sense of

responsibility for reducing pain and suffering in the world;’’ ‘‘I believe in a higher power

who watches over me.’’). This subscale is composed of 2 items with a 4-point response

format, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). The internal consistency

reliability was .24.

Forgiveness measures the degree of forgiveness of self and others, and a belief in

the forgiveness of a higher power (e.g., ‘‘I have forgiven those who hurt me;’’ ‘‘I know

that I am forgiven by a higher power.’’). The subscale consists of 3 items rated on a

4-point response format, ranging from 1 (always) to 4 (never). Cronbach’s alpha

was .78.

Religious/Spiritual Coping purportedly measures religious and spiritual coping strate-

gies (e.g., ‘‘I work together with a higher power as partners;’’ ‘‘I look to a higher power for

strength, support, and guidance.’’). Although its title suggests it measures both ‘‘religious’’

and ‘‘spiritual’’ coping, a previous factor analytic study indicates that items from this scale

load on a spirituality factor (Johnstone et al. 2009). As a result, for the purposes of this

study, it was conceptualized as a ‘‘spiritual’’ subscale. This subscale consists of 7 items

with a 4-point response format, ranging from 1 (a great deal) to 4 (not at all). The internal

consistency reliability was .76.

Religious Practices Subscales Private Religious Practices measures frequency of reli-

gious behaviors (e.g., ‘‘Within your religious or spiritual tradition, how often do you

meditate?’’ ‘‘How often do you watch or listen to religious programs on TV or radio?’’).

This subscale is composed of 5 items with an 8-point response format, ranging from 1

(more than once a day) to 5 (never). The internal consistency reliability was .23.

Organizational Religiousness measures the frequency of involvement in formal public

religious institutions (e.g., ‘‘How often do you go to religious service?’’ ‘‘Besides religious

service, how often do you take part in other activities at a place of worship?’’). This

J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541 533

123

subscale consists of 2 items with a 6-point response format, ranging from 1 (more than

once a week) to 6 (never). The internal consistency reliability was .72.

Congregational Social Support Subscale Religious Support measures the degree to which

individuals perceive that their local congregations provide help, support, and comfort (e.g.,

‘‘If you had a problem or were faced with a difficult situation, how much comfort would

the people in your congregation be willing to give you?’’). This subscale is composed of 4

items and a 4-point response format was used, ranging from 1 (very often) to 4 (never). The

internal consistency reliability was .55.

Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)

The TCI was developed as a 240-item inventory to assess temperament and character, as

related to the seven-factor structure of personality (Cloninger et al. 1994). For the current

study, the TCI Self-Transcendence scale was used as a measure of three distinct compo-

nents of spirituality as reported by Hamer (2004): Mysticism, Transpersonal Identification,and Self-Forgetfulness. The TCI Self-Transcendence scale is comprised of 33 self-report

items that are answered in a true/false response format. Higher scores are representative of

a higher degree of the measured trait.

Mysticism measures the degree to which individuals feel they are fascinated by

occurrences that cannot be explained by scientific evidence, their feelings of relatedness to

the divine/nature, or the degree to which they believe that they are motivated by extra-

sensory perception (e.g., ‘‘Sometimes I have felt my life being guided by a spiritual force

greater than any human being;’’ ‘‘I have had personal experiences in which I felt in contact

with a divine and wonderful spiritual power;’’ ‘‘Sometimes I have felt my life was being

directed by a spiritual force greater than any human being.’’). This subscale is composed of

13 items with an internal consistency reliability of .71.

Transpersonal Identification measures the degree to which individuals feel they are

deeply and emotionally attached to everything (animate and inanimate) in the universe

(e.g., ‘‘I sometimes feel so connected to nature that everything seems to be part of one

living organism;’’ ‘‘I often feel a strong sense of unity with all the things around me;’’

‘‘I often feel a strong spiritual or emotional connection with all the people around

me.’’). This subscale is composed of 9 items with an internal consistency reliability

of .60.

Self-Forgetfulness measures the degree to which individuals feel they have the ability

to become absorbed, concentrated, or lose sense of time (e.g., ‘‘I often become so

fascinated with what I’m doing that I get lost in the moment, like I’m detached from

time to place.’’). This subscale is composed of 11 items with an internal consistency

reliability of .69.

Results

Correlations among Measured Variables

Means and standard deviations for the BMMRS and TCI are presented in Table 2. Pearson

product–moment correlations were computed between the eight BMMRS scales and the

three TCI Self-Transcendence scales and are presented in Table 3. The results can be

summarized as follows:

534 J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541

123

Convergent Validity of BMMRS Spiritual Scales

All five BMMRS spiritual scales (i.e., Daily Spiritual Experience, Meaning, Values/Beliefs, Forgiveness, and Religious/Spiritual Coping) were significantly correlated with the

TCI Mysticism scale. Individuals who reported being more spiritual on the BMMRS also

reported stronger beliefs in the mystical nature of the universe.

Two BMMRS Spirituality scales (i.e., Daily Spiritual Experiences, Values/Beliefs) were

significantly correlated with the TBI Transpersonal Identification scale. Individuals who

reported higher levels of spirituality on the BMMRS also indicated a greater connection to

the universe/nature on the TCI.

Table 2 Means and standarddeviations for BMMRS and TCIscales

Variable M SD

Spiritual experiences

Daily spiritual experiences 16.82 6.28

Meaning 3.34 1.16

Values and beliefs 3.32 .99

Forgiveness 5.03 1.73

Religious/spiritual coping 13.33 3.44

Religious practices

Private religious practices 26.15 11.70

Organizational religiousness 7.57 2.50

Congregational support

Religious support 6.16 1.84

TCI

Mysticism 8.89 2.46

Transpersonal identification 3.10 1.93

Self-forgetfulness 5.03 2.44

Table 3 Correlation analysis among measured variables (n = 97)

Variable TCI

Self-forgetfulness Transpersonal identification Mysticism

BMMRS

Spiritual experiences

Daily spiritual experience -.11 -.31** -.51***

Meaning -.06 -.05 -.45***

Values/beliefs -.17 -.22* -.41***

Forgiveness -.02 -.09 -.35***

Spiritual coping -.15 -.13 -.50***

Religious practices

Private religious practice -.04 -.13 .12

Organizational religiousness -.07 .02 -.21*

Congregational support

Religious support .10 .25 .21

* P \ .05, ** P \ .01, *** P \ .001

J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541 535

123

None of the BMMRS Spirituality scales were significantly correlated with the TCI Self-Forgetfulness scale.

Divergent Validity of the BMMRS Religious Practices and Congregational Support Scales

Five of the six correlations between BMMRS Religious Practices scales and TCI Self-

Transcendence scales were non-significant. The only significant correlation was found

between the BMMRS Organizational Religiousness and TCI Mysticism scales, indicating

that more frequent attendance at religious activities is associated with stronger mystical

beliefs.

The BMMRS Congregational Support factor was not significantly correlated with any

TCI subscale.

Discussion

Overall, the results offer support for the convergent and divergent validity of the BMMRS.

The results specifically suggest that the BMMRS measures distinct aspects of spiritual

experience that are similar to spiritual constructs measured by the TCI and that the

BMMRS religious and congregational support subscales measure constructs that are the-

oretically and empirically different from the TCI spiritual subscales.

The psychometric properties of the BMMRS have now been more clearly delineated

through demonstration of adequate internal test item reliability (Kendler et al. 2003;

Yoon and Lee 2004; Mokuau et al. 2001; Underwood and Teresi 2002; Pargament

1999; Pargament et al. 2000), empirically distinct factor structure (Neff 2006; Stewart

and Koeske 2006; Piedmont et al. 2007; Johnstone et al. 2009), and convergent and

divergent validity (current study). As a result, it has now been thoroughly demonstrated

to have the psychometric properties necessary to be used in religion, spirituality, and

health research.

Convergent Validity of BMMRS Spirituality and TCI Self-Transcendence Scales

The BMMRS spiritual scales were significantly correlated with the TCI Mysticism and

Transpersonal Identification scales, but not the Self-Forgetfulness scale. Inspection of

the individual items (see Table 4) of the BMMRS Daily Spiritual Experiences and

Values/Beliefs scales (i.e., the only two BMMRS Spirituality scales that were correlated

with both the TCI Mysticism and Transpersonal Identification scales) and the items

from the TCI Mysticism and Transpersonal Identification subscales indicates that, in

general, these scales measure a global construct related to the experience of emotional

connectedness to the divine, the universe/nature, and/or other individuals. These results

are consistent with those of Neff (2006) who indicated that the Daily Spiritual Expe-riences and Values/Beliefs scales measure a similar general spiritual construct, as well

as a previous factor analysis of the TCI which indentified a specific factor that was

labeled as Unifying Interconnectedness (i.e., ‘‘an experienced sense of connection with

persons, animals, objects, the environment, and/or a higher power;’’ MacDonald and

Holland 2002). They terms vary slightly, but the conceptualization is generally the

same.

The conceptualization of one facet of spirituality as measuring emotional connectedness

is further supported by the fact that none of the BMMRS spiritual scales were significantly

536 J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541

123

correlated to the TCI Self-Forgetfulness scale. Although many individuals report a

diminished sense of self during deep states of prayer or meditation (e.g., loss of the sense of

self, loss of perception of time and space, diminished self/other dichotomy; Newberg and

d’Aquili 1998), ‘‘self-forgetfulness’’ appears to be a different spiritual construct than the

emotional connectedness identified in this study. In fact, review of the items on the TCI

Self-Forgetfulness scale suggests this scale measures the decreased attention (or ‘‘self-

forgetfulness’’) that can occur during both routine tasks (e.g., listening to music, watching

Table 4 BMMRS and TCI test items

BMMRS daily spiritual experience scale items

I feel the presence of a higher power

I desire to be closer to or in union with a higher power

I feel the love of a higher power for me, directly or through others

I am spiritually touched by the beauty of creation

I find strength and comfort in my religion

I feel deep inner peace or harmony

BMMRS values/beliefs scale items

I believe in a higher power who watches over me

I feel a deep sense of responsibility for reducing pain and suffering in the world

TCI mysticism scale

I sometimes feel a spiritual connection to other people that I cannot explain in words

Sometimes I have felt my life was being directed by a spiritual force greater than any human being

I have had personal experiences in which I felt in contact with a divine and wonderful spiritualpower

Religious experiences have helped me understand the real purpose of my life

I think extrasensory perception (ESP, like telepathy or precognition) is really possible

I think that most things that are called miracles are just chancea

I think it is unwise to believe in things that cannot be explained scientificallya

I belief that I have experiences like extra-sensory experiences myself

I believe that all life depends on some spiritual order or power that cannot be completely explained

I believe that miracles happen

I am fascinated by the many things in life that cannot be scientifically explained

I seem to have a ‘‘sixth sense’’ that sometimes allows me to know what is going to happen

Reports of mystical experiences are probably just wishful thinkinga

TCI transpersonal identification scale

I often feel so connected to the people around me that it is like there is no separation between us

I sometimes feel so connected to nature that everything seems to be part of one living organism

I often feel a strong sense of unity with all the things around me

I often feel a strong spiritual or emotional connection with all the people around me

I often feel like I am part of the spiritual force on which all life depends

I have made real personal sacrifices in order to make the world a better place—like trying to prevent war,poverty, and injustice

I love the blooming of flowers in the spring as much as seeing an old friend again

I often do things to help protect animals and plants from extinction

I would gladly risk my own life to make the world a better place

a TCI items are reversed scored

J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541 537

123

a movie) and spiritual experiences (e.g., prayer and meditation). Self-forgetfulness may be

another aspect of spiritual experience, but it appears to be a separate construct than

emotional connectedness and should be conceptualized and measured as such.

Review of the items on the other BMMRS spirituality scales (i.e., Meaning, Forgive-ness, Religious/Spiritual Coping) that were correlated with Mysticism but not Transper-sonal Identification suggests that they measure conceptually different constructs that are

not necessarily reflective of emotional connectedness. Specifically, review of specific

BMMRS test items suggests that Meaning measures one’s sense of mission in life, For-giveness measures one’s ability to forgive or feel forgiven, and Religious/Spiritual Copingmeasures specific coping strategies used by individuals to deal with life’s problems.

The reason Religious/Spiritual Coping was not significantly correlated with the TCI is

more difficult to explain, but may be reflective of the items reflecting negative feelings

(or lack of a feeling of connection) toward the divine which are incorporated in this scale

(e.g., ‘‘I feel like I am being punished by a higher power for my sins or lack of spiritu-

ality;’’ ‘‘I wonder whether I have been abandoned by a higher power.’’).

Divergent Validity of the BMMRS Religious Practices Scales

Although people who report being more religious also report being more spiritual, the

current study indicates that BMMRS religious and spiritual constructs are also distinct as

the majority of Religious Practices scales were unrelated to the TCI Self-Transcendence

scales. Specifically, only the BMMRS Organizational Religiousness scale was significantly

correlated with the TCI Mysticism scale, suggesting that individuals who participate in

organized religious activities also report being more mystical.

These findings indicate that religion (i.e., culturally based activities/behaviors) is a

construct that is theoretically and empirically distinct from spiritual constructs. It has been

argued that religious practices are the ‘‘tools’’ which individuals use to help them attain the

emotional connectedness they seek with the divine. Specifically, individuals engage in

specific religious practices (e.g., prayer, meditation, song, dance, ritual) in order to bring

about their desired spiritual/mystical experience (Newberg and d’Aquili 1998). This

hypothesis is consistent with previous research that suggests that, although religious

practices and spirituality are correlated, only spirituality predicts physical and mental

health outcomes for persons with chronic illnesses and disabilities (Campbell et al. 2010;

Cohen et al. 2009).

Similarly, the current results suggest that the social support offered by fellow congre-

gants (i.e., BMMRS Religious Support scale) is distinct from the spiritual variables

measured by the TCI. Although individuals who are religious are more likely to receive

social support from their fellow congregants, this social support is not the same as the

emotional connectedness associated with spirituality.

Emotional Connectedness as One Facet of Spirituality

The current convergent validity analyses indicate that several of the BMMRS and TCI

subscales measure a similar spiritual construct (which is likely one of many different

spiritual constructs). Specifically, the Daily Spiritual Experiences and Values/Belief scales

were the only BMMRS spiritual subscales to be correlated with both the TCI Mysticismand Transpersonal Identification subscales, suggesting that they all assess a similar aspect

of spirituality. In order to concisely label this specific facet of spirituality, it is necessary to

538 J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541

123

review the items of these BMMRS and TCI subscales to determine what they specifically

measure.

Table 4 presents the individual items of the BMMRS Daily Spiritual Experience and

Values/Beliefs scales and the TCI Mysticism and Transpersonal Identification scales.

Review of these items supports the conceptualization of one facet of spirituality as the

experience of emotional connectedness to the divine, nature, and/or others (see bolded

items). These findings are consistent with the initial intent of the development of the

BMMRS, which indicated that ‘‘spirituality is concerned with the transcendent….’’ (p.

3), that ‘‘spirituality can call us beyond self to concern and compassion for others….’’

(p. 3), and that BMMRS ‘‘items (are) specifically related to connection with the

transcendent (Fetzer Institute & National Institute on Aging Working Group 1999;

p. 20). Furthermore, the initial experts involved in creating the BMMRS considered

including a subscale labeled ‘‘mystical experience.’’ Clearly, a spiritual concept

underlying the many different names provided to different measures of spirituality is a

mystical, transcendent connection with the divine/universe. The BMMRS manual even

states that ‘‘connection is an important concept’’ to consider in spirituality and

health research (Fetzer Institute & National Institute on Aging Working Group 1999;

p. 12).

Conceptualizing one aspect of spirituality in terms of emotional connectedness is also

consistent with previous suggestions that religious and spiritual variables be conceptual-

ized in terms of psychological variables (Elkins et al. 1988) and is consistent with the

subjective experiences individuals report during heightened states of spiritual experience

(e.g., feelings of unity with God/universe, dissolution of the self/other dichotomy).

Future Directions

The current results suggest a need to focus on one specific aspect of spirituality that

appears to be related to feelings of emotional connectedness to things beyond the self,

including the transcendent (e.g., divine), worldly (i.e., universe/nature), and personal (i.e.,

others). Conceptualizing spirituality in this manner allows for the evaluation of how dif-

ferent forms of connectedness (i.e., divine, nature, others) are differentially related to

health. Such a conceptualization of spirituality also allows for the investigation of how

such emotional connectedness is related to health for individuals from different religious

and non-religious populations, including theistic (mono- and polytheistic), non-theistic

(e.g., Buddhist), and atheistic groups. For example, several studies suggest that spiritual

experiences should be conceptualized in theistic (i.e., specific connection to God) versus

non-theistic dimensions (i.e., specific connection to the universe; Ellison and Fan 2008;

Zemore and Kaskutas 2004), whereas others have suggested that spirituality should be

conceptualized in terms of connectedness to God, to nature/life, to others, and to self

(Elkins et al. 1988). To date, Ellison and Fan (2008) reported that non-theistic factors (i.e.,

connection to the universe) are better predictors of well-being than theistic factors (i.e.,

connection to the divine).

The current results also support the continued need to conceptualize spirituality as a

multidimensional construct, similar to the manner in which the general constructs of

cognition (i.e., memory, attention, language, visual-spatial skills) and personality (i.e.,

extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness) have evolved over time to reflect the specific,

multidimensional nature of these constructs.

J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541 539

123

References

Campbell, J., Yoon, D. P., & Johnstone, B. (2010). Determining relationships between physical health andspiritual experience, religious practices, and congregational support in a heterogeneous medicalsample. Journal of Religion and Health, 49, 3–17.

Cloninger, C. R., Pryzbeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). The temperament and characterinventory. St. Louis: Washington University.

Cohen, D., Yoon, D. P., & Johnstone, B. (2009). Differentiating the impact of spiritual experiences, religiouspractices, and congregational support on the mental health of individuals with heterogeneous medicaldisorders. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 121–138.

Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Leat, J. A., & Saunders, C. (1988). Toward a humanistic-phenomenological spirituality: Definition, description, and measurement. Journal of HumanisticPsychology, 28, 5–18.

Ellison, C., & Fan, D. (2008). Daily spiritual experiences and psychological well-being in US adults. SocialIndicators Research, 88, 247–271.

Fetzer Institute & National Institute on Aging Working Group. (1999). Multidimensional measurement ofreligiousness/spirituality for use in health research. Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer Institute.

Fitchett, G., Rybarczyk, B. D., DeMarco, G. A., & Nicholas, J. J. (1999). The role of religion in medicalrehabilitation outcomes: A longitudinal study. Rehabilitation Psychology, 44(4), 333–353.

George, L. K., Ellison, C. G., & Larson, D. B. (2002). Exploring the relationships between religiousinvolvement and health. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 190–200.

Hackney, C. L., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and mental health: A meta-analysis of recent studies.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 43–55.

Hamer, D. (2004). The god gene: How faith is hardwired into our genes. New York: Anchor Books.Johnstone, B., Yoon, D. P., Franklin, K. L., Schopp, L. H., & Hinkebein, J. (2009). Reconceptualizing the

factor structure of the brief multidimensional measure of religiousness/spirituality. Journal of Religionand Health, 48(2), 146–163.

Kendler, K. S., Liu, X. Q., Gardner, C. O., McCullough, M. E., Larson, D., & Prescott, C. A. (2003).Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and substance use disorders.American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(3), 496–503.

Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health: A century ofresearch reviewed. New York: Oxford University Press.

MacDonald, D. A., & Holland, D. (2002). Examination of the psychometric properties of the temperamentand character inventory self-transcendence dimension. Personality and Individual Differences, 32,1013–1027.

Miller, W. R., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Spirituality, religion, and health: An emerging research field.American Psychologist, 58, 24–35.

Mokuau, N., Hishinuma, E., & Nishimura, S. (2001). Validating a measure of religiousness/spirituality forNative Hawaiians. Pacific Health Dialog, 8(2), 407–416.

Neff, J. A. (2006). Exploring the dimensionality of ‘‘religiosity’’ and ‘‘spirituality’’ in the Fetzer multidi-mensional measure. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(3), 449–459.

Newberg, A. B., & d’Aquili, E. G. (1998). The neuropsychology of spiritual experience. In H. Koenig (Ed.),Handbook of religion and mental health. San Diego: Academic Press.

Pargament, K. I. (1999). Religious/spiritual coping. In Fetzer Institute, National Institute on Aging WorkingGroup: Multidimensional measurement of religiousness/spirituality for use in health research. A reportof a national working group supported by Fetzer Institute in collaboration with the National Institute onAging (pp. 43–56). Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer Institute.

Pargament, K., Koenig, H., & Perez, L. (2000). The many methods of religious coping: Development andinitial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 519–543.

Piedmont, R. L., Mapa, A. T., & Williams, J. E. G. (2007). A factor analysis of the Fetzer/NIA briefmultidimensional measure of religiousness/spirituality. Research in the Social Scientific Study ofReligion, 17, 177–196.

Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Religion and spirituality. Linkages to physical health.American Psychologist, 58(1), 36–52.

Ray, O. (2004). How the mind hurts and heals the body. American Psychologist, 59, 29–40.Sloan, R. P., Bagiella, E., & Powell, T. (1999). Religion, spirituality, and medicine. The Lancet, 353,

664–667.Stewart, C., & Koeske, G. F. (2006). A preliminary construct validation of the multidimensional mea-

surement of religiousness/spirituality instrument: A study of southern USA samples. InternationalJournal for the Psychology of Religion, 16(3), 181–196.

540 J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541

123

Underwood, L., & Teresi, J. (2002). The daily spiritual experience scale: Development, theoreticaldescription, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using health-related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 22–33.

Yoon, D. P., & Lee, E. O. (2004). Religiousness/spirituality and emotional well-being among rural elderlyWhites, African Americans, and Native Americans. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Envi-ronment, 10(1), 191–211.

Zemore, S., & Kaskutas, L. (2004). Helping, spirituality and alcoholics anonymous in recovery. Journal ofStudies on Alcohol, 65, 383–391.

Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian &C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21–42). New York:Guilford Press.

J Relig Health (2012) 51:529–541 541

123