DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MEASURE OF RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL FLEXIBILITY Jonathan E. Schmalz Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2014 APPROVED: Amy R. Murrell, Major Professor Joshua N. Hook, Committee Member Randall J. Cox, Committee Member Vicki Campbell, Chair of the Department of Psychology Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Schmalz, Jonathan E. Development and Validation of a Measure of Religious and Spiritual Flexibility. Doctor of Philosophy (Clinical Psychology), August 2014, 155 pp., 6 tables, references, 182 titles. Religion and spirituality are vital aspects of many people’s lives both in the United States and across the globe. Although many constructs and measures exist to describe and assess the experience of pursuing the sacred, the complexity of religious and spiritual experience leads to mixed results in relation to well-being and psychopathological traits. However, in broad terms, the relationship appears positive. Over the past 30 years the need for more refined and useful approaches to the study of religious and spiritual behavior has been repeatedly acknowledged. Although authors wisely caution development of further measures without due cause, extant constructs and measures do not provide clear and consistent results for understanding the influence of one’s relationships to religion and spirituality upon behaviors of clinical interest. The present project drew from the functional contextual concept of psychological flexibility, which provides clarity to understanding the encouragement and maintenance of psychological well-being. A new construct of religious and psychological flexibility is explicated as a functional approach to understanding religious and spiritual behavior in a manner that is useful in research and clinical settings alike. The development and evaluation of the Measure of Religious and Spiritual Flexibility (MRSF) is described. The MRSF evidenced adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis results were positive, but indicate further refinement. Analyses suggested good construct validity of the MRSF in relation to psychological well-being and psychopathology; construct validity in relation to extant constructs in the psychology of religion was varied. Implications and future directions are discussed. Copyright 2014 by Jonathan E. Schmalz ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Religion, Spirituality and the Sacred .................................................................................. 4 Early Theoretical Formulations of the Psychology of Religion ......................................... 8 Religion and General Psychological Outcomes – A Lack of Clarity ............................... 10 Key Constructs and Measures in the Psychology of Religion .......................................... 13 Psychological Flexibility and the Sacred .......................................................................... 34 The Present Project and Rationale: A Measure of Religious and Spiritual Flexibility ... 51 Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 55 CHAPTER 2 METHOD ............................................................................................................... 57 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 57 Measures ........................................................................................................................... 57 Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 71 Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................... 71 Initial Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 71 Analysis of Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................................. 73 Analysis of Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................................. 77 Analysis of Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................................. 78 Analysis of Hypothesis 4 .................................................................................................. 79 Analysis of Hypothesis 5 .................................................................................................. 85 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 86 Findings............................................................................................................................. 86 Implications....................................................................................................................... 87 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 103 Future Directions ............................................................................................................ 107 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 117 iii REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 135 iv LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Characteristics of Sample ................................................................................................111 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor Matrix .....................................................................113 3. Means and SD of MRSF Items and Total Score ..............................................................114 4. Correlations (Pearson’s R) Between MRSF and Other Measures ...................................115 5. Correlations (Spearman’s Rho) Between MRSF and DASS Subscales ..........................115 6. Correlations (Pearson’s R) Between MRSF and Other Measures ...................................116 v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The importance of religion and spirituality is apparent in the lives of a majority of individuals globally and within the United States. As of 2009, more than 88% of people globally identify as adhering to some religion or faith. A little over 9% of people identify as non-religious and about 2% identify as atheistic (Central Intelligence Agency, 2012). In the United States, 84% of individuals claim adherence to a specific religion and 92% report that they believe in G-d (Gallup, 2011b; Gallup, 2011a). Moreover, Approximately 81% of Americans claim that religion is at least “fairly important” in their lives (Gallup, 2011b). Only 4-8% of people in the United States claim they are not at all religious (Central Intelligence Agency, 2012). While the United States has more individuals who adhere to religion than the global average, it also has more individuals who expressly do not. Even those who identify as non-theistic or atheistic are still defining this aspect of their identity in relation to the majority religious identity. That is, given the context of a majority religious nation, the non-religious are confronted with religiosity and compelled to identify themselves in response to the majority. Perhaps the near ubiquity of religious and spiritual pursuit is a reflection of feelings of connectedness to a higher power experienced throughout recorded history in most cultures. Furthermore, religion and spirituality provide explanations of the nature of life and particular ways to live and not to live. The influences of religious and spiritual worldviews on a range of behaviors suggest that the domain has clear relevance to a nuanced understanding of human behavior. Relative to the rest of the world, Americans report higher levels of faith identification (Central Intelligence Agency, 2012), so it is not surprising that issues of popular public concern regularly reflect the impact of religious and spiritual perspectives in the United States. Ongoing 1 disagreement over social issues (e.g., marriage of same-sex individuals, war) often find root in religiously informed worldviews. But even on such divisive issues, the mere fact that one believes in a higher power or attends religious service regularly does not differentiate supporters of such issues from detractors. Indeed, two persons with a common faith may have very different reactions to a family member coming out as homosexual; one may open her arms with acceptance, while the other may turn away in disgust. In the past 40 years in the United States, political perspectives have become increasingly associated with levels of religious commitment and activity, rather than clearly associated with one faith group or another (Putnam & Campbell, 2012). It is perhaps not the contents of a specific faith that determine the direction of these outcomes, but the idiosyncratic interaction