Culture, Personality, and Subjective Well-Being

The theories of religion and spiritu= ality in psychology and cognitive sciences

<= /p>

Janek Musek

University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

October 2006

RUNNING HEAD: Psycological theories= of religion

Auth= ors' Note.

Corr= espondence concerning this article should be addressed to Janek Musek, Department of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: janek.musek@guest.arn= es.si

Abstract=

&nb= sp;

Since the beginnings, the mankind= is characterized by religious, spiritual and transcendental experience. This experience attracted the interests of many authors during the period of mod= ern psychology and cognitive science, yet it has a rather short history of empi= rical research. The first part of the article briefly outlines the major domains = and directions in the research of religious and related phenomena in psychology, cognitive psychology and neuroscience. In the second part, the main results= of our own empirical research have been reported including the analyses of the relationships between religiosity, spiritual intelligence, human values, personality dimensions, and well-being.

Key words

Religious experience, spiritual intelligence, values, personality, well-being.<= /p>

The theories of religion and spirituality in psych= ology and cognitive sciences

Introduction: the = beginnings and later development of the research of religious and spiritual phenomena = in psychology

The relig= ious and spiritual life is recognized as the essential part of human nature. The man= has been dealing with transcendental issues since the very beginnings. The embryonal forms of religious or spiritual experience have been maybe characteristic, according to the archeological findings, even for the our extinguished cousin, the homo sapiens neanderthalensis. In the human race, religious and spiritual experience evolved into magnificent religious syste= ms in different cultural traditions confirming thus the universality of human religiosity and spirituality. It became also very early the subject of scie= ntific psychology, William James, one of the fathers of psychological science wrote his seminal work on religion in 1902. In the next decades, some prominent psychologists studied this topic from the theoretical point of view, among others the psychoanalysts (Adler & Jahn, 1933; Erikson, 1958; Freud, 19= 28a, 1928b, 1939; Fromm, 1950, and especially Jung, 1921, 1931, 1933, 1958, 1964= ), existential and humanistic psychologists (Frankl, 1964; Maslow, 1954, 1971; Rogers, 1961), and many others (extensively for instance Allport, 1937, 195= 0, 1955, 1961; Bucke, 1923). More recently, the religious and spiritual phenom= ena had attracted the attention of transpersonal psychology (for example the authors like Grof, 1993; Tart, 1990, and Wilber, 1995) and positive psychol= ogy (see Musek & Avsec, 2002).

On the ot= her side, the empirical research of religious and spiritual experience has a shorter tradition. Some crucial concepts connected with the religiousness a= nd spirituality including the sense of meaning and mystical or transcendental experience are difficult to define operationally and remain thus rather eva= sive for the empirical scientific approach (Coles, 1999). Nevertheless, in the l= ast decades we are confronted with the rapid progress in the empirical, experimental and psychometric study of the religious and spiritual experience and related phenomena like meditation, near death experience and similar.

&nbs= p;

Psychological models and theories of religion

&nbs= p;

The psych= ological models and theories of religious and spiritual experience could be divided = into several groups (Table 1; see also Hood, 1998). Table 1 presents the major theoretical backgrounds in psychological conceptions of religion; it includ= es the representative authors, basic explanations of religion and spirituality, and the representative methods of investigation as well. =

In the fi= rst group, we can find different psychoanalytically or psychodynamically orient= ed models, including the conceptions of Freud, Jung, Fromm, Erikson, Bowlby and others. In the Totem and Taboo (Freud, 1928b) Freud already reported the projection of omnipotence as a characteristic of the infantile thinking tha= t is phylogenetically characteristic of magical and later of religious thinking.= In the Civilization and its discontents (1930) Freud explicitly developed his theory of religion: "Thus religion would be a universal obsessive neurosis of humankind. Just like the obsessive neurosis= in children, it springs from the Oedipus complex, the relationship with the father. Should this concept be correct, distancing from religion should be = as inevitable as the process of growing and we are in this junction, in the mi= ddle of this development phase" (ibid., p.57). Diversely, Jung treated the religious beliefs as a derivative of archetypal system. The archetypes of G= od, Devil, Salvation and others religious primordial images are the part of hum= an collective unconscious and could be conceived by means of intuition that is according to Jung a special psychological function enabling us to understand the symbols of archetypal contents. From the newest psychoanalytically influenced interpretations of religion, we can mention the relational model= s, for example those inspired by object-relation theory. In this respect, the religious experience is modeled by the early infant-object relations and represents a reflection of child-mother relationship with its attachment or separation dynamics.

The next wide group of psychological models of religion (relig= ious experience) is connected to the phenomenological approach shared by humanis= tic, existential and transpersonal psychology. All these theoretical backgrounds conceive the religiousness and spirituality as the core characteristic of t= he basic human potential. Humanistic psychologists (Maslow, 1954, 1971; Rogers= , 1961) connected this potential to the self-actualization processes, while Frankl (1954) treated it as the one of the most important components of the so-cal= led noogenic motivation (sense of meaning as the ultimate human motive). Transp= ersonal psychologists (Grof, 1993; Tart, 1990, and Wilber, 1995) wiew the religious and spiritual phenomena as dimensions that connect the individual with transcendental reality.

Finally, there is a rather heterogeneous group of psychological models, which are aligned with empirical mainstream of psychology including= the use of psychometric assessment and scientific research methods. Nevertheles= s, the empirical research of religious and related phenomena is definitively increasing only in the last decades, as already mentioned before. Within th= is line of research, one can find different contemporaneous psychological directions and trends including the fields of cognitive psychology, persona= lity psychology, social psychology, positive psychology, developmental psychology and others. These models have also connections to the biological, genetic, evolutionary and neuroscientific approaches, which I will refer to later. T= he religious and spiritual experience is usually treated as a basic human trait including cognitive, affective and motivational aspects and related to the genetic, developmental, and sociocultural factors. The research of religious and related phenomena is primarily focused on psychometrically defined constructs representing religious and spiritual issues (dimensions of relig= ious experience, religiosity, spirituality, religious cognitions and attribution= s, faith, hope, fear of death etc.). This research also attempts to establish = the connections between religiosity and spirituality dimensions and other impor= tant psychosocial variables. It is conducted by means of correlational, multivar= iate and experimental research based on the use of validated psychometric instruments.

As we can see, some of the models are reductionistic trying to= trim the religion as cultural phenomenon down to the psychological factors (similarly as some bioevolutionary and neuroscientific models). Others are = not reductionistic in that sense, yet they limit the scope of the research to t= he psychological dimensions (that is to the religious and spiritual experience) and leave the question of the existence of the transcendental issues to oth= er approaches (philosophy, theology).

&nbs= p;

Table 1.<= o:p>

The revie= w of psychological models and theories of religion.

Theoretical backgro= und or approach	Representative auth= ors	Crucial concepts	Method
Psychoanalytical (p= sychodynamic) Orthodox psychoanalysis	Freud	Projection of omnipotence is characteristic for magical and religious thinking Religion as universal obsessive neurosis roote= d in the dynamics of Oedipus complex	Theoretical elaboration and generalization of hypotheses based on clinical (case study) observation
Analytical	Jung	Close connection with collective unconscious Religion as the archetypal system (God, Devil, Salvation…) adopted by human intuitive capacities=
Relational (ego psychology, attachment theory, object relations theory)	Erikson, Bowlby	Projection of the presence of the superior (su= preme) being patterned originally in early child – object (mother) relatio= n	Combined clinical and empirical approach<= /o:p>
Phenomenological Humanistic psychology =	Allport, Maslow, Rogers	Religiosity and spirituality as basic human potential Related to the self-actualization <= /span>	Phenomenological description of religious and spiritual experience combined with empirical approach
Existential psychology, logotherapy=	Frankl	Religiosity and spirituality as important fact= ors in the formation of the sense of meaning, the leading human motive
Transpersonal psychology	Grof, Taft, Wilber	Religious and spiritual phenomena as dimension= s connecting the individual with transcendental reality
Empirical Psychometric= Cognitive psychology Personality psychology Social psychology Positive psychology Developmental psychology Connections to biological, genetic, evolutiona= ry and neuroscientific approaches	Many authors	Psychometrically defined constructs representi= ng religious and spiritual issues (dimensions of religious experience, religiosity, spirituality, religious cognitions and attributions, faith, hope, fear of death etc.) Religious and spiritual experience is often tr= eated as basic human trait including cognitive, affective and motivational aspe= cts and related to the genetic, developmental, and sociocultural factors=	Correlational, multivariate and experimental r= esearch based on the use of validated psychometric instruments<= /p>

&nbs= p;

Spirituality and spiritual intellige= nce

Recently,= the spirituality became more and more frequent key word in psychological resear= ch (Emmons, 1999). On all these grounds, the term spiritual intelligence has been promo= ted recently (Zohar & Marshall, 2000). The existential intelligence, a very similar concept, has been included into the newest version of the multiple intelligence model of Gardner<= /st1:place> (1999), and even before into another known model of multiple intelligences = (Buzan & Keene, 1997). Zohar and Marshall (2000) define = the spiritual intelligence as the ultimate intelligence that enables us to solve the problems of the meaning and values, to reframe our deeds and lives beco= ming more meaningful and rich, and to evaluate, which way of life contains more purpose and self-fulfillment. Other definitions can be found elsewhere (Spi= ritual Intelligence. Definitions, 2004), with some discordant notes in different conceptions of spirituality (V= aughan, 2004). Some authors describe the basic components of spiritual intelligence= (see Stein, 2003), what could make easier the differentiation between the construst of spirituality and other constructs including that of religiositiy (Idler et al., 1999). =

Beside the disputable measurability of spiritual intelligence, the investigators recently attempted to develop the measuring instruments, main= ly in the form of scales or questionnaires&nb= sp; (King et al., 1995; King, Speck & Thomas, 2002; Underwood & = Teresi, 2002). Among the results of these attempts, we can mention the multidimensi= onal scale BMMRS (Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality, Idler et al., 1999), developed in the Fetzer Institute (Fetzer Institute, e= tc., 1999).

Re= ligious and spiritual experience in neuroscience

The resea= rch of religious and spiritual experience has been further promoted by the recent neurological findings (Alper, 2001; Austin, 1998; Newberg, 2004; Newberg, d'Aquili in Rause, 2001; Persinger, 1987, 1993; Ramachandran in Blakeslee, 1998a, 1998b). The occurrence of the experiences with religious or similar spiritual contents in prodromal phases before the epileptic seizure (in so-called epileptic aura) is known already for a long time. On the other side, it is already known, that epilepsy is often conne= cted with brain activity of the focal points in the temporal lobe. Some recent studies discovered that electromagn= etic stimulation of specific temporal areas can evoke the feelings resembling th= e mystical, spiritual or religious experience. Canadian neuropsychologist Persinger (19= 87) described such feelings as immediate experience of God inspiring thus the thinking about the “God part in the brain” (Ramachandran in Blakeslee, 1998). Thus, neurotheology (a term coined by Huxley in the utopi= an novel Island) emerged as e new scientific discipline. D’Aquili and Newberg (1998) also on the grounds of neurological data, tried to explain why God despite all secularization will= not say good-bye to human being. Newberg (2004) has later confirmed the activat= ion of some temporal, frontal and parietal areas during prayer or meditation.

Ev= olutionary approach to the religion and spirituality

Further, religiosity and spirituality have been progressively connected with evolutionary explanations (Mo= ntell, 2002). Albert Einstein, undoubtedly a religious and spiritual person, said = once that the religion originates from the experience of mystery, even if it is connected with fear. Some contemporary evolutionists claim that the neuropsychological development very early confronted homo sapiens sapiens w= ith this kind of mysterious experience. Only our species is capable of conceive= the death in the perspective of inevitable cessation of own existence. This devastating recognition of inavoidable has been evolutionary counterbalanced by the development of the religious experience. According to the hypothesis of Montell (2002), the religious concepts evolved in evolution as a psychological solution aimed to free the human species of the anxiety originating from the consciousness of= own mortality. Otherwise, this anxiety could seriously deter the evolutionary success of humanity.

The neuroscientific and evolutionary models of religion are not necessarily reductionistic. The claim that neuroscientific and evolutionary basis of re= ligious experience justifies the abandonment of our transcendental concepts, may be even ridiculous. It is the same, as the claim that, provided the neuropsychological basis of perception, we must not believe in the reality = of objective world any more.

The empirical research of religious and spiritual experience in Slovenia

In the first part of our empirical studies, different hypotheses concerning relationships between religosity, spirituality, values, personal= ity dimensions and well-being have been tested. All mentioned variables have be= en measured by appropriate psychological instruments including self-report inventories, questionnaires and scales for the religiousness, spiritual intelligence and spirituality (Musek & Maravič, 2004), Musek Value Survey (Musek, 1993a,b; 1998; 2000) as the measure of values or value orientations, different measures of personality dimensions (FFI, ), and different measures of the personal well-being, especially Diener’s (1984) Satisfaction with Life Scale. =

Table 2 presents the correlations of religiosity and spirituality wi= th other major investigated variables through the different studies. Beside th= is, religiosity and spirituality correlate quite remarkably with each other (0,622**). Both have also very substantial correlations with religious valu= es and numerous lower but still significant correlations with some other value orientations as well as with some personality dimensions and life satisfact= ion. In particular, religiosity correlates positively with religious and patriot= ic values, and negatively with sensual, actualization, cultural, security, status and democratic values. Spirituality has significant positive correlations with religious values, traditional values and cognitive values, and significant negative correlations with status, sensual, security and actualization valu= es. Both religiosity and spirituality correlate positively with agreeableness dimens= ion of personality and with the psychological well-being (life satisfaction), w= hile religiosity correlates negatively with extraversion, and spirituality correlates negatively with intellectual openness (it means that religious people are more introverted and spiritual people are more conservative, at least in our sample).

Table 2.

The correlations of religiosity and spirituality with the values, personality dimensions and psychological well-being.

	religiosity	spirituality
Value orientations
Sensual values	-,215(**)<= /span>	-,194(**)<= /span>
Security values<= /p>	-,155(**)<= /span>	-,146(**)<= /span>
Status values	-,119(*) <= /span>	-,217(**)<= /span>
Patriotic values=	,144(**)	,082
Democratic values	-,102(*)	,057
Social values	,028	,086
Traditional values	,057	,158(**)
Cultural values<= /p>	-,159(**)<= /span>	,041
Cognitive values=	-,042	,110(*)
Actualization values	-,185(**)<= /span>	-,114(*)
Religious values=	,721(**)	,555(**)
Persona= lity dimensions
Extraversion	-,121	-,239(**)<= /span>
Agreeableness	,161(*)	,291(**)
Conscientiousness	-,051	-,036
Neuroticism	-,028	,007
Openness	-,169(*)	-,050
Psychol= ogical well-being
Life satisfaction	,231(**)	,359(**)

** Correlation i= s significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

&nbs= p;

The second part of our research on religion and related issues is focused on the development of the structural psychological theory of spiritual experience. The structure of t= he religious experience has been often the subject of empirical research. On t= he contrary, the structure of the spiritual experience has been very scarcely investigated until now. On the basis of the multivariate approach I tried to discover the dimensional structure of spiritual experience, which has been measured by the 54 item scale of spirituality. The final hierarchical model= of spiritual experience is presented in the Figure 1. The entire hierarchy of spirituality extends from the single all-embracing common dimension (General factor of spirituality), through the levels of higher-order factors, to the lower level specific factors. For example, five-factor solution of spiritua= lity dimensions yielded next broad dimensions: meaning, harmony, religiosity, personal growth, and forgiving. Table 3 presents a more detailed descriptio= n of all five dimensions.

<= span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;color:red; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB'>

Figure 1. The structural hierarchical model of spirituality.

Table 3.

De= scription of five broad dimensions of spirituality.

DIMENSIONS<= /span>	DESCRIPTION=	TYPICAL ITEMS
MEANING	Meaning of the existen= ce and the universe	My spirituality is giv= ing sense to the events in my life My spiritual beliefs give my life a sense of significance and purpose Without a sense of spirituality, my daily life= would be meaningless What I try to do in my everyday life is import= ant to me from a spiritual point of view
HARMONY	Harmony and connectedn= ess feelings; inner peace; gratitude	I experience the connectedness with the source of all life I am living in the har= mony with my deepest values and my meaning of life I feel a deep inner pe= ace or harmony I am grateful for my l= ife
FAITH (RELIGIOSITY)	Religious and numinosi= ty feelings	I would say for myself= that I am a religious person I often pray or medita= te In the world I recogni= ze the presence of God My faith is the source= of strength and consolation for me I believe in the after= life
GROWTH	Sense of personal grow= th and self-fulfilment	I feel that no matter = what I do now I will never make up for the mistakes I have made in the past. I often feel like I have failed to live the ri= ght kind of life I have forgiven myself= for things I have done wrong
FORGIVING	Forgiveness and accept= ance	I have forgiven those who hurt me I am able to make up pretty easily with friend= s who have hurt me in some way I accept others even when they do things I thi= nk are wrong

Conclusions

Since the beginnings, the mankind= is characterized by religious, spiritual and transcendental experience. This e= xperience attracted the interests of many authors during the period of modern psychol= ogy and cognitive science, yet it has a rather short history of empirical resea= rch.

The psychological models and theo= ries of religion could be divided into three main groups (psychodynamic, phenomenological, and empirical/psychometric).

Some other models emerged recentl= y in evolutionary and neuroscientific psychology.

In the second part, the main results of our own empirical research have been reported including the analyses of the relationships between religiosity, spiritual intelligence, human values, personality dimensions, and well-being.

References<= /p>

<= /span>

Adler, A., & Jahn, E. (1933). Religion and Psychol= ogy. Frankfurt.

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.

Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Alper, M. 2001. The “God” Part of t= he Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God. New Y= ork: Rogue.

Austi= n, j. (1998). Zen and the brain: toward an understanding of meditation and consciousness.= Cambridge, Ma: Mit press.

Bucke, = R. (1923). Cosmic consciousness. <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">New York: Dutton= .

Buzan, = T. in Keene, A. Head first. Dobljeno n= a: http://www.happychild.org.uk/acc/tpr/bkr/o102head.htm

Coles, R. (1999). The secular mind. Princ= eton Univ. Press.

Diener, E. (1984). Subje= ctive well-being. Psychological Bulletin,= 95, 542-575.

Fetzer Institute, National Institute on Aging Working Gro= up: Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness, Spirituality for Use in Heal= th Research. (1999). A Report of a National Working Group Supported by the Fetzer Institute in Collaboration With the National Institute on Aging. Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer Institute, 1999.

Frankl, V. E. (1962). Man's search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Boston, Beacon Press.

Freud, S. (1928a). The future of an illusion. Translated by W.D. Robson-Scott. New York: Liveright.

Freud, S. (1= 928b). Totem and taboo: Resemblances betwe= en the psychic lives of savages and neurotics. New York: Dodd.

Freud, = S. (1930). Civilization and its Discontents. In J. Strachey (Ed.) The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 21. London: The Hogarth Press, 1962.=

Freud, S. (1939). Moses and monotheism. London: The Hogarth Press and The Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Fromm, E. (1950). Psychoanalysis and religion. New Haven: Yale University.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.

Grof, S. (1993) The holotropic mind. = New York: Harper SanFrancisco.

Hood, R. W. Jr. (1998). Psychology of religion.= In W. H. Swatos, Jr., & P. Kvisto (Eds.) Encyclopedia of religion and society, pp. 388-391. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

Idler, = E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K., Krause, N., Ory, M. G., Pergament, K. I., Powell, L. H., Underwood, L. G. in Williams, D. R. (2003). Multidimensional measurement of religiousness/spirituality for use in health research. Dobljeno na: http://www.fetzer.org/Resources/mm_doc/The%20Fetzer%20Books%20Update= .pdf

James, = W. (1982/1902). The varieties of relig= ious experience. New York: Penguin Books.

Jung, C= . G. (1921/1971). Psychological types. In The collected works of C. G. Jung= (Vol. 6). Princeton, = NJ: Princeton= University Press.

Jung, C= . G. (1931/1969). The structure of the psyche. In The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 8). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. New York: Harcourt Brace.<= /o:p>

Jung, C. G. (1958). Psychology of religion: West and east. London: Routledge and Ke= gan Paul.

Jung, C= . G. (1964). Man and his symbols. New York: Double= day.

King in sod. (1995) The Royal Free Interview for Religious and Spiritual Beliefs. Ps= ychological Medicine 25: 1125-1134.

King, M., Speck, P. in Thomas, = A. (2001) The Royal F= ree Interview for Spiritualand Religious Beliefs: development and validation of= a self-report version. Psychological Medicine 31:1015–1023

Maslow, A. H. (1971). Various meanings of »transcendence«. In H. J. Vetter and B. D. Smith (Eds.), Personality theory. A source book.= (pp. 421-430). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

= Montell, C. (2002). On Evo= lution of God-Seeking Mind: An Inquiry Into Why Natural Selection Would Favor Imagination and Distortion of Sensory Experience. Evolution and Cognition 8(1):pp.&nb= sp;89-107.

Musek, J. in Avsec, A. (2002). Pozitivna psihologija. Anthropos, 3= 4, 1-3, 41-68.

Myers, = D. G. in Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19.

Newberg, A. (2004). Why won't God go away? Dostopno na: http://www.andrew.newberg.co= m/qna.asp

Newberg, A. B. and d’Aquili, E. G. (1999). <= i>The Mystical Mind: Probing theBiology of Religious Experience. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Newberg= , A., d'Aquili, E. in Rause, V. (2001). Why God won't go away: Brain science and the biology of belief. New York: Ballan= tine.

Persinger, M. A. (1987). Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs. New York: Praeger.

Persing= er, M. A. (1993). Vectorial cerebral hemisphericity as differential sources for the sensed presence, mystical experiences and religious conversions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 915-930.

Persinger, M. A.. (2001). “The Neuropsychiat= ry of Paranormal Experiences”. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. Fall 13(4):515-524.

Ramachandran, V. S. in Blakeslee, S. (1998a). Phantoms in the brain. London: Fou= rth estate.

Ramachandran, V. S., and S. Blakeslee. (1998b). Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mys= teries of the Human Mind. William Morrow, New York, NY.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of pschotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Spiri= tual intelligence. Definitions. (2004).= &= copy; 2004 Mindwise Pty Ltd Dobljeno = na: http://www.mindwise.com.au/spiritual_i= ntelligence.shtm

Stein, J. (2003). Več mi= ru, manj trpljenja. Delo, 248, 21-2= 2.

Tart, C. (Ed.) (1990) Tran= spersonal psychologies. New York: Harper & Row

Underwood, L. G. in Teresi, J. A. (2002). The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale: Development, Theoretical Description, Reliabili= ty, Exploratory Factor Analysis, and Preliminary Construct Validity Using Health-Related Data. Ann Behav Med,= 2002, 24= (1):22–33.

Vaughan, F. (2004). What is spiritual intelligence? Dobljeno na: http://www.francesvaughan.com/work1.htm

Wilber, K. = (1995) Sex, ecology, spirituality Bost= on: Shambala.

Wulff, D. W. (1991). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary views. New Y= ork: Wiley.

Wulff, D. W. (1998). Rethinking the rise and fall of the psychology of religion. I= n. A. L. Molendijk and P. Pels (Eds.), Religion in the making: The emergence of the sciences of religion, (pp. 181-202). Leiden: Brill.

Zohar, D. in Marshall, I. (20= 00). Duhovna inteligenca. Trži&= #269;: Učila.

Musek, J. in Maravič, K. (2004). Vrednote in duhovna inteligentnost. Anthropos, 2004, 1-= 4, 271-289.

Musek, J. (1993a). Osebnost in vrednote.. Ljubljana, Educy.

Musek, J. (1993b). The universe of human values: a struct= ural and developmental hierarchy. Studia Psychologica (Bratislava), 35, 4-5, 321-326.

Musek, = J. (1998). Political and religious adherence in relation to individual values.= Studia Psychologica (Bratislava), 1998, 40, 1-2, 47-59.=

Musek, J. (2000). Nova psihološka teorija vrednot.<= /i> Ljubjana: Educy.

&n= bsp;

APPENDIX

A abbreviated form of Spiritualit= y scale

Doživljam povezanost z vsem živim

I experience a connectedness to all of life

Moja du= hovnost daje smisel dogodkom v mojem življenju

My feel= ings of spirituality add meaning to the events in my life

V svetu prepoznavam navzočnost božanskega

I recog= nize the presence of the Divine in the world

Ču= tim povezanost z izvirom vsega življenja

I exper= ience a connection to the Source of All Life

V svojih odnosih z drugimi izražam in prejemam ljubezen in odpuščanje

I expre= ss and receive love and forgiveness in my relationships with others