Spiritual But Not Religious? Evidence for TwoIndependent DispositionsGerard Saucier1and Katarzyna Skrzypinska21University ofOregon2University ofGdansk, PolandABSTRACT Some psychologists treat religious/spiritual beliefs as aunitary aspectofindividual differences.Buta distinctionbetweenmysti-cismandorthodoxreligionhasbeenrecognizedbyscholarsaswell aslaypersons, and empirical studies of ism variables and of spiritualitymeasures haveyieldedfactors reectingthis distinction. Usingalargesampleof Americanadults, analysesdemonstratethat subjectivespiri-tualityandtradition-orientedreligiousness areempiricallyhighlyinde-pendent and have distinctly different correlates in the personality domain,suggesting that individuals with different dispositions tend towarddifferent stylesofreligious/spiritual beliefs. Thesedimensionshavelowcorrelations withthelexical BigFivebut highcorrelations withscales(e.g., Absorption, Traditionalism) onsomeomnibuspersonalityinven-tories,indicatingtheirrelevanceforstudiesofpersonality.Beliefs about religious or spiritual phenomena have importanteffectsonhumanbehaviorandfunctioning. Theycanprovideonewithacognitivemapoftheworldthatmakesitmeaningful. Suchworldviewbeliefscanllmanyfunctions.Theyprovideaparadigmfor,amongotherthings,howtheuniversebegan,whatthepurposeof lifeis,and how tounderstand injusticeand death(Argyle& BeitHallahmi,1975); they may provide a buffer against mortality-basedanxiety, enhancing a sense of safety and security (Greenberg,Work on this article was supported by Grant MH-49227 from the National Institute ofMental Health, U.S. PublicHealthService. Theauthors aregrateful toTarikBel-BaharandLewisR.Goldbergforhelpfulsuggestions.Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed to: Gerard Saucier,Department ofPsychology, 1227UniversityofOregon, Eugene, OR97403. E-mail:gsaucier@uoregon.edu.JournalofPersonality74:5,October2006r 2006,CopyrighttheAuthorsJournalcompilation r 2006,BlackwellPublishing,Inc.DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00409.xPyszczynski, &Solomon, 1986), andthey may satisfy needs fora purpose in life, anchoring a sense of what is right andwrong(Baumeister, 1991). Moreover, suchbeliefsconnect people,enabling the sharing of a system of values and rules that is obligatoryfor a social group (Kuczkowski, 1993), values and rules that may beaprimeguidingforceforactualbehavior(Ma)drzycki,1996).Perhaps because of the way it performs these functions, religious-nessappearstohavesomepositiveeffectsonhealthandlongevity(Kozielecki, 1991; Powell, Shahabi, & Thoresen, 2003). Theseinclude protective effects with respect to alcohol/drug abuse (Miller,1998).Nonetheless, theremaybenegativeeffectsaswellas positiveones(Koenig,1997).Despite their impact, religious or spiritual beliefs have long been amatter of only peripheral concern to personality psychologists(Emmons, 1999). In part, this stems fromthe assumption thatdifferencesinreligiosityarearesult of environmental ratherthangenetic causes and might, therefore, be the proper domain ofsociologists. However, recent studies inbehavior genetics suggestthat religiosity(thoughnot denominational afliation) issubstan-tiallyheritable bymechanisms independent of commonlystudiedpersonality traits (DOnofrio, Eaves, Murrelle, Maes, &Spilka,1999; Kendler, Gardner, &Prescott, 1997; Waller, Kojetin, Bou-chard,Lykken,&Tellegen,1990),asmaybetrueofattitudesmoregenerally(Olson, Vernon, Harris, &Jang, 2001). Religiousexperi-ence may be associated with specic aspects of brain function(Newberg&dAquili,2000;Newbergetal.,2001),andbeliefsmayplay a physiological role in affect regulation (McGuire, Troisi,Raleigh, & Masters, 1998). Such ndings erode the division betweenreligiosityandotherpersonalitydifferences.Psychologistsoutsidethespecializeddisciplineofpsychologyofreligion often treat religious/spiritual beliefs as a unitary aspectof individual differences. But laypersons seemable to recognizedistinct vectors in such beliefs (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). For example,one increasingly encounters phrases like spiritual but not reli-gious. This phrase forms the title of a recent scholarly book (Fuller,2001) that discussescontemporarymetaphysical religionandun-churched, eclectic, and psychological spirituality. To a tradition-orientedadherentofareligion,suchformsofspiritualitymaylooklike one is making up ones own faith or creating a personallycustomizedworldview. Nonetheless, Fuller estimates that 20%of1258 Saucier&SkrzypinskaAmericans adhere to such unchurched spirituality, which has a longlegacyinAmericanhistory.DeningKey TermsOnecanndmanydenitionsofreligiousnessinthepsychologicalliterature. Thereareconcrete, abstract, metaphysical, prescriptive,relationship-oriented, inner-motivation-oriented, and existential-quest-orienteddenitions (Zinnbauer, Pargament, &Scott, 1999).ArgyleandBeit-Hallahmi (1975) denedreligionas asystemofbeliefs in a divine or superhuman power, and practices of worship orother rituals directed towards such a power (p. 1). The emphasis onworshipandrituals implies communityactivitythat binds or tiespeopletogether.IndeedthewordreligioncomesfromLatinreligio,derived from ligo meaning to tie or bind (etymologically related tothe English word ligament). Denitions of spirituality usually putmoreemphasisontheindividualandonsubjectiveexperience.Thewordcomes fromLatinspiritus, inturnfromspirare(tobreathe;Wulff, 1997). ShafranskeandGorsuch(1984) denedspirituality,broadly, as a transcendent dimension within human experience . . .discoveredinmomentsinwhichtheindividualquestionsthemean-ingof personal existence andattempts toplace the self withinabroaderontological context (p. 231). Vaughan(1991)providedauseful, more specic, denition: a subjective experience of thesacred(p.105).Inlinewiththismorespecicusage,inthisarticlewe will use the more precise term subjective spirituality. In America,virtuallyall religious peoplecall themselves spiritual, as dosomenonreligious people.Subjective spiritualityshouldbeunderstoodasanarrowerandlessinclusiveandambiguousnotionthanspiritual-ity,onecloserinmeaningtothenatural-languagetermmysticism.Reports of mystical experiences arenot foundonlyamongtheconventionallyreligious.Inthegeneralpopulation,thetendencytomakesuchreportsiscorrelatedwiththetendencytoreport para-normal experiences (Thalbourne & Delin, 1994). A variety of studiesindicatethatmystical experiencesaremorefrequentlyreportedbyindividuals who self-identify as spiritual rather than religious(Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, &Gorsuch, 2003). Wesuggest, how-ever, that the term mystical is more distinct in meaning from religiousthan is the termspiritual. Spiritual but not religious likelyindicates mystical preferences, but because spiritual has moreSpiritualButNotReligious 1259favorable connotations inEnglishthandoes mystical, spiritual ismoreattractiveforself-description.Tradition-OrientedReligiousnessandSubjectiveSpiritualityinPreviousLiteratureReectiononthesekeytermsinuencedustodistinguishbetweentradition-oriented religiousness (TR) and subjective spirituality (SS).Wendthis distinctionimplicit inpast scholarshipandresearch.Zinnbauer, Pargament, and Scott (1999) made specic contrastsbetween(a) organizedreligionandpersonal spirituality, (b) sub-stantive religionandfunctional spirituality, and(c) negative reli-giousness and positive spirituality. In each of these contrasts, the rsttermreectsTRandthesecondtermSS.Emmons (1999) and others (e.g., Skrzypin ska, 2002, in press) havemadethecontrast inanother way, notingthat spiritualitycanbestrongly related to religiousness, though it is not always. ForEmmons, spiritualityinvolves asearchfor meaning, unity, con-nectednesstonature, humanity, andthetranscendent (Emmons,1999,p.877),thushavingastrongsubjectiveelement.Religion,incontrast, provides a faith community with teachings and narrativesthat enhance the searchfor the sacredandencourage morality(Emmons, 1999, citing Dollahite, 1998, p. 877), thus having a strongtraditionalist element. Emmonss contrast is, we believe, morepreciselyexpressedasonebetweensubjectivespiritualityandtradi-tion-orientedreligiousness.Empiricalsupportforthiscontrastisprovidedbyarecentstudyof the content of isms terms in the English language. Saucier (2000),assuming that the most important worldview-belief concepts tend tobecome represented in words ending in ism, extracted 266 such termsfromanEnglish-languagedictionaryandbuiltitemsdirectlyfromtheirdenitions.Inasampleof500collegestudents,thereplicableitemstructureshadnomorethanfourfactors. Aparallel studyofisms found in a Romanian-language dictionary, in Romania,replicated the four-factor structure (Krauss, in press). Two ofthe four factorsAlpha andDeltaare relevant here. Conceptsloadingmost highlyonAlphaemphasizeindividual differencesinadherence to traditional and religious sources of authority; thisfactoriscorrelatedsubstantiallywithconservatismandauthoritar-ianism. Concepts loadinghighlyonDeltaemphasize unorthodox1260 Saucier&Skrzypinskaspirituality.Theyinvolveindividualdifferencesinbeliefsemphasiz-ing intuition and spiritual experiences of a mystical nature, butincluding some currently fashionable superstitions. Alpha and Deltaappear to encapsulate the distinction between tradition-orientedreligiousnessandsubjectivespirituality.AsetoffactorscorrespondingtoAlphaandDeltawasreportedbyMacDonald(2000),whosoughttoidentifythecommondimen-sions in 11 prominent measures of religious and spiritual constructs.He found ve factors: Religiousness, Cognitive Orientation TowardsSpirituality (COTS), Experiential/Phenomenological (E/P), Paranor-mal Beliefs, and Existential Well-Being. A higher-order factoranalysisfoundtwofactors. OnewaslabeledCognitiveandBeha-vioralOrientationTowardsSpiritualityandincludedReligiousnessand COTS. The other factor was labeled Non-Ordinary ExperiencesandBeliefs; capturingdistinctions inprevious measures of mysti-cism, it included E/P and Paranormal Beliefs. Existential Well-Being,whose content overlaps withEmotional Stabilityversus Neuroti-cism, did not have appreciable loadings on either higher-order factor.Thesetwohigher-orderfactors appeartocorrespondtoTRandSS.Outside psychology, scholars describing diverse religions havenotedadistinctionbetweenmysticalschoolsofthoughtontheonehandandmoreorthodoxtrendsontheother(e.g., Sabatier, 1905;Schuon, 1953), fundamentalism being in many respects an attempt toreassert orthodoxy. For example, in Islam, Susmrepresents amysticalschool,whereasIslamicorthodoxyisbetterrepresentedintheSaliorWahhabi schoolsofpractice.InJudaism,themysticalKaballacontrasts withvarious orthodoxschools. Zenis anespe-ciallymysticalformofBuddhism.Theterms esotericandexotericaresometimes usedtocapturethese distinctions (Schuon, 1953). According toSchuon, exotericreligionemphasizes formandtends towardliteralistic dogmas, aclaimtoexclusivepossessionof the truth, sentimentality, andanemphasisonmoralityandpersonal salvation(whichservesindivi-dual interest, such as reward or relief in an afterlife), couched in waysthatmakeitattractivetoamajorityofpeople.Esotericreligion,incontrast, is moremetaphysical, contemplative, orientedtoknowl-edge, wisdom, andunicationwithdivinity, andtowardthespiritandnot theletterof religiousteachings. Asimilardistinctionwasmade by Sabatier (1905) between authority- and spirit-focusedapproachestoreligion.SpiritualButNotReligious 1261ThetermsesotericandexotericshouldnotbeconfusedwiththetermsintrinsicandextrinsicusedbyAllport (1959). Thesedonotconcernbeliefbutrathermotivation: Intrinsicshavehighcommit-ment to religious activities and beliefs, treating religion as an end initself; extrinsics use religion as a means to desired personal ends (e.g.,status, comfort). Intrinsic and extrinsic distinguish two ways of beingreligious and are concepts that were envisaged to describe individualdifferenceswithinreligiouspopulations;indeed, thedistinctionhasbeenproblematictoapplyoutsidesuchpopulations (e.g., Burris,1994).TR and SS,incontrast,aredimensionsapplicable togeneralpopulationsamples, althoughonemightconceivablyidentifybothintrinsics and extrinsics among individuals high in either dimension.HypothesesWe made the empirical conjecture that the distinction betweenmystical andorthodoxforms of belief corresponds tothat oftenmadebetweenthetermsspiritual andreligiousandwithindividualdifferences in important psychological variables. We set out toinvestigate two questions: Is the division of religious/spiritual beliefsintotwoindependent dimensionsapsychometricreality?Andarethe correlates with psychological variables so distinct and substantialthatpsychologistsshouldbepayingattentiontothesedimensions?Our hypotheses all follow from an overarching conception of thedifferencebetweenTRandSS. TRinvolvesarelianceontrustedsources of authority (such as scriptures or a church) that are a sharedreferencepointforagroupofindividualsthesesourcesprovidingclarity butalso animpetus for conformity.SS isa moresubjectivistandindividualizedapproachthatinvolvesmorerelianceonprivateimaginationandintuition, more egalitarianism, more nonconfor-mism, and more of a questioning attitude toward status-quocollectivenorms.Arst hypothesis was that inEnglishthetermspiritual differsfromthetermreligiousinawaythat correspondstothecontrastbetween SS and TR. This is in line with empirical ndings ofZinnbauer et al. (1997), that is, religiousness being relativelymore highly associated with authoritarianism, orthodoxy, andchurch attendance; spirituality being relatively more associatedwithmystical experiences andNewAgebeliefs andpractices. Wealsohypothesizedthat the termmystical wouldcorrespondmore1262 Saucier&Skrzypinskaclosely to the SS side of the contrast, and that responses to the singleadjectives mystical and religious would be approximately orthogonalin self-ratings and would correspond with the two higher-orderfactors of spirituality found by MacDonald (2000). We furtherhypothesizedthat thesetwosetsof orthogonal distinctionswouldcorrespond to that orthogonal distinction between Alpha and Deltafactors emerging in analyses of isms terms (Krauss, in press; Saucier,2000). If all these initial hypotheses were supported, it wouldbepossibletoconceiveof twolatent, highlyindependent dimensionshavingthreesetsofindicators, onesetfromtheadjectival lexicon,onebasedonfactorsfromspiritualitymeasures,andonebasedonfactorsfromismsconcepts.Inlinewithouroverarchingconception,weformedavarietyofhypotheses regarding how TR and SS would diverge with respect tosubstantiveassociationswithothervariables.WehypothesizedthatTR(andnotSS)wouldberelatedtothefollowing: individual differences in traditionalism, authoritarianism,collectivism, and impression management; attitudes emphasizing thepower of divinityhierarchicallyexercised(e.g., byasupernaturalGodthroughmiracles); believingit important torespect whateverrepresents the sources of such divine authority (e.g., scriptures,religious rules, and leaders) while not respecting those whose beliefsor behavior go against such authority (e.g., evolutionists, gays,feminists); and, behaviorally, high engagement in religious practicesandlowlevelsofdrugandalcoholuse.WehypothesizedthatSS(andnotTR)wouldberelatedtothefollowing: individual differences inabsorption, fantasy-proneness,dissociation, private self-consciousness, eccentricity, (low) social-dominance orientation,and individualism (especiallyofan egalitar-ian variety); attitudes emphasizing the power of nonhierarchicalsupernaturalforces(e.g.,magic,witchcraft,astrology,fate);believ-ingit isimportant torespect thosealignedwithsuchforces(e.g.,enlightenedpersonsandpsychics); and, behaviorally, highengage-ment in environmentalist practices and the pursuit of personalcreativeachievement.We hypothesizedthat personality scales designedtocaptureboth religious and spiritual tendencies (e.g., self-transcendence)would correlate with both TRand SS. Correlated in oppositedirections with TR and SS would be some other variables, includingthose related to conformity (vs. nonconformity), favoring (vs.SpiritualButNotReligious 1263questioning) of norms, hierarchical relationsof authority, andthecontrastbetweencollectivismandindividualism.Religiousness appears to be generally independent of the Big Five(Piedmont, 1999; Saucier&Goldberg, 1998). However, atrendinpreviousstudies(reviewedbySaroglou, 2002)indicatesthatreligi-osity is correlated, although quite modestly, with the Big Five factorsof Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. We suggest that suchrelations dependonthe content of the religiousness measure, inparticular how much the measure emphasizes TR as compared to SS.Wehypothesizedthat TRwouldberelatedtoAgreeableness andConscientiousness but that SSwouldbe associatedinsteadwithOpenness to Experience (and with its lexical-factor counterpart,Imagination/Intellect).METHODParticipantsThesampleconsistedof those375members of theEugene-Springeldcommunity sample whocompletedall measures describedbelowandincluded 160 men and 215 women, with an average age of 51.23 (standarddeviation12.4) at rst recruitment in1993(bywayof response toamailingsenttoareahomeowners). Mostmeasuresadministeredtothissample have involved personality and not beliefs. Those used in this studywereadministeredbetween1993and2002.Responses to a multiple-choice question about denominational aflia-tionwereavailablefor358oftherespondents(theother17respondentshad not returned an entire survey questionnaire containing this item). Ofthe358, 44%indicatedaProtestant afliation, 9%Catholic, and2%eachforMormonandJewish. CorrespondingexactlytoFullers(2001)estimate for unchurched spirituality in America, 20% endorsed spiri-tual, but not afliated with a conventional religion. Another 6%endorsed other, and 16%endorsed a none option. Participantswere included in analyses regardless of their category and degree ofreligiousafliation.Thecross-timestabilityof religiousattitudesinolderadultsisquitehigh. For example, inthis sample the retest correlationbetweenself-descriptionresponsestothesingleadjectiveReligiousin1993and1996wasanimpressive.80higherthanistypicallyexpectedforpersonalityitems and scales. And, as will be seen, response to this single item in 1993correlatednearly.80withanonadjectival indexof religiosityadminis-tered9yearslater.1264 Saucier&SkrzypinskaMeasuresAdjectives. The termReligious (fromthe 1993administration, whichhad a higher N than that of 1996) was used (19 rating scale), as were theterms Mystical andSpiritual (administeredin2002, witha17ratingscale).ThetermReligiouswasnotreadministeredin2002.ESIitems. ItemsfromMacDonalds(2002)ExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory(ESI) wereused, except for theomissionof items fromthismeasures well-beingscale, a fairlyconventional measure of Neuroticism(ofwhichwehadothermeasures),whoseitemslackexplicitspiritualorreligiouscontent.Theremaining24items,allofwhichincludedexplicitmentionof spiritual or religious content, werefactor analyzedbytwomethods(principal componentsandmaximumlikelihoodextraction, ineither case with both oblimin and varimax rotation), extracting twofactors, whichwereextremelysimilar across methods. Because of ourinterest in retaining exact factor scores, we relied henceforth on theoblimin-rotatedcomponents, whichcorrelated.36. As expected, thesetwodimensionscorrespondedwell toTRandSS. Thetwocomponentswere interpreted as Religiousness (with content referencing attendingservices and the cognitive importance and effects of religion in ones life)andSpiritual Experiences(withcontentreferencingexperiencesthataremystical, transcendspaceandtimeortheusual senseof self, andalsoparanormal beliefs regarding psychokinesis, ghosts, predicting the future,leavingonesbody,andcommunicatingwiththedead).Alpha and Delta isms factors. Saucier (2004) described the developmentoftheSurveyofDictionary-BasedIsms(SDI),whichconsistsof48itemclusters(ofroughlyfouritemseach)centeredaroundoneormoreismsconceptsfoundinanEnglish-languagedictionary. Whenthese48itemclusterswerefactoranalyzed,inthesamecommunitysampleusedhere,four obliquely rotated factors were virtually orthogonal and nearlyidentical tothe four varimaxfactors, whichcorrespondedwell tothefour factors from earlier studies of dictionary-based isms (Saucier, 2000).WeusedthefactorscoresforAlphaandDelta(fromtheanalysisof48clusters)inouranalyses.Supplementaryattitudescales. Saucier(2004)alsodescribedthedevel-opment of 42additional itemclustersrepresentingconstructsfromtheprevious literature not directly referenced in the SDI or otherwisecomplementarytoSDI content. Inthis study, we usedthree of thesescales: those for Quest-Orientation (a questioning way of being religious;coefcientAlpha[a].80),Hierachialism(valuingobedience/deferencetoSpiritualButNotReligious 1265those inahigher social position; a.55), andExtropunitiveness (hier-archicallyexercisedharshnesstowardcriminals; a.69).Eccentricity. WeutilizedanunpublishedscaledevelopedbyGoldbergwith 21 items (a .84) from the International Personality Item Pool (http://www.ipip.ori.org). ExampleitemsareKnowthat myideassometimessurprise people, Amable to disregard rules, Love to dress inoutlandishclothes, and(reverse-scored) Liketobeviewedasproperandconventional.Conformity. The adjectives Nonconforming and Conforming were admi-nisteredtoparticipants,andaConforming-minus-Nonconformingscorecalculated (a .92). We expected TRto be positively and SS to benegativelyrelatedtothisindex. Norm-Favoringvs. Norm-Questioning(v. 2;a.74)fromtheCaliforniaPsychological Inventory(CPI; Gough,1996)wasusedasanadditionalindexofconformity.Impressionmanagement. Anotherpossibleaspect of conformityistheneedforapproval (Crowne&Marlowe, 1964), nowbestrepresentedinmeasuresofimpressionmanagement(IM; Paulhus, 1984). WeusedtheBalancedInventoryofDesirableResponding(Paulhus, 1988)IMscale,with continuous, not dichotomized, scores (a .82). Aprevious studyindicated a signicant correlation between religiosity and impressionmanagement(Gillings&Joseph,1996).Privateself-consciousness. Privateself-consciousnessisadispositiontobe highly aware of internal states (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). WeadministeredthescaleofBuss(1980; a.76).Authoritarianism. Weuseda selectionofRight-Wing Authoritarianism(RWA) items (Altemeyer, 1996). The 14 items (seven pro-trait, seven con-trait; a.91) were selectedas agroupthat maximizedcoverage of thecontent in the longer scale (as found in stepwise regression of RWA itemson RWAscore in the Study 2 data set fromSaucier [2000]), whilemaintainingbalancedkeyingofpro-traitandcon-traititems.Social dominance orientation (SDO). We used a selection of SDO items(from Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). The eight items (fourpro-trait,fourcon-trait; a.80)wereselectedasagroupthatmaximizedcoverage of the content in the longer scale (as found in stepwise regressionof SDO items on SDO score in the Study 2 data set from Saucier [2000]),whilemaintainingbalancedkeyingofpro-traitandcon-traititems. We1266 Saucier&Skrzypinskahypothesizedthat SS, duetoits egalitarianor horizontal emphases,wouldbenegativelyassociatedwithSocialDominanceOrientation.Collectivism and individualism. We used scales by Triandis and Gelfand(1998). Thesehavehorizontal (egalitarian) andvertical (pro-hier-archy)subscalesforbothIndividualism(idiocentrism)andCollectivism(allocentrism). Inkeepingwithourhypotheses, weaggregatedthetwoCollectivismsubscales (a .68) and for Individualismused only thehorizontal Individualismsubscale(a.57). WealsousedtheOyserman(1993) scales for Individualism(a .55) and Collectivism(a .67) andsubtractedscores onone fromthe scores onthe other toarrive at aCollectivism-minus-Individualismscore(a.63).From the Magical Ideation Scale of Eckblad and Chapman (1983) weused all 30 items but changed the response format from true-false to a 5-pointformat(stronglyagree,agree,notsure,disagree,stronglydisagree).ThescalehadacoefcientAlphaof.92.Irrational beliefs (Superstitiousness). We used the 19-itemscale ofKoopmans, Sanderman, Timmerman, and Emmelkamp (1994) withcoefcientAlphaof.93. Contentincludesbeliefsinpsychokinesis, out-of-body experiences, astrology, reincarnation, spells, and psychic powers.Fantasy-proneness. We used the Creative Experiences Questionnaire(CEQ; Merkelbach, Horselenberg, &Muris, 2001). However, wesepa-rated out the eight as a child items as a measure of childhood fantasies(viaretrospectiverecall; a.72)becausetheygivearetrospectiveaccountofchildhoodfantasy-proneness,apotentiallyusefulantecedentvariable.The17remainingitemsweretakenas a measureof fantasy-pronenessinadulthood(a.77). Thetwomeasures(currentandretrospective)corre-lated.41.Dissociation. We utilized the 31-item Curious Experiences Survey (CES;Goldberg,1999),arevisionoftheDissociativeExperiencesScale(Bern-stein&Putnam,1986).Alphawas.90.MPQscales. We used scores fromthe Traditionalism(a .87) andAbsorption(a.90)scalesfromtheMultidimensional PersonalityQues-tionnaire(MPQ;Tellegen,inpress).TheTemperament andCharacter Inventory(TCI; Cloninger et al.,1994) has aSelf-Transcendencescale(a.95) withvesubscales, all ofwhichwereusedinouranalyses. Thelabelsforthesubscalesinorder(ST1 to ST5; a .79, .77, .90, .95, .82) are: Self-forgetful versusSelf-consciousexperience(i.e., absorption), Transpersonal identicationSpiritualButNotReligious 1267versus Self-differentiation (e.g., sense of connection with all things),SpiritualacceptanceversusRationalmaterialism(e.g.,contactwithanddirection by a higher power), Enlightened versus Objective (supernaturalguidance), andIdealisticversusPractical (e.g., engagement withprayerand moral ideals). We hypothesized that some of these subscales would becorrelatedmainlywithTR,theotherswithSS,and,byimplication,thatST subscales can be differentiated based on relative TR and SS loadings.BigFive. Toindexthe BigFive factor structure we usedthe Mini-Markers (Saucier, 1994) to capture the lexical representation of thestructure and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae,1992) to capture its best-known questionnaire representation. Coefcientalphavaluesrangedfrom.77to.86forMini-Markersand.85to.92fortheNEO-PI-R.Multi-LanguageSeven. Toindexavariantfactorstructurethatisalsolexically derived but may provide a better t to indigenous factorstructures fromnon-Europeanlanguages, we usedthe 60ML7, a 60-adjectivemeasureoftheMulti-LanguageSevenfactors(Gregariousness,Self-Assurance, EvenTemper, Concernfor Others, Conscientiousness,Originality/Intellect, Social Unacceptability/Negative Valence) withalpha values of .70 to .81. These seven factors were derived fromcommonalities found in structures fromlexical studies of Filipino(Church, Reyes, Katigbak, &Grimm, 1997) and Hebrew(Almagor,Tellegen,&Waller,1995),studiesinwhichBigFivestructureswerenotobtained(Saucier,2003).Behavioral frequency reports. We used four clusters developed by Gold-berg(inpress)fromasetof400activitydescriptions;participantsratedthe relative frequency with which they engaged in the activity. Theclustersinvolveddrug/alcoholbehavior(a.89;e.g.,becameintoxicated,smokedmarijuana,drankbeer), religiouspractices(a.87; e.g., readtheBible, taughtSundayschool, prayed), creativeachievementbehavior(a.70; e.g., producedaworkof art, wrotepoetry, actedinaplay), andproenvironmentalist practices (a .76; e.g., rode a bicycle to work, boughtorganicfood,recycled).Attitude about categories of people. To tap specic attitudes aboutclasses and groups of people, 32 items were administered with thequestionWhodeservesmoreinuence, power, andrespect? anda5-point response scale (much less, slightly less, already have the right amount,slightlymore, muchmore). Itemssuitingourhypotheseswere: religious1268 Saucier&Skrzypinskaleaders, thosewhostudytheholyscriptures, thosewhofollowtheTenCommandments,militaryleaders,gayandlesbianpeople,scientistswhobelieve inevolution, feminists, those withpsychic abilities, those withunconventional spiritual beliefs, spiritually enlightened persons, andpeoplewhoavoidmilitaryservice.Attitudes about causal forces. To tap other consequential specic beliefs,44items wereadministeredwiththequestionWhat forces determinewhat happens in life? and a 5-point response scale (never, seldom,sometimes, often, always). Items suiting our hypotheses were: God,miracles, supernatural power, astrological inuences, magic, witchcraft,destiny,andfate.Childbearing and divorce. Reecting the likely greater collectivism of TRandindividualismofSS, wehypothesizedthatTRwouldbeassociatedwitha lower likelihoodof divorce anda larger number of children,whereas SS would be associated with a higher likelihood of havingexperiencedadivorce andwithsmaller numbers of children. Numberof biological childrenandfrequencyof divorcewereelicitedwithtwoitemsfromamongalarger18-itemsurvey, headedThingsThatDontHappenEveryDay,thataskedrespondentstoidentifyhowofteneachof 18eventshadoccurredintheirlives. Thetwoitemsusedhereweregavebirthtoor fatheredachild andbeendivorced. The6-pointresponse scale had response options of never, once, twice, three times, fourtimes, andveor more times. For this samplethe mediannumber ofchildren was two, with 14% percent having never begotten a child. Some33%of thesamplehadexperiencedat least onedivorce; responses toanotheritemindicatedthatonly5%hadneverbeenmarried.RESULTSThethreesets of indicatorsfor TRandSSwerenot signicantlycorrelatedwiththe age of the participantcorrelations withagerangingfrom .05to.10forTRindicatorsandfrom .10to.07forSSindicators. All of theindicators, ontheotherhand, hadaverymodest point-biserial correlationwithgender. Withpositivecorrelationsindicatinghigherscoresamongwomenthanmen, thecorrelationswere.12(Religious), .21(ESIReligiousness), .14(SDIAlpha), .09 (Mystical), .21 (ESI Spiritual Experiences), and .26 (SDIDelta). We infer that TR and SS are both unrelated to age, but bothappeartobeweaklyrelatedtobeingfemaleratherthanmale.SpiritualButNotReligious 1269Responsemeans(ona17scale)werelowerforMystical (2.87;SD 1.78), than for Religious (4.28; SD 1.94) and for Spiritual (4.61;SD 2.19). This is in harmony with Normans (1967) report indicatingthat, in English, on a 1 to 9 scale, Mystical (M55.22) is less sociallydesirablethanReligious(M56.57)andSpiritual(M56.42).The correlations among these terms were .68 (Religious-Spiritual),.26(Spiritual-Mystical), and.09(Religious-Mystical). Controllingfor Religious (inapartial correlationanalysis) didnot affect thecorrelationbetweenSpiritual andMystical. Indications are, then,that Spiritual is somewhat intermediary between the other twoconcepts, whereas Religious andMystical havemoreindependentdenotation. Spiritual and Religious were highly correlated, but,nonetheless, when aSpiritual-minus-Religiousscorewascalculated,this score also correlated positively (.26) with Mystical in the presentsample,consonantwithourpredictions.Table1presentsallcorrelationsamongthethreesetsofputativeindicatorsforTRandSS.Wenotethatthewithin-setintercorrela-tions for TR are very high, much higher than those for SS, indicatingamoretightlyconvergingconstruct. Between-set correlations(TRwithSSindicators)weregenerallysmall.Becausesomanyhypoth-eses were tested simultaneously, we used a relatively stringentcriterion ( po.001) for statistical signicance in this and other tables.Byfar,thelargestbetween-setcorrelation(.36)wasbetweenESIReligiousness and ESI Spiritual Experiences. Scrutiny of the 24 ESIitemsrevealedthatsixusethetermspiritual,whereasonlytwousereligious andoneuses mystical. Theitems that includedthetermspiritual all hadatleastmoderate(.37orhigher)loadingsonboththe Religiousness and Spiritual Experiences factors. Moreover, itemsreferring to belief in the reality of witchcraft and of spirits and ghostsand to merger with a force or power greater than myself also hadsubstantialloadingsonbothfactors.AvoidingtheseitemsthatmixTRandSScontent,wedididentifysmallsubsetsofESIitemsthatcould be used as adequately reliable abbreviated indicator scales forTRandSSwitha near-zerocorrelation; the six items involvedreference to seeing oneself as a religiously oriented person and to theimportanceofgoingtoreligiousservices(forTR; a.87),aswellastranscendingspace andtime, leavingones body, communicatingwiththedead,andpsychokinesis(forSS; a.78).However,becauseourparticularselectionoforthogonalitem-setsmightcapitalizeonchance features of the present sample, we relied for subsequent1270 Saucier&SkrzypinskaTable1CorrelationMatrixforThreeSetsofIndicatorsforDimensionsofTradition-OrientedReligiousnessandSubjectiveSpiritualityIndicatorTradition-OrientedReligiousnessSubjectiveSpiritualityReligiousESIReligiousnessSDIAlpha.()MysticalESISpiritualExpcs.SDIDelta.()ReligiousESIReligiousness.78(.72/.84)SDIAlpha.().76(.69/.83).81(.75/.87)Mystical.09(.01/.19).19(.09/.29).11(.01/.22)ESISpiritualExperiences.17(.07/.27).36(.26/.45).20(.10/.30).51(.42/.60)SDIDelta.().06(.04/.17).18(.08/.28).01(.09/.12).37(.27/.46).52(.44/.61)Note.N5375.ReligiousandMysticalrefertosingleadjectivestreatedas1-itemmeasures.ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory(MacDonald,2002).SDISurveyofDictionary-BasedIsms(Saucier,2004).Coefcientsinparenthesesare95%condencelimits.Correlationsover.40areprintedinboldfacetype.analyses on the obliquely related principal components based on allof the 24 ESI items; use of orthogonal components from the same 24itemsledtoverysimilarexternalcorrelates.Overall, we interpretedthese results as evidence insupport ofusingthesemeasurestheadjectivesreligiousandmystical,thetwoismsfactors,andthetwoESIfactorsasconvergingindicatorsforeachof tworeligious/spiritual belief dimensions that tendtobehighlyindependentofoneanotherandcanevidentlybemadefullyorthogonalwithease,ifdesired.Given the good convergence among the indicators within each set,wesimpliedthehypothesistestingbyaggregatingtheindicators.Onemeanstothisendwasaprincipalcomponentsanalysis.Whenthe six indicators were analyzedwithtwofactors extractedandrotatedbytheobliqueobliminmethod,theyloadedasexpectedonseparateTRandSSfactors, whichintercorrelatedonly.18, witha95% condence interval from .08 to .28. Use of maximum-likelihoodextraction ledto nearlyidentical factors,intercorrelating .22.In thecomponent solution, salient structure-matrixloadings onthe rstfactor were .93 (Alpha), .93 (ESI Religiousness), and .91 (Religious),whereas salient loadings on the second factor were .85 (ESI SpiritualExperiences), .79 (Delta), and .77 (Mystical), with all other loadingsbeing of magnitude .31 or lower. Component scores were saved fromthisanalysisandcomparedtocompositevariablesconstructedbystandardizing allsix indicators, then averaging the three TR indica-tors, andthenseparately averaging the three SSindicators. Thecompositevariablescorrelated.9994(TR)and.9990(SS)withthecorresponding component scores and .21 with each other (95%condence interval from.11 to .31). Treating each set of threeindicators as alternate measures of a single construct, we couldcomputepreciselytheinternal consistencyofthesecompositevari-ables (a .91 for TR, .72 for SS). Therefore, we used these bypreference in our hypothesis tests (although a comparison indicatedthat thenearlyidentical component scores wouldhaveledtothesameconclusions).Aquestionof someinterest is whether hypotheses wouldhavebeen supported if we had used only one kind of indicator. To enableexaminationofthissubsidiaryissue,weprovideadditionalcorrela-tionsbetweeneachindicatorandthemeasures. ButweemphasizethatinTables27,thetwoleftmostcolumnsof correlationsarethecrucial ones. The next two columns to the right provide estimates of1272 Saucier&Skrzypinskathe correlations after correctionfor attenuationdue toimperfectreliabilityofthemeasures. Thesecorrectionsshouldbeinterpretedwithsomecautionbecausesuchcorrectionscanbeexcessivetothedegree that the two variables involved are multidimensional insimilarways(Schmitt, 1996); thescalesinthetableslikelyvaryintheir degreeof multidimensionality, sothereis ahazardof over-correctioninsomeinstances.Variables Hypothesized to Relate to Tradition-Oriented ReligiousnessTables 2through4present correlations betweenthe TRandSSvariablesandhypotheticallyrelatedscales.Table2concentratesonvariables hypothesized to be related to TR. TRwas stronglycorrelated with Right-Wing Authoritarianism and with Traditional-ismbut also moderately correlated with Collectivismand withImpressionManagement. CorrelationswiththeSSindicatorswererarelysignicant(po.001).Theseresultssupportourhypotheses.Wealsofoundsupportforhypothesesinvolvingvariablesbasedon act-frequency self-reports. TR was very strongly positivelycorrelated with engagement in religious practices and was negativelycorrelatedwithreportedengagement indrugandalcohol-relatedbehaviors.VariablesHypothesizedtoRelatetoSubjectiveSpiritualityTable 3 includes variables hypothesized to be related to SS. Absorp-tion, magical ideation, superstitious beliefs, and fantasy-proneness inadulthood were all substantially positively correlated with SS.Fantasy-proneness in childhood had moderate correlations withSS, as diddissociationandeccentricity. Correlations for privateself-consciousness andfor social dominance orientationwere sig-nicantfortheaggregatevariable,butonlyfortwoofthethreeSSindicators, takenindividually. Theindividualismmeasures turnedout to be more highly correlated with TR (negatively) than with SS.It appears, then, that TRis abipolar dimensionthat is partiallyalignedwithcollectivismversusindividualism,whereasSShaslittlerelationtothisbipolardimension.Reports of creative achievement behaviors had weak correlationsin the expected positive direction with SS but not consistently acrossSpiritualButNotReligious 1273Table2CorrelationsWithScalesExpectedtoRelatetoTradition-OrientedReligiousnessTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSTR0SS0ReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaReligiousPractices.80n.01.90.01.75n.77n.71n.01.11.10Right-WingAuthoritarianism.64n.15.70.18.53n.50n.75n.04.10.20nMPQTraditionalism.55n.17n.62.21.46n.43n.63n.09.17.15Drug/AlcoholBehavior().44n.10.49.12.41n.38n.42n.04.05.15Collectivism(Triandis&Gelfand).31n.09.43.14.30n.33n.24n.03.01.16Collectivism(Oyserman).24n.02.31.03.21n.22n.24n.00.00.04ImpressionManagement.21n.08.24.10.21n.21n.16.03.08.08Note.N5375.TR0Tradition-orientedReligiousnesscomposite,TR0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation;SSSubjectiveSpiritualitycomposite,SS0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation;ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory;ESI-RReligiousnessfactor;ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,()indicatesthatanegativecorrelationwashypothesized.Attenuation-correctedcoefcientsareprintedinitalics.npo.001.Table3CorrelationsWithScalesExpectedtoRelatetoSubjectiveSpiritualityTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSTR0SS0ReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaIrrational/SuperstitiousBeliefs.08.65n.09.79.00.13.09.43n.59n.55nMagicalIdeation.06.57n.07.71.03.10.09.39n.53n.46nMPQAbsorption.05.55n.06.68.03.12.01.37n.52n.43nCEQFantasyProneness.15.51n.18.68.11.20n.10.38n.53n.32nEccentricity.20n.37n.23.47.20n.10.25n.26n.40n.22nCEQChildhoodFantasies.05.35n.06.48.06.01.09.19n.37n.29nCESDissociation.07.34n.08.42.03.10.06.20n.34n.26nPrivateSelf-Consciousness.00.25n.00.34.03.06.03.23n.28n.10SocialDominanceOrientation().06.23n.07.30.00.03.19n.10.17.29nEnvironmentalistPractices.22n.13.26.18.19n.13.30n.03.16.13CreativeAchievementBehaviors.06.13.07.18.05.02.13.07.21n.04Individualism(Oyserman).26n.12.37.19.24n.26n.21n.09.11.11HorizontalIndividualism.20n.10.28.16.22n.16.18n.06.05.14Note.N5375.TRTradition-orientedReligiousnesscomposite,TR0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation,SSSubjectiveSpiritualitycomposite,SS0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation,ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory,ESI-RReligiousnessfactor,ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,()indicatesthatanegativecorrelationwashypothesized.Attenuation-correctedcoefcientsareprintedinitalics.npo.001.all indicators. Environmentalist practices were more consistentlyrelated(butnegativelyandweakly)toTRthantoSSindicators.VariablesHypothesizedtoRelatetoBothTRandSSTable4presentsresultsforvariableshypothesizedtoberelatedtobothTRandSS. Self-Transcendencewas, ashypothesized, relatedtoboth, albeit morestronglytoTR. Thisoverall effect, however,masksinterestingdivergencesat thesubscalelevel. Self-Forgetful-nessandTranspersonalIdenticationwerebothmorehighlycorre-lated with SS, whereas Spiritual Acceptance, Enlightened, andIdealisticweremorehighlycorrelatedwithTR.ThelastvariablesinTable4werehypothesizedtoberelatedinopposite directions to TR and SS, and thus to differentiate these twodimensions. Thebest differentiator was Quest Orientation, whichwas relatedpositively toSSandnegativelytoTR. Religionasquest is characterized as an open-ended active approach toexistential questionsthatresistsclear-cut, patanswers (Batson&Schoenrade, 1991, p. 416), thus emphasizing individuality overtradition. Directions of effect for the other variables were allconsistent withhypotheses but not signicant for bothaggregatevariables.CorrelationsofTRandSSWithSingleItemsWe had numerous hypotheses relating TRor SS to attitudesregardingcausal forcesandcategoriesofpersons.Table5presentsrelevant correlations. Because the attitudes were indexed with singleitems of unascertained reliability, no corrections for attenuation areoffered.As predicted, TR was strongly associated with a belief that God isapowerful force, withabeliefinthepowerofsupernatural forcesand miracles, and with respect for religious leaders, those who studythe scriptures, those who followthe Ten Commandments, and(negatively) scientists who believe in evolution. There were moderatepositive correlations with respect for military leaders and, negatively.withrespectforgaysandlesbiansandfeminists.As predicted, SS was associated with superstitious beliefs, such asin the power of astrology or magic, and with respect for psychics andbeliefinthepowerofdestiny.Severalothervariableshypothesized1276 Saucier&SkrzypinskaTable4CorrelationsWithScalesExpectedtoRelatetoBothDimensionsTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSTR0SS0ReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaHypothesizedtobebothTRandSS-relatedTCISelf-Transcendence.76n.52n.82.63.67n.79n.64n.31n.56n.38nTCIST1:Self-forgetful.15.52n.18.69.14.21n.07.33n.55n.38nTCIST2:Transpersonalidentif..25n.59n.30.79.22n.33n.15.36n.53n.53nTCIST3:Spiritualacceptance.81n.43n.89.53.71n.83n.70n.24n.51n.30nTCIST4:Enlightened.87n.33n.93.40.76n.87n.78n.20n.40n.20nTCIST5:Idealistic.75n.35n.87.45.67n.75n.67n.22n.36n.27nHypothesizedopposingrelationstoTRandSSQuestOrientation.21n.33n.25.43.17.11.31n.23n.23n.33nCollectivismvs.Individualism(Oys.).32n.07.42.10.29n.31n.29n.05.07.05Hierarchialism.31n.05.44.08.25n.22n.39n.01.02.12Extropunitiveness.25n.06.31.08.16.15.38n.04.08.10CPINorm-favoring(v.2).20n.12.24.16.20n.20n.17.07.13.09ConformingversusNonconforming.16.15.17.18.17.07.19n.15.20n.02Note.N5375.TRTradition-orientedReligiousnesscomposite,TR0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation,SSSubjectiveSpiritualitycomposite,SS0thiscompositewithcorrectionforattenuation,ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory,ESI-RReligiousnessfactor,ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,()indicatesthatanegativecorrelationwashypothesized.Attenuation-correctedcoefcientsareprintedinitalics.npo.001.Table5CorrelationsofTradition-OrientedReligiousnessandSubjectiveSpiritualityWithSingleItemsTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaHypothesizedtobeTR-relatedPowerofGod.84n.24.74n.79n.82n.17.26n.17RespectReligiousLeaders.67n.03.60n.59n.67n.07.01.00RespectThoseWhoStudyScriptures.67n.08.58n.59n.68n.04.10.05PowerofMiracles.62n.33n.50n.61n.61n.21n.37n.21nPowerofSupernatural.59n.26n.48n.59n.56n.15.32n.16RespectTenCommandmentsObeyers.53n.00.47n.46n.54n.01.05.05RespectMilitaryLeaders.35n.08.31n.24n.43n.00.10.11RespectEvolutionScientists().57n.05.43n.47n.69n.02.03.18nRespectGayandLesbianPeople().37n.19n.29n.25n.48n.05.15.26nRespectFeminists().37n.18n.29n.27n.46n.08.10.26nHypothesizedtobeSS-relatedPowerofAstrologicalInuences.07.55n.03.10.06.41n.48n.44nPowerofMagic.03.46n.02.07.04.35n.42n.35nRespectPsychics.04.46n.05.00.06.27n.39n.43nRespectEnlightenedPersons.36n.45n.31n.40n.29n.26n.38n.43nPowerofWitchcraft.13.31n.10.13.12.29n.34n.12RespectUnconventionalBeliefs.05.29n.05.03.11.12.28n.29nPowerofDestiny.11.30n.05.09.18.20n.23n.30nPowerofFate.01.21n.07.05.08.13.10.28nRespectAvoidersofMilitary.34n.12.30n.23n.41n.01.16.11HypothesizedtoberelatedtobothTRandSSFrequencyofDivorces.03.22n.02.02.06.13.19n.21nNumberofBiologicalChildren.13.01.16.12.09.05.03.01Note.N5375.TRTradition-orientedReligiousnesscomposite,SSSubjectiveSpiritualitycomposite,ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory,ESI-RReligiousnessfactor,ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,()indicatesthatanegativecorrelationwashypothesized.npo.001.to be SS-relatedthe power of witchcraft and fate, respect for thosewith unconventional beliefshad moderate correlations in theexpected direction but not consistently across all indicators. Respectforavoidersof militaryservicewasmoreconsistentlyrelated(butnegatively) toTRthantoSSindicators. Overall, correlations inTables3through5suggestthatSSinvolvesaninterestinprivatelyandsubjectively experienced(rather thancollectively sharedandvalidated)metaphysical phenomenabutthatthisinterestdoesnothavesubstantialcorollariesinthedomainofpoliticalviews.TRand SS composites (put in standardized form) differedamongvariousdenominationcategories, whichalsowereindexedbyasingle item. Amongthose categories withsubstantial (overN525)representationinoursample, meanstandardscorestiltedintheTRdirectionforProtestants(.49forTR, .15forSS)andCatholics(TR.50, SS.07). Aswouldbeexpected, scorestiltedinthe SS direction for those who identied as spiritual but notafliatedwithaconventional religion (TR .31, SS.75). Thosewho endorsed none as their religious afliation had below-meanscores for both but were more extreme for TR ( 1.36) than for SS( .60). Withinamultivariate analysis of variance (overall F[6,634] 558.27, po.001), denominationcategory(amongthesefour,with N5321) predicted both TR (F[3, 317] 5105.33, po.001) andSS(F[3, 317] 527.42, po.001). Post hocScheffe tests indicatedthat, with95%condenceintervals, Protestant andCatholicdidnotdifferfromeachotheroneitherTRorSSbutdiddifferfromboth spiritual and none, just as spiritual and nonedifferedfromeachother,onbothTRandSS.Overall,thosewhoidentiedwithareligiousdenominationweremuchmorelikelytobehighonTRthanwerethosewhodidnot. SS, however, wasauseful differentiator amongthe unchurched; that is, it distin-guishedwithverylargeeffectsizethespiritual butnotafliatedwithaconventionalreligionfromthosewithnoneasreligiousafliation.CorrelationsWithPersonalityDimensionsTable 6 presents correlations between the TR and SS indicators andbroadpersonalitydimensions.TheexpectedcorrelationofTRwithAgreeableness (A) andConscientiousness (C) couldnot befoundwiththeBigFivescalesandonlyheldupforAgreeablenesswhen1280 Saucier&SkrzypinskaTable6CorrelationsofTradition-OrientedReligiousnessandSubjectiveSpiritualityWithBigFiveandMulti-LanguageSevenTradit.ReligiousnessSubj.SpiritualityMeasureTRSSTR0SS0ReligiousESI-RSDIAlphaMysticalESI-SSDIDeltaBigFiveExtraversion.02.07.02.09.02.06.00.05.08.11BigFiveAgreeableness.06.13.07.17.11.12.03.03.08.20nBigFiveConscientiousness.07.15.08.19.03.07.08.10.14.12BigFiveEmotionalStability.16.15.19.20.11.17.21n.07.15.17BigFiveImagination/Intellect.11.21n.13.28.09.02.22n.12.28n.07NEO-PI-RExtraversion.05.20n.06.25.04.11.00.07.17.23nNEO-PI-RAgreeableness.29n.13.32.16.31n.32n.19n.04.07.22nNEO-PI-RConscientiousness.07.18.08.22.07.07.05.11.17.15NEO-PI-RNeuroticism.03.07.03.09.01.01.10.07.07.05NEO-PI-ROpennesstoExperience.26n.40n.28.49.19n.13.37n.24n.33n.37nML7Gregariousness.06.08.07.11.04.10.03.05.11.12ML7Self-Assurance.02.00.02.00.03.02.05.03.01.02ML7EvenTemper03.07.04.09.07.05.04.05.09.04ML7ConcernforOthers.28n15.35.21.25n.30n.24n.08.07.21nML7Conscientiousness.26n.16.32.22.23n.20n.28n.11.12.14ML7Originality/Intellect.13.13.16.18.08.05.22n.11.15.03ML7SocialUnacceptability(NV).03.28n.04.37.05.03.00.23n.30n.16Note.N5375.TRTradition-OrientedReligiousnessfactor,SSSubjectiveSpiritualityfactor,ESIExpressionsofSpiritualityInventory,ESI-RReligiousnessfactor,ESI-SSpiritualExperiencesfactor,ML7Multi-LanguageSeven.npo.001.usingtheNEO-PI-Rscales. However, TRwasconsistentlymoder-atelycorrelatedwithML7Concernfor Others (relatedtoAgree-ableness)andML7Conscientiousness, inlinewiththehypothesis.These results indicate that the correlation between TR and A may bestronger when the A measure emphasizes either compliance (as in theNEO-PI-R)orprosocial andaltruistictendencies(asintheML7),ratherthangentlenessandabsenceofhostility(asontheBigFivescale). Similarly, the correlation between TR and C may be strongerwhentheCmeasurehasgreateremphasisonstrictnessandperfec-tionism,asistrueofCintheML7(seeSaucier,2003,Table4).We expected that SS would be related to Openness to Experience(O) andtoitslexical-factorcounterpart Imagination/Intellect. Wefound that O is related to both TR and SS and is a gooddifferentiatorofthem. ThosehighonTRtendedtobelowonO;thosehighonSStendedtobehighonO. ThispatterngeneralizedweaklyandinconsistentlytothelexicalfactorinlinewithpreviousndingsthatOissubstantiallyrelatedtosocialattitudes(McCrae,1996; van Hiel, Kossowska, & Mervielde, 2000), more so than is thelexicalIntellectfactor(Yik&Tang,1996).Finally,Table6revealsaninterestingbutunanticipatedcorrela-tion. Two of the SS indicators were correlated positively with SocialUnacceptability (i.e., Negative Valence), and the third was nearly so(po.01but not po.001). ThereissomecontroversyoverwhetherNegative Valence (NV) has a substantive interpretation (Benet-Martinez &Waller, 2002; Saucier, 2002, 2003) or anartifactualinterpretation(Ashton&Lee, 2002). Sauciers(2003) markersforthisfactorincludetheadjectivesweirdandcrazy; furtheranalysesindicatedthatindividualswithstrongtendenciestowardsubjective,mystical spiritual experienceswerealsomorelikelytoapplytheseparticular adjectives tothemselves, consistent witha substantiveinterpretation of NV and with the already noted correlation betweenSSandeccentricity.HierarchicalRegressionAnalysesSubstantial correlations between personality scales and either TR orSSraisethepossibilitythat TRandSSarereallynothingmorethan traits already captured by personality inventories. The resolu-tion of this issue depends, however, on which constructs one acceptstobeaspectsofpersonality.AkeyquestionthenisHowfarmust1282 Saucier&Skrzypinskaone expand the denition of what comprises a personality variable inordertoarguethatdispositionstowardTRandSSarepersonalityvariables?To answer this question, we employed a set of hierarchical-regressionanalyses. Ineachanalysistherstblockwasthegendervariable. The second block of predictors consisted of lexical Big Fivescalescores.Thethirdandfourthblocksconsistedofotherperson-ality scales that had demonstrated a substantial correlation with TRor SSindicators inthe earlier analyses: the thirdblockinvolvedscaleswhosecategorizationaspersonalityisuncontroversial;thefourthblockincludedscales whose categorizationas suchmightgenerate some debate. Finally, a fthblockinvolvedscales thatwould rarely be categorized as personality traits. The rst fourblockswereutilizedinaforcedentry manner, whereasthefthblockwassubjectedtoastepwisealgorithmtosearchforthesinglevariablethat best addedtotheprediction(pforentry.001, pforremoval.005).Asinearlieranalyses,primaryanalysesinvolvedtheTRandSScomposites,eachbasedonthreeindicators,butwealsopresent analyses basedoneachindicator alone soas toexaminegeneralityofresultsacrosssingleindicators.Table7summarizestheresultsofthesehierarchical regressions.Gender and the lexical Big Five each provided a signicant R-squaredchangeinonlyhalfoftheregressions. Addingpersonalityinventoryscales (for whichthere wouldbe nodispute over theirbeing considered personality variables; e.g., Openness to Experience)raised these multiple correlations substantially (to .41 and .61, with arangeof.35to.58fortheindicators).Addingstillotherscalesthatmight incitesomecontroversyif labeledpersonality (e.g., Self-Transcendence) produced a very large increase in the multiplecorrelationfor TR(to.87, indicators inthe.75.85range) andasmallerincreaseforSS(to.68,indicatorsinthe.48.69range).Switchingtoadjusted(shrunken) Rvalues intheseregressionswould result in a reduction of from .00 to .03 in the R values, exceptthattheRforMysticalandthelexicalBigFivewasadjustedfrom.19 to .14. There is probably relatively little ination in the multiplecorrelations.Theresultsof thesefourregressionstepsindicatethat TRandSS should not be considered personality if personality meanscaptured by the lexical Big Five. However, if personality is denedas whatever is measured on inuential personality inventoriesSpiritualButNotReligious 1283Table7MultipleCorrelationsFromHierarchicalRegressionsUsingPersonalityScalestoPredictReligious/SpiritualBeliefDimensionsTradition-OrientedReligiousnessSubjectiveSpiritualityAfterStepTRSSReligiousESIRelig.SDIAlphaMysticalESISpir.SDIDelta1Gender.17.23n.12.21n.14.09.21n.26n2LexicalBigFive.27.37n.22.27.34n.19.40n.37n3OtherPersonalityScales.41n.61n.35n.37n.47n.43n.58n.55n4OtherScalesThatMightBeLabeledPersonality.87n.68n.75n.84n.85n.48n.69n.59n5Non-PersonalityScalesThatAddtoPrediction.88n.78n.76n.85n.88n.55n.76n.68nScaleAddedatStep5RWAIrrBelRWAIndividualismRWAIrrBelIrrBelIrrBelItsDirectionofEffect1111111Note.N5375.nChangesinR-squaredforstepsignicant,po.001.RWARightWingAuthoritarianism.IndividualismOysermanscale.IrrBelIrrationalBeliefs.ForTRregressionsStep3includedNEO-PI-ROpennesstoExperienceandCPIVector2(Norm-favoring),Step4TCISelf-TranscendenceandMPQTraditionalism.ForSSregressionsStep3includedNEO-PI-ROpennesstoExperience,MPQAbsorption,60ML7NegativeValence,PrivateSelf-Consciousness,Step4TCISelf-Transcendence,CESDissociation,CEQFantasy-Proneness,Eccentricity.(including the TCI andMPQ), thenit appears that TRandSSshoulddenitelybeconsideredaspectsofpersonality.ForallthreeTRindicatorsRWAhadpartialcorrelationsinthe.15to.45rangewiththecriterionafterBlock4, but, inonecase,Individualismhadahigher (negative) one. For theSSindicators,Irrational Beliefs was, for the aggregate as well as the singleindicators, the scale that added to prediction. Though Block 5additions all yielded a signicant change in R-squared values,manymaybe surprisedthat suchbelief scales addedsolittle towhat can be called personality measures in terms of predictingvariation in tradition-oriented religiousness and subjective spirituality.Theforegoingresults involvedoperationalizingTRandSSviacompositesthatallowedthemtobemodestly(.21)intercorrelated.However,theseresultswerenotmethoddependent.Whenanalyseswererunusingcomponentorfactorscoresinsteadof composites,with either principal components or maximum-likelihood extractionandwitheitherobliqueorwithorthogonalfactors, thecoefcientswerelittledifferentandwouldleadtothesameconclusions.DISCUSSIONThe results of this study indicated that Tradition-oriented Religious-ness (TR) andSubjectiveSpirituality(SS) arehighlyindependentdimensions that can be tapped by any of at least three sets ofindicators. Anyof these indicators wouldhave generatedsimilarresults for most of our hypotheses, so these ndings are notcontingent on whether the indicators are adjectives or, instead,factors drawnfromthe ESI or fromstudies of dictionary-basedisms. Cautionis needed, however, inusing the termspiritual insurvey items, as this term tends to lead to a confounding of TR andSS,whereastermslikereligiousormysticaldonot.These dimensions have quite different correlates. TRis highlyassociated with authoritarianismand traditionalismand, moremoderately, withcollectivismversus individualismandwith(low)opennesstoexperience;TRrepresentsabrand ofreligious/spiritualbeliefinwhichthereishighrelianceontradition-hallowedsourcesof authoritythat providesharedpractices (e.g., rituals) andrulesfor controllingsocial andsexual behavior. SSis associatedwithabsorption, fantasy-proneness, dissociation, and beliefs of a magicalSpiritualButNotReligious 1285orsuperstitioussort,aswellaswitheccentricityandhighopennesstoexperienceandrepresentsabrandofbeliefinwhichtheindivi-duals subjective experiences (including intuitions and fantasies)havegreatimportance.Thetwodimensionsappeartobedispositionsthataresubstan-tiallyintertwinedwithcommonlymeasuredpersonalitytraits andshouldnot beconfusedwithdenominational afliations, norevenwithmembershipinaparticularreligion. Perhapssuchafliationsandmembershipsreect speciccultural andenvironmental inu-ences to which the individual might be exposed and thus involve onlythe supercial mode in which these dispositions are expressed.However, those whoidentify witha denominationappear morelikelytobehighonTRthanarethosewhodonot.Overall, our ndings are potentially important for several reasons.First, they indicate that scientists who treat religious/spiritualtendencies as a unitary phenomenon do so in error. Instead, spiritualtendencies cangoineither of twohighlyindependent directions:towardatradition-oriented, authority-basedreligionemphasizingcollectively shared beliefs, or toward a mysticism based in subjective,individual experience that seemsto have little implication for groupactionor politicalviews.Second, itappearsthatthese twodifferentdirections are associated with different dispositions. One directionreferencescollectivelydenedauthorityandprovidesclearerdirec-tives for behavior, making it more appealing to those whosetendencies and values emphasize behavioral control (via rules,rituals, or a hierarchical conception of the world). The otherdirection, more subjective and phenomenological, may be moreappealing to those with tendencies to absorption and fantasy.Researchisneededtodenefurtherthesedispositions.Arguments that religiousness/spirituality forms a sixth factor ofpersonality(e.g., MacDonald, 2000; Piedmont, 1999) shouldtakeintoaccountthattherearetworelativelyorthogonaldimensionsinthis domain and that these two dimensions have substantial correla-tions(inopposingdirections)withoneofthewidelyacceptedrstve factors, Openness to Experience. If one were to produce a singlereligiousness/spiritualityfactorthataveragedTRandSS, it mightappearorthogonal toOpenness. But asourndingsdemonstrate,TRandSSshouldnotbelumpedtogether.One could, alternatively, attempt to assimilate these ndingsentirely to the Five-Factor Model. This would involve the argument1286 Saucier&Skrzypinskathat SS and TRsimply represent high and low Openness toExperience, respectively. Arst problemwiththis approach: TRand SS are not opposites, but highly independent. This means someindividuals will be high on one and low on the other. But others willbe high on both and others will be low on both, and these two groupsof individuals might tend to score similarlyaround the middleonOpenness to Experience. Within the Five-Factor Model, informationthat woulddistinguishhighTR/highSSfromlowTR/lowSSissimply lost. Asecond problemwith this Openness 5SSTRformulationis that Openness has some problems withgeneralityacrossculturalsettings(DeRaad,1994;Watkins&Gerong,1997).WefoundthatTRandSSarerelativelyindependentoflexicallybased personality factors and that lexically based social-attitude(isms) factors serve as good indicators for them. The clearestapproachmight betodispensewiththeOpenness construct as aproblematic amalgam of temperamental, intellectual, and attitudinaltendencies. Instead, onewouldconceiveof TRandSSasdisposi-tional factors underlying social attitudes that are beyond a Big FiveinwhichthereisanIntellectfactorratherthanOpenness.TRandSSdimensionsdonotapplyonlytoreligiouspeoplebutcan also be used to differentiate among the nonreligious. Forexample, onenonreligiouspersonmaystronglyopposetraditionalreligionbutbemoreindifferenttosubjectivespiritual experiences.Another may be relatively indifferent to traditional religion butstronglyskepticalofsubjectivespiritualexperiences.Some limitations of this study need acknowledgment. First, we donot yet knowtowhat extent ourndingsareculturebound. Thepresent sample represents but one cultural setting. Given thepresence inall major religions of distinct orthodoxandmysticalschools, cross-cultural generalizabilityseems promising. However,relations withother variables maybe moderatedbyculture. Forexample, if adherencetotraditional authority-basedreligionwerestrongly normative in a culture, endorsement of attitudes represent-ing doctrines of this religion should become highly desirable forindividuals. Under such conditions, measurement of tradition-orientedreligiousnessshouldbecomestronglyaffectedbydesirabilityrespond-ing, asarescoresonAgreeablenessandConscientiousness, withtheresult that correlations of TR with these two variables should increase.We relied on multiple converging indicators of TR and SS as thereis not yet awell-validatedmeasure of these twoconstructs; ESISpiritualButNotReligious 1287items, markers of AlphaandDeltaisms factors, or adjectives allseemcapable of serving. Moreover, we reliedexclusivelyonself-report data, though it can be argued that self-report may be superiorwith respect to belief variables because informants often are not veryknowledgeableaboutthefullrangeofanotherindividualsbeliefs.CONCLUSIONSIndividual differences inreligious/spiritual beliefs cannot be cap-turedbyasingledimension. Twohighlyindependent dimensions(TR and SS) have quite different correlates, supporting the view thattheyareindeeddivergentconstructs.TRisassociatedwithauthor-itarianismandtraditionalismand, moremoderately, withcollecti-vism versus individualism and with low Openness to Experience. SSisassociatedwithabsorption, fantasy-proneness, dissociation, andbeliefsofamagicalorsuperstitioussort,aswellaseccentricityandhigh Openness to Experience. Expressions of religious/spiritualbelief appear to differ according to whether the person placesrelativelymoreimportanceonhavingclearcollectivestandardsforbehavioral control, or onpersonal intuitions, fantasies, andsub-jectiveexperience.Becausethetwodimensionsofreligious/spiritualbelief overlapsosubstantiallywithpersonality, thereisacaseforsayingtheyarethemselvesaspectsofpersonality. Eveniftheyarenot personality, they appear to capture important dispositions of theindividual, dispositions to which psychology has paid too littleattention.REFERENCESAllport,G.W.(1959).Religionandprejudice.CraneReview,2,110.Almagor,M.,Tellegen,A.,&Waller,N.(1995).TheBigSevenmodel:Across-cultural replication and further exploration of the basic dimensions of naturallanguage of trait descriptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,300307.Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversityPress.Argyle, M., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The social psychology of religion. London:Routledge.Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2002). Six independent factors of personality variation:AresponsetoSaucier.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,16,6375.1288 Saucier&SkrzypinskaBatson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991). Measuring religion as quest:Validityconcerns.JournalfortheScienticStudyofReligion,30,416429.Baumeister,R.F.(1991).Meaningsoflife.NewYork:GuilfordPress.Benet-Mart nez, V., & Waller, N. G. (2002). From adorable to worthless: Implicitand self-report structure of highly evaluative personality descriptors. EuropeanJournalofPersonality,16,141.Bernstein, E. M., & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and validityofadissociationscale.JournalofNervousandMentalDisease,174,727735.Burris, C. T. (1994). Curvilinearity and religious types: A second look at intrinsic,extrinsic, and quest relations. International Journal for the Psychology ofReligion,4,245260.Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco:Freeman.Church, A. T., Reyes, J. A. S., Katigbak, M. S., & Grimm, S. D. (1997). FilipinopersonalitystructureandtheBigFivemodel: Alexical approach. Journal ofPersonality,65,477528.Cloninger,C.R.,Przybeck,T.,Svrakic,D.,&Wetzel,R.(1994).TheTempera-mentandCharacterInventory(TCI):Aguidetoitsdevelopmentanduse. St.Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of Personality,Washington University.Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEOPI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.Odessa,FL:PsychologicalAssessmentResources.Crowne,D.P.,&Marlowe,D.(1964). Theapprovalmotive:Studiesinevaluativedependence.NewYork:Wiley.De Raad, B. (1994). An expedition in search of a fth lexical factor: Key issues inthelexicalapproach.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,8,229250.Dollahite, D. C. (1998). Fathering, faith, and spirituality. Journal of MensStudies,7,315.DOnofrio, B. M.,Eaves,L. J.,Murrelle,L., Maes,H.H., &Spilka, B.(1999).Understandingbiological andsocial inuences onreligious afliation, atti-tudes, andbehaviors: Abehaviorgeneticperspective. Journal ofPersonality,67,953984.Eckblad, M., &Chapman, L. J. (1983). Magical ideationas anindicator ofschizotypy.JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology,51,215225.Emmons,R.A.(1999). Religioninthepsychologyofpersonality:Anintroduc-tion.JournalofPersonality,67,873888.Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., &Buss, A. H. (1975). Publicandprivateself-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology,43,522527.Fuller, R. C. (2001). Spiritual, but not religious: Understanding unchurchedAmerica.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Gillings, V., &Joseph, S. (1996). Religiosityandsocial desirability: Impressionmanagement andself-deceptivepositivity. PersonalityandIndividual Differ-ences,21,10471050.Goldberg, L. R. (1999). The Curious Experiences Survey, a revised version of theDissociativeExperiencesScale: Factorstructure, reliability, andrelationstodemographic and personality variables. Psychological Assessment, 11, 134145.SpiritualButNotReligious 1289Goldberg, L. R. (in press). The comparative validity of adult personalityinventories: Applicationsof aconsumer-testingframework. InS. R. Briggs,J. M. Cheek, &E. M. Donahue (Eds.), Handbook of adult personalityinventories.NewYork:Plenum.Gough, H. G. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologistsPress.Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., &Solomon, S. (1986). The causes andconse-quences of aneedfor self-esteem: Aterror management theory. InR. F.Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189212). NewYork:Springer-Verlag.Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. PsychologicalMethods,6,430450.Kendler, K. S., Gardner, C. O., & Prescott, C. A. (1997). Religion, psychopathol-ogy, andsubstanceuseandabuse: Amultimeasure, genetic-epidemiologicalstudy.AmericanJournalofPsychiatry,154,322329.Koenig, H. G.(1997). Isreligiongoodforyourhealth?Theeffectsofreligiononphysicalandmentalhealth.NewYork:HaworthPastoralPress.Koopmans, P. C., Sanderman, R., Timmerman, I., &Emmelkamp, P. M. G.(1994). The Irrational Beliefs Inventory: Development and psychometricevaluation.EuropeanJournalofPsychologicalAssessment,10,1527.Kozielecki, J. (1991). ZBogiemalbo bez Boga [With God or without God].Warszawa:PWN.Krauss, S. (in press). The lexical structure of social attitudes in Romania: The ismsofEasternEurope.JournalofPersonality.Kuczkowski, S. (1993). Psychologia religii [Psychology of religion]. Krakow:WAM.MacDonald, D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement and relation totheFiveFactorModelofpersonality.JournalofPersonality,68,153197.MacDonald, D. A. (2002). The Expressions of Spirituality Inventory: Testdevelopment,validationandscoringinformation.Unpublishedmanuscript.Ma)drzycki, T. (1996). Osobowosc jako systemtworza)cy i realizujacy plany[Personalityasasystemforcreatingandrealizingplans].Gdan sk:GWP.McCrae,R.R.(1996).Socialconsequencesofexperientialopenness.Psychologi-calBulletin,120,323337.McGuire, M. T., Troisi, A., Raleigh, M. J., & Masters, R. D. (1998). Ideology andphysiological regulation. In I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt & F. K. Salter (Eds.), Indoctrin-ability, ideology, andwarfare: Evolutionaryperspectives (pp. 263276). NewYork:Berghahn.Merkelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. (2001). The Creative ExperiencesQuestionnaire: Abrief self-report measureof fantasy-proneness. PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,31,987995.Miller,W.R.(1998).Researchingthespiritualdimensionsofalcoholandotherdrugproblems.Addiction,93,979990.Newberg,A.B.,&dAquili,E.B.(2000).Theneuropsychologyofreligiousandspiritualexperience.JournalofConsciousnessStudies,7,251266.Newberg, A., Alavi, A., Baime, M., Pourdehnad, M., Santanna, J., & dAquili, E.(2001).Themeasurementofregionalcerebralbloodowduringthecomplex1290 Saucier&Skrzypinskacognitive taskof meditation: Apreliminary SPECTstudy. Psychiatry Re-search:Neuroimaging,106,113122.Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800personalitytrait descriptors: Normative operatingcharacteristics for a university population. Department of Psychology,UniversityofMichigan.Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability ofattitudes:Astudyoftwins.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,80,845860.Oyserman,D.(1993).Thelensofpersonhood:Viewingtheself,andothers,inamulticultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,9931009.Paulhus,D.L.(1984).Two-componentmodelsofsociallydesirableresponding.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46,598609.Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual,UniversityofBritishColumbia,Vancouver,Canada.Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality?Spiritual transcendence and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 67,9831013.Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., &Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Religionandspirituality:Linkagestophysicalhealth.AmericanPsychologist,58,3652.Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., &Malle, B. F. (1994). Socialdominanceorientation: Apersonalityvariablepredictingsocial andpoliticalattitudes.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67,741763.Sabatier, A. (1905). Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit(L.S.Houghton,Trans.).NewYork:McClure,Phillips,&Co.Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the ve factors of personality: A meta-analyticreview.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,32,1525.Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldbergs unipolar Big Fivemarkers.JournalofPersonalityAssessment,63,506516.Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,78,366385.Saucier, G. (2002). Gone too faror not far enough? Comments on the article byAshonandLee(2001).EuropeanJournalofPersonality,16,5562.Saucier, G. (2003). Analternativemulti-languagestructureofpersonalityattri-butes.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,17,179205.Saucier, G. (2004). Personality and ideology: One thing or two? Unpublishedmanuscript,UniversityofOregon.Saucier,G.,&Goldberg,L.R.(1998).WhatisbeyondtheBigFive?JournalofPersonality,66,495524.Schmitt, N. (1996). Usesandabusesof coefcient alpha. Psychological Assess-ment,8,350353.Schuon, F. (1953). The transcendent unity of religions (P. Townsend, Trans.). NewYork:Pantheon.Shafranske, E. P., &Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Factors associated with theperceptionofspiritualityinpsychotherapy.JournalofTranspersonalPsychol-ogy,16,231241.SpiritualButNotReligious 1291Skrzypinska, K. (2002). Pogladnaswiat apoczuciesensui zadowoleniezzycia[Viewoftheworld,lifemeaning,andwell-being].Krakow:Impuls.Skrzypinska,K.(inpress).FromspiritualitytoreligiousnessIsthisaone-waydirection? Anthologyof Social andBehavioral Science. Linko ping, Sweden:UniversityofLinko ping.Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (2003). The psychology ofreligion:Anempiricalapproach.NewYork:Guilford.Tellegen, A. (in press). Manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Thalbourne, M. A., & Delin, P. S. (1994). A common thread underlying belief intheparanormal, creativepersonality, mystical experienceandpsychopathol-ogy.JournalofParapsychology,58,338.Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontalandvertical individualismandcollectivism. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,74,118128.vanHiel, A., Kossowska, M., &Mervielde, I. (2000). TherelationshipbetweenOpenness to Experience and political ideology. Personality and IndividualDifferences,28,741751.Vaughan, F. (1991). Spiritual issuesinpsychotherapy. Journal ofTranspersonalPsychology,23,105119.Waller, N. G., Kojetin, B. A., Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., &Tellegen, A.(1990). Geneticandenvironmental inuencesonreligiousinterests, attitudesand values: A study of twins reared apart and together. Psychological Science,1,138142.Watkins, D., & Gerong, A. (1997). Culture and spontaneous self-conceptamongFilipinocollegestudents.JournalofSocialPsychology,137,480488.Wulff,D.M.(1997).Psychologyofreligion:Classicandcontemporary(2nded.).NewYork:Wiley.Yik, M. S. M., &Tang, C. S. (1996). Linking personality and values: Theimportance of a culturally relevant personality scale. Personality and IndividualDifferences,21,767774.Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., &Belavich, et al. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. JournalfortheScienticStudyofReligion,36,549564.Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meaningsofreligiousnessandspirituality: Problemsandprospects. Journal ofPerson-ality,67,889920.1292 Saucier&Skrzypinska