Mohsen Zandi's Critique of Mostafa Malekian: Is Religiosity and Religious Understanding a Function of Personality?

I have learned a great deal, endlessly, from Professor Mostafa Malekian; both from his method of thinking and from his humane and ethical character. Based on my own limited personal observations as a psychology student, I boldly state that his psychological reflections are rare even within the psychological community. These profound reflections, in addition to being influenced by his positive personality traits and a lifetime of intense and sincere intellectual rigors—which, instead of the stagnation of a swamp, acquire repeated freshness and the courage of expression—have another origin, which is interdisciplinary study, insight, and knowledge. But on the other hand, I can dare to claim that these deep psychological reflections have not produced specialized psychological knowledge.

.

Is Religiosity and Religious Understanding a Function of Personality?

A Critique of Mostafa Malekian

Mohsen Zandi (Researcher in the Psychology of Religion)

I have learned a great deal, endlessly, from Professor Mostafa Malekian; both from his method of thinking and from his humane and ethical character. Based on my own limited personal observations as a psychology student, I boldly state that his psychological reflections are rare even within the psychological community. These profound reflections, in addition to being influenced by his positive personality traits and a lifetime of intense and sincere intellectual rigors—which, instead of the stagnation of a swamp, acquire repeated freshness and the courage of expression—have another origin, which is interdisciplinary study, insight, and knowledge. But on the other hand, I can dare to claim that these deep psychological reflections have not produced specialized psychological knowledge. Mostafa Malekian, with all the rare methodological and dispositional characteristics mentioned, cannot be considered a psychologist, psychotherapist, or even a specialist in a specific field or theory of psychology. In the author's humble opinion, the lack of specialized familiarity or experience with laboratory and statistical methods, which constitute the main logic governing the current of contemporary psychology (Gressach, 1988), alongside his deep inclination toward psychologism and the reduction of complex human issues to a few, and sometimes even one, psychological variable, and, astonishingly, with claims of causal explanation (which sometimes even psychology teams, despite long-term and methodical studies, do not dare to make), are among his major weaknesses in this area. More interestingly, the second point, which is common in the scientific, political, and decision-making communities of our country—generally averse to the trouble of empirical methods—often occurs based on personal reflections, introspection, or limited and non-methodical personal observations, without any methodical and long-term empirical research or comprehensive comparative causal method, and conclusions are quickly drawn from the obtained data, and a robust causal explanation is also promptly given; and woe betide the day when this flawed research (or rather, non-research) process occurs in areas of impactful decision-making (such as education).

Of course, my point concerns the logic of such conclusions and explanations, and not the possibility that, coincidentally, such conclusions sometimes align with scientific research based on common sense.

It is the existence of such potential weaknesses in the esteemed Professor that unfortunately deters even a diligent psychology student, who has a good familiarity with the logic of the empirical method, from referencing those profound reflections and generating hypotheses from them. That same student becomes even more alienated when they hear him describe the book Theories of Personality by the Schultzes or (especially) the book A Life Worthy of Me as the

In this piece, I intend to review one of his psychological reflections in the domain of religion and personality, and to show that although his oft-repeated idea—that religiosity on the one hand, and the way individuals understand religious texts on the other, is a function of their personality—contains traces of truth, it also suffers from two major errors: a lack of grounding in research methods (which, even if it were to yield a correct result, might well be ethically unwarranted); and a greater error, which is the psychologistic reduction of complex phenomena to psychological causal variables, without any systematic longitudinal or group research, and the belittling of social and environmental variables.

Before proceeding, I must note that in numerous writings and talks, he considers religious conduct (religiosity) and religious understanding to be a function (likely causal) of personality. Of course, I have not heard him state this explicitly anywhere, but in consultation with some of his students, it appears they had the same impression. Therefore, while insisting on the validity of the two general critiques mentioned above, I base the validity of the following critique on my own understanding of the master's words. Consider a few examples of his statements:

1. “Fichte said that when someone opens the Holy Book, that individual can actually recognize themselves in that Holy Book. That is, the world's holy books do not introduce the world to us, but rather introduce ourselves to us, because if seven attributes regarding God are mentioned in your holy book and you worship this God, then from this you should understand that you are in love with these several attributes ... . The mystics of the Islamic world are those who have offered a Buddhist interpretation of Islam ... Therefore, someone who says 'I like the God of Islam' is actually saying what they like and what our psyche is like ... Whatever you fall in love with, you are in fact revealing a hidden aspect of your own psyche” (Master Malekian, Lecture Series on Rumi's Questions from Our Time, Session 7).
2. “Every holy book reveals the psychology of its believers. Feuerbach says that when the religious say God possesses these attributes and we worship this God, they are actually making a psychological statement, saying we like justice, knowledge, kindness and compassion, ... . Feuerbach says when you open religious books, do not think you are gaining knowledge of a set of objective truths, but rather you gain knowledge of a set of subjective psychological truths. That is, every holy book reveals the psychology of its believers. That is, the book of us Muslims shows us what attributes we Muslims like. The psychology of the Muslim can be understood from the Quran. The Muslim likes justice very much, and a Christian likes love very much. (Of course, this means the psychology of true believers, not nominal ones). The religious, through a kind of projection, project their desirable inner states onto God and their undesirable states onto devils. Then Feuerbach said the religious in fact engage in a kind of projection. They project their desirable inner states onto God and their undesirable states onto devils ... But this statement of Feuerbach is correct that when I say God has attribute x and y and I worship this God, this shows that I take pleasure in x and y. We take pleasure in x and y, but in expression, we imprecisely say I love God. One never loves God. Of course, one does not love God in the sense that one loves the attributes one ascribes to God, and then says I love God as the one who bears and embodies these attributes. But even if God truly exists, which in my opinion He does, and is the embodiment and bearer of these attributes, still our love is primarily and essentially directed at these attributes, and secondarily, incidentally, and even metaphorically, we attribute our love to God Himself. It is the same with any being” (Master Malekian, The Meaning of Life, pp. 91 and 92).

Examination

1. Ambiguity in the Theory of Personality

Can we make a judgment about the functions of personality and its influence in other domains without having a clear theory about personality and other related concepts? If the answer to this question is negative, what is Mr. Malekian’s theory of personality, given that he speaks so frequently of the construct of personality in various ethical, religious, cultural, historical, and political matters?

As I stated in the article “The Prophetic Dream; or Muhammad’s Alpha, Beta, Theta, and Delta Waves” in critique of the prophetic dream theory, without a conceptual and sometimes operational definition of the concepts used, a researcher cannot take a single step. Here, where the construct of personality is discussed, one inevitably needs not only definitions of the concepts and the fundamental units associated with it, but also a theoretical framework; exactly like Freud, Jung, Allport, Watson and Skinner, Cattell, McCrae and Costa, Eysenck, and so on.

What is Mr. Malekian’s theory of personality? Does he think in a Freudian manner? Is he Jungian? A behaviorist? A cognitivist? Does he believe in trait theories? Or does he have a new theory? The importance of this clarification is doubled especially by his presentation of highly engaging psychotherapy lessons; for, as we know, a psychologist’s theory in the domain of personality has a very significant impact on his therapeutic theory and professional life, including the domain of therapy (Prochaska and Norcross, 2012, Chapter One).

Based on the two aforementioned citations, can one conclude that he is a Freudian? Did not Freud (1907, p. 125) also believe that religion is a projection of the human inner and mental world or a quest to compensate for life’s frustrations and adversities? But I suspect this is not the case; because in his discourses, there is sometimes a leaning toward cognitivism and sometimes toward behaviorism. Even traces of humanism can be seen in his views. Is it not true that Maslow’s need theory was used by David McCready (1977) in the psychology of religion to assess the correspondence between an individual’s level of psychological need and their religious perceptions, their image of God’s attributes, heaven and hell, and their attention and connection to specific verses of the scripture that correspond to their needs? He found a correspondence between the level of psychological need and those perceptions (Wulff, 1977).

2. What do psychological studies say about the relationship between religion and personality?[1]

From the very beginning, the psychology of religion has been more or less attentive to the significant effects of religion and spirituality on personality, psychological functions, cognition, emotion, motivation, behavior, self-perception, identity, and psychological development. Of course, this attention has undergone numerous ups and downs; but since the longing for transcendence is an inherent part of human existence (Emmons, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1999), religion and personality have a deep relationship that cannot be ignored. This means that personality psychology and the psychology of religion also have a close connection, such that some consider the psychology of religion to be a footnote to personality psychology. Accordingly, the founders of personality psychology (including Allport and Henry Murray) paid considerable attention to religion; because they well understood that for many people, religion is not merely a significant personality dimension, but the core of their personality (Oliver John, Richard Robins, Lawrence Pervin, 2008, p. 634). The relationship between religion and personality can be examined from several perspectives; including: which personality theories can better explain the origin of religion and religiosity? Is there a relationship between personality types or factors (or components) and types of religiosity?^[2] Are individual differences in religiosity related to differences in people’s personality traits? Can personality type fundamentally explain the type of religiosity? Can religiosity be one of the factors in explaining personality? For instance, can the Five-Factor Model of personality determine the nature of the two constructs of religion and spirituality? To what extent can religious discussions contribute to personality theories? And finally, there is a question that also connects with hermeneutic discussions, namely: what effect do personality (and environmental)^[3] components/factors have on the type of understanding a reader or interpreter of religious texts has, and on the type of practice of a religious person? Accordingly, much research has been conducted on the relationship between the two constructs of religion and spirituality and personality (Piedmont and Wilkins, 2013).

With the understanding of certain cognitive, behavioral, social, emotional, genetic, and neurobiological correlates of the two constructs of religion and spirituality, and moving beyond the narrow-minded view that only the physical (observable and falsifiable) correlates of these two constructs should be examined, the attention of personality researchers was drawn to these two constructs. The complexity of these two constructs led researchers to conclude that they cannot be examined merely through a single method and single discipline, but rather require an interdisciplinary and multi-level paradigm. Another point is that it is not only psychology that helps in understanding these two constructs, but, as will be discussed later, these two constructs themselves can also contribute to improving existing psychological models of personality.

The serious presence of religion in every civilization, culture, and age, and their external and internal manifestations (such as law, philosophy, art, technology, politics, war, etc.), the connection of these two constructs with many topics of interest to psychologists (such as mental and physical health, well-being, self-esteem, learning, life satisfaction, psychological maturity, interpersonal relationships, gender attributions, sexual relations/behavior, marital satisfaction, meaning, etc.), as well as their connection with higher cognitive processes, are among the main reasons for personality psychologists' interest in examining these two constructs (Paloutzian & Park, 2005, pp. 293-294). Allport's (1950) findings regarding the relationship of religion and spirituality with personality have also had a significant impact on this field. He considered religion and spirituality to be two fundamental traits of personality that guide and direct the functioning of the individual's personality system, and since they influence other emotions, they affect the entire psychological system. Allport's trait approach to the constructs of religion and spirituality is also found in the Five-Factor Model of personality. Today, among personality theories, the most favored by researchers are trait-based theories, whose origin began with Allport (1950). The new formulation of Allport's theory is now presented in the form of the Five-Factor Theory, which is empirically a comprehensive and robust classification of personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Over the past three decades, a good consensus has emerged on the existence of five broad traits, known as the FFM. In this chapter, we proceed based on this theory. Of course, this does not mean that other approaches lack validity. According to personality researchers, psychoanalytic, behaviorist, and humanistic approaches also have a degree of validity in the study of personality, and the trait approach is merely a fourth approach that has its own strengths and weaknesses (McCrae & Costa, 2003); although from their perspective, the trait approach has greater validity.

The final point of this section is that the role and importance of the two constructs of religion and spirituality in the psychological structure and functions have been of interest to psychology researchers (across all humanistic, existential, trait, etc., approaches) from the very beginning; with the difference that some considered them to influence the entire personality system, while others, such as Maslow and Frankl, saw the influence of these two constructs only on certain layers of personality and specific levels of development. Research based on correlations between scales that measure the two constructs of religion and spirituality and personality assessment scales is valuable work that can lead to the discovery of broader psychological characteristics.

The Five-Factor Theory in Understanding the Structures of Religion and Spirituality

Personality is “the distinctive and relatively enduring ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that characterize a person’s responses to life situations” (Passer & Smith, 2006, p. 420). According to trait theory, personality is a relatively stable pattern of traits, dispositions, or characteristics that lend consistency to an individual’s behavior. Personality structure, in turn, consists of the fundamental units or building blocks of personality.^[4] Based on trait theory, humans possess biological predispositions called traits that form the core elements of human personality, and these stable elements, in interaction with the environment, cause the individual to react to stimuli in a particular way (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). Thus, a trait is a relatively enduring internal characteristic that underlies specific behaviors and distinguishes individuals from one another (ibid.). Hence, this process not only permits the scientific explanation of human beings but also allows predictions to be made on their basis (Pervin & John, 2007). For this purpose, scales were developed for measurement. Of course, the trait approach emphasizes stable individual differences and strives to avoid global judgments. For example, in response to whether humans are “inherently” selfish or creative, it says some are, and some are not (Shojaei, 2015, p. 1).

According to this theory, the combination of behaviors leads to traits, and the combination of traits leads to higher-order factors (Feist, 2008). Psychologists, from Klages (1926), Baumgarten (1933) to Allport and Odbert (1936) and Cattell (1943, 1945), used natural language (dictionaries and colloquial speech) as a source for extracting the traits people use to describe personality in a scientific taxonomy. The large number of traits found in natural language and dictionaries for describing human personality led researchers, after extracting all descriptive terms and years of empirical research and statistical work, to arrive at a taxonomy that is acceptable to many researchers in the field. Accordingly, various models of personality structure have emerged based on the trait approach and factor analysis method; these models sometimes have fundamental differences. One problem is that this research has primarily been conducted based on the English language and the descriptions of personality found in that language, and proving the existence of these same common features in other languages is difficult. Hence, a multicultural approach to the study of personality has flourished, which does not accept universal grand theories, considers attention to beliefs, convictions, culture, and social customs essential in personality studies, and posits different theoretical foundations and measurement instruments for each culture (Ortiz, 2005; Cheung et al., 2001).

As we have said, trait theory has had many ups and downs.^[5] The Big Five personality theory is one of the most famous of these taxonomies, which was developed based on previous research, especially Cattell’s highly meticulous work, to explore the dimensional structure of the hierarchy of traits. The five-factor theory itself has undergone roughly four decades of evolution and is the product of the lexical tradition (analysis of traits existing in the English language and other languages) and the factor-analytic tradition in personality research (Ashtiani, 2014, p. 37).

The Five-Factor Model of human personality traits is divided as follows: 1) Neuroticism (Factor N), which is the predisposition and tendency to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, and hostility. 2) Extraversion (Factor E), which is the quantity and intensity of a person's interpersonal interactions; 3) Openness (Factor O), which is the active seeking of new experiences. 4) Agreeableness (Factor A), the quality of a person's interpersonal interactions along a spectrum ranging from compassion and empathy to hostility; 5) Conscientiousness (Factor C), which is the persistence, organization, and motivation an individual exhibits in goal-directed behaviors (Costa & McCrae, 1992). From the researchers' perspective, these five factors have a genetic origin (Heath, Neale, Kessler, Eaves, & Kendler, 1992), and show considerable stability over time (Costa & McCrae, 1994), which indicates they are not merely a behavioral classification; rather, they are an inherited disposition in a consistent manner of thinking, acting, and feeling. Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies show that these five factors are universal (Goldberg, 1981). In addition to strong empirical value, this model is also very powerful cross-culturally (McCrae & Costa, 1997). These validated concepts provide a good framework for understanding and evaluating the variable of religiosity (Piedmont, 2005).

Based on this theory, questionnaires have also been developed, known as the IPIP (Goldberg, 2005; Goldberg et al., 2006). The NEO Personality Inventory, and more precisely, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory^[6] (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a self-report personality trait questionnaire based on the Five-Factor Model (Goldberg, 1993). Each of these five factors in this questionnaire has six facets, traits, or subscales; that is, specific personality traits that represent different aspects of each factor or domain. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory contains 240 items (8 items for each of the 30 facets, or 48 items for each of the five domains or factors). Respondents rate each of the 240 statements on a five-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) (Ashtiani, 1393, p. 37).

Many researchers have sought to answer the question of whether individual differences in religiosity are related to differences in individuals' personality traits. Although many theories regarding the dynamics of the religion-personality relationship focus on how specific traits affect an individual's religiosity, the causal direction of this relationship remains largely unexplored. For instance, regarding research that believes the agreeableness factor causes an inclination toward religion in the individual (next section), it could conversely be argued that it is religiosity in the early stages of development that can contribute to the formation of agreeableness and conscientiousness; or that they might mutually reinforce each other.

The Five-Factor Model can be applied in four ways to examine the structures of religion and spirituality (Piedmont, 1999b): the correlation of scales measuring religion and spirituality with the domains of the Five-Factor personality model clarifies for us the broader motivations and expected outcomes of such scales, and reveals how the individual experiences these two constructs, and the reason for the correlation of these two variables with outcomes such as mental and physical health, social behavior, and psychological maturity. Based on Piedmont's review comparing several studies that had measured spirituality scales against the components of this theory, it was found that correlations exist between these two constructs and all domains of the Five-Factor Model, such that these more stable and antecedent personality variables can be used to predict subsequent religious variables. It was also found that the correlation between these constructs does not mean that the two constructs of religion and spirituality can be reduced to the domains of personality, or that these two constructs are redundant and repetitive relative to the five personality components (Piedmont, 2005, in the Paloutzian & Park Handbook).

Sarıoğlu (2010), through a meta-analysis of 70 articles examining the relationship between religion and spirituality and the domains of the Five-Factor Model in over 21,000 international samples, reached the same findings as Piedmont, attributing the primary role in this correlation to factors A and C, which explain many of the outcomes of these two constructs on body and mind (factor C), and social support and prosocial behaviors (factor A). Sarıoğlu also claimed that these correlations indicate that religious and spiritual motivations represent specific adaptations of factors A and C; meaning that religious motivations are culture-bound phenomena that arise in individuals who score high on factors A and C and, moreover, live in an environment where religion has a significant presence. Care, compassion, and dutifulness (something emphasized by religion and spirituality) prepare individuals for religiosity and spirituality. Longitudinal research shows that personality factors can predict the quality and intensity of religious experiences in later periods of life.

On this basis, Wink, Ciciolla, Dillon, and Tracy (2007) came to believe that "personality plays a fundamental role in shaping religious and spiritual commitment and engagement, and therefore personality must be considered in all efforts aimed at understanding how the structure of religion and spirituality affects psychological functioning" (pp. 1067-1068).

As noted, Costa and McCrae (1999) consider the Big Five personality factors to be basic tendencies with biological roots, which therefore produce a specific kind of action and feeling in every individual. Alongside these basic tendencies, and in line with evolutionary psychology, they posit characteristic adaptations^[7] that are influenced by the context in which the individual lives. In their view, religiosity is one of the adaptive characteristics that some individuals adopt in specific contexts to realize or express their basic tendencies (McCrae & Costa, 1996). They believe, for example, that those who possess the basic tendency of agreeableness or conscientiousness, in certain contexts, realize their personality tendencies such as orderliness, social desirability, or communalism by adopting religiosity. They have a high motivation to endorse laws and rules, albeit for various reasons (Costa, McCrae, 1995). Agreeableness motivates the individual toward commitment to conventions, especially regardless of a desire for approval from others. Formal religious rituals typically provide a clear and detailed value system that conscientious individuals adhere to, whereas in less conscientious individuals it provokes a defensive state. Therefore, agreeable individuals tend toward the family religion in adulthood. They are more likely to maintain their religious faith in order to preserve harmony with their family, or other similar individuals within a value system.

Religion is also a source for enhancing self-control. Religion inhibits unacceptable impulses (especially sexual and aggressive ones). They are steered toward loyalty to the cultural norms of society and religiosity, and this religiosity is possibly aimed at minimizing family conflicts by accepting their religious system. Another possibility is that highly agreeable individuals accept faith because remaining within a value system allows them to cultivate traits such as altruism, kindness, generosity, and love (Emmons et al., 2008; as cited in Tabik, 1389, pp. 92-93).

Kosek (1999), MacDonald (2000), and Tyler and MacDonald (1999) found that measures of agreeableness and conscientiousness are positively related to measures of religious commitment and intrinsic religious orientation. MacDonald found that a “cognitive bias toward spirituality” is associated with extraversion, agreeableness, and openness, whereas the experiential form of spirituality is associated only with extraversion and openness. Saroglou’s (2000) meta-analysis also shows that religiosity has a robust association with high agreeableness and conscientiousness, a very low association with neuroticism, and no association with the other traits of the Five-Factor Model. The correlations between the five-factor scales and religiosity scales are significant, but typically not of a high magnitude. For example, intrinsic religiosity correlates with agreeableness and conscientiousness (with coefficients of 0.25 and 0.23) (Tyler & MacDonald, 1999), while extrinsic religiosity correlates negatively with openness (coefficient: -0.18). On the other hand, openness usually correlates negatively with measures of religious fundamentalism.

The findings of Maltby and Day (2001; cited in the same source) showed that extraversion has the highest correlation with various aspects of the capacity for spirituality. Saroglou’s (2002) research also revealed that, in addition to the extraversion factor, the factors of agreeableness and conscientiousness have a positive correlation, and the neuroticism factor has a negative correlation, with religiosity. In another study, a positive relationship was established between intrinsic religious orientation and the factors of agreeableness and conscientiousness. Furthermore, a positive relationship was found between spirituality and the factors of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and a negative relationship with the neuroticism factor (Henningsgaard et al., 2008; cited in the same source). According to Saroglou (2002), a possible reason for the relationship between extraversion and capacities for transcendence may be that the social dimensions of religion are emphasized more today than the individual dimensions.

Heaven and Ciarrochi (2007), in a study on Australian adolescents using the Eysenck neuroticism scale, measured its relationship with religious values over a three-year period. They found a negative relationship between neuroticism and the level of religious values in boys, whereas in girls, there was a positive relationship between the C factor and religiosity. While some elements of C appear to predict religious values in late adolescence, the neuroticism scale was more associated with masculinity and high scores in delinquent behavior. Consequently, reduced neuroticism in boys was associated with higher religious scores. Thus, gender is an important moderating variable in the relationship between religion and personality. McCullough, Tsang, and Brion (2003) also found in a study that scores on the C factor in childhood can predict the level of religiosity in the future. Wink and colleagues (2007) also found the levels of the A, C, and O factors to be predictors of the level of religious and spiritual seeking in adulthood. Wink and Dillon (2002, 2008), in an extensive longitudinal study, found that spirituality increases from midlife to old age, especially in women. Negative life events in women’s midlife are associated with their subsequent increase in spirituality. In men, however, an increase in spirituality occurs from young adulthood to midlife. The conclusion is that research almost consistently shows a correlation between the A and C factors and the constructs of religion and spirituality. Of course, the effect size in all regression-based studies between personality factors and the two constructs of religion and spirituality has been low (beta weight less than 0.25).^[8]

The empirical results obtained from trait-centered research have led some researchers (such as Wink and Saroglou) to believe that religion and spirituality are consequences of (or adaptations from) the dimensions of fundamental traits. Such claims have several fundamental flaws. First, there is no precise definition of these two constructs. The second problem is the lack of longitudinal studies that possess standard, reliable, and valid measures. Furthermore, studies showing the relationship of religion and spirituality with personality in childhood are extremely rare; because to conclude that personality factors predict the level of religion and spirituality, we need longitudinal investigations that follow the individual from childhood to old age.

In contrast, there are researchers (such as Piedmont and Wilkins) who consider religion and spirituality to be independent psychological dimensions, rather than subcategories of other structures (such as the five factors mentioned). Religion and spirituality, as fundamental emotional structures, have their own causal influences on behavior. We will address this competing view below.

Religion and Spirituality as Independent Factors

This view opposes the above idea—which, based on correlation, considered the two structures of religion and spirituality to be byproducts or adaptations of personality factors—for five reasons:

1. The correlation between religion and spirituality and the Five-Factor Theory merely shows an association, not the direction of the association. Moreover, correlation does not indicate causation.
2. The size of the correlation between personality and religion/spirituality, although stable across different samples, is relatively small (correlation coefficient less than 0.25). From this degree of correlation, one cannot conclude that religion and spirituality are products dependent on personality. Furthermore, personality explains less than 7% of the variance in religion and spirituality.
3. Evidence shows that spirituality increases over the lifespan, but research shows conflicting results regarding religion. Some longitudinal research indicates that people become more religious with age (Oliver John, 2008, p. 635). Since personality components are stable throughout life, this is theoretically important for personality psychologists.
4. Considering religion to be a function of factors A, O, and C lacks the explanatory power for certain contemporary or historical conservative and orthodox religious personalities. Piedmont names several historical figures whose described characteristics in the Bible do not align with the personality type traits attributed to religious or spiritual individuals in this theory: such as Saint John, Saul, David, and others (Piedmont, 2013, p. 299).
5. If religion and spirituality were a function of personality factors, then the foundation of sciences that have today taken root and been validated as independent disciplines—such as the psychology of religion, sociology of religion, anthropology of religion, and the like—would be meaningless. In that case, personality psychology, specifically with the trait approach, would suffice to examine the two. Yet, the volume of research in those disciplines shows that this is not the case.

Religion and Spirituality as Independent Sources of Emotion

Goldberg (1990), in factor analysis of various samples, encountered a factor he called religiousness^[9], characterized by traits such as religious versus non-religious, or reverent versus irreverent. Saucier and Goldberg (1998) believe that this dimension has a relatively strong presence in the lexicon and can be considered a dimension distinct from the factors of the Five-Factor Theory. Ashton, Lee, and Goldberg (2004) also found evidence that religiousness is itself an independent factor. Saucier and Skrzypinska (2006) provided an extensive and systematic analysis of the structure of religion and spirituality and concluded that: 1) these two are independent of the five factors of the Five-Factor Theory; 2) they represent two distinct and irreducible dimensions that have different correlates; 3) the formation of these structures interacts with personality dimensions.

MacDonald's factor analysis (2000) also confirmed these results.

Piedmont (1999a, 2001) used the five-factor theory as an empirical framework to create criteria for religion and spirituality that would be independent of the five-factor theory. His research led to the creation of a scale titled Assessment of Spiritual and Religious Sentiments^[10] (Piedmont, 2010, 2012). This scale is designed to operationalize aspects of spirituality that are universal and non-denominational. In this theory, spirituality refers to an inherent and fundamental characteristic in the individual that can be called a motive^[11]. Motive, as an internal source of motivation, influences the individual's adaptive orientation toward their environment. Motives refer to the general dimensions of human behavior and are found in all cultures. On the other hand, religiosity refers to what we call sentiment^[12]. Sentiment is an emotional disposition that arises outside of social traditions and educational experiences (Woodworth, 1940); including those related to religion. Sentiments are powerful motivators and have a direct impact on behavior. However, sentiments such as love, gratitude, patriotism, and also spirituality, are not inherent and innate characteristics. Rather, sentiments create a meaning system for the individual that brings coherence to their life processes. This is why the manifestations of sentiments differ across cultures and times. Sentiment is more amenable to change and modification. Consequently, spirituality as an evolved motivation sensitizes individuals to specific experiences, while religiosity helps structure and satisfy the expression of spiritual drives. A growing body of research documents the independence of these two dimensions from the five aforementioned factors, and demonstrates the incremental validity of this scale in predicting a wide range of psychosocial and clinical outcomes across samples, cultures, languages, and religious groups (Piedmont, 2010). This scale provides trait-based definitions of religiosity and spirituality that have both a solid empirical foundation and generality across different cultures and religions (Piedmont, 2007; Piedmont & Leach, 2002; Piedmont & Janosova, 2010). Advanced factor analysis shows that religiosity and spirituality, without any contradiction, form an independent sixth factor for the five-factor theory (Piedmont, 1999a; Piedmont, Mapa & Williams, 2006; Rican & Janosova, 2010).

Considering religiosity and spirituality as a separate dimension of personality has important implications. For example, conceptually separating spirituality and religiosity from personality is consistent with how spiritual growth and development occur (especially in adulthood). If spirituality were a function of personality, then any spiritual growth would have to be traced in the underlying layers of personality (for example, factors O, A, and C). Whereas research by five-factor theorists indicates that personality dimensions are very stable in adulthood (Costa & McCrae, 1994), thus change in spirituality becomes unlikely; while based on research, we have no doubt that such changes occur throughout individuals' lives (Dalby, 2006; Wink & Dillon, 2002, 2008). This indicates that spirituality relates back to other psychological processes.

Key Issues Needed for Research in This Field

Piedmont (2005) notes five important research issues that researchers in this field face: 1) Understanding the personological content of religion and spirituality scales; 2) The incremental validity^[13] of these scales; 3) The structural nature of these two constructs; 4) The causal relationship between the sacred and the psychological; 5) Spirituality and religiosity as human wholes.

Below, we examine these five areas.

Understanding the Personological Content of Religion and Spirituality Scales

What information do measures of religion and spirituality provide about the individual? Are major disputes over nothing? The first task in scientific research is the precise definition of the phenomenon under study. Without a precise, coherent, and consensual definition of the concepts in question, one cannot even collect appropriate data. As noted in the first chapter, the lack of a suitable operational definition of religion and spirituality remains one of the problems of this field (Kapuscinski & Masters, 2010). The wide range of definitions has even created problems for the diagnostic validity^[14] of these constructs and has called the empirical nature of this discipline into question; in that this discipline has merely engaged in the sacralization of existing personality variables (Van Wicklin, 1990), or examines by-products of evolutionary phenomena (Buss, 2002, p. 203). One solution to this problem is to examine measures of religion and spirituality in relation to broader personality patterns; that is, the items that assess these traits can provide us with good information about them in terms of personality. Another way is factor analysis of a number of measures assessing religion and spirituality along with indicators of personality factors in the Five-Factor Theory. In this way, religious and spiritual characteristics can be identified that are independent of the Big Five personality factors (Piedmont, 2006).

Establishing Incremental Validity in Measures of Religion and Spirituality

The value of a construct lies in how much it contributes to our further understanding of a phenomenon. Sechrest (1963) coined the term incremental validity for this state. This term refers to the processes through which one can determine whether a test helps increase the accuracy of prediction. It is not the case that more information always leads to greater understanding. With incremental validity, one can determine whether the obtained information has scientific value or is redundant and superfluous.

Funder (2002, pp. 213-214) believed that the psychology of religion has no scientific value and, due to its lack of internal coherence, only provides redundant information that leads to the creation of a futile branch within social or personality psychology. Therefore, it should not even be called a sub-discipline. Religion and spirituality are not empirically and conceptually separate from other variables (such as personality variables). The response given to these criticisms is based on the incremental validity of the two constructs of religion and spirituality. Although some oppose the incremental validity approach (McCrae, 2010), others align with Piedmont (1999b, 2006) that the two constructs of religion and spirituality provide us with information beyond other variables and even have the ability to predict psychosocial outcomes; and measures assessing religion and spirituality yield information about the individual that is not obtained through traditional personality dimensions (Kapuscinski & Masters, 2010). Hence, these two constructs cannot be reduced to other psychological variables (Piedmont, 2002).

The Structural Nature of the Two Constructs of Religion and Spirituality

Are religion and spirituality scientifically two truly distinct constructs, or are they two artificial, separate concepts constructed by researchers? Considering them distinct requires the creation of two conceptual models that establish important differences between these two concepts, as well as the existence of information that demonstrates the value of this distinction in prediction. Current research in the field of psychology has typically defined spirituality as a more personal and private characteristic, and religiosity as engagement in the rituals and rites associated with a specific religion. There is little empirical research that has tested this distinction. The ASPIRES scale differentiates between spirituality (an intrinsic, general motivation that drives and directs behavior) and religiosity (as a sentiment; i.e., learned value, belief, and attitude). Piedmont (2009) designed two models to understand the distinction between the two. Based on the first model, it was hypothesized that religiosity and spirituality are two independent predictors of growth; and in the second model, they were hypothesized to be two correlated predictors. And in the third model, the hypothesis was researched that if they are correlated, can they be considered a single predictive dimension? The results of his research showed that the second model was superior. Religion and spirituality have a high correlation (0.71). However, they are not redundant.

Other analyses assessed models that sought to understand whether spirituality and religiosity predict psychological growth or are its outcome; and if they are predictors, which of the two is more fundamental? Are spirituality and religiosity products of psychological growth? (Model 4); if not, does spirituality predict growth and religiosity? (Model 5); or does religiosity predict growth and spirituality? (Model 6). They found that Model 5 had more evidence. This model considered spirituality to be an underlying motivation that is the cause of both religious growth and psychological growth.

Are religion and spirituality two multidimensional or multifaceted constructs? A multidimensional scale is one that includes several independent dimensions; scores on one dimension do not correlate with scores on other dimensions, and the information obtained from these dimensions is not redundant. A multifaceted scale, however, includes dimensions that all correlate with one another to some extent, because all the dimensions themselves originate from a common latent construct. The nature of the two constructs of religion and spirituality is generally considered multidimensional (Hill et al., 2000). The best way to test such a view is to simultaneously conduct factor analysis on measures of religion and spirituality alongside measures of the Five-Factor Theory.

The Causal Relationship between the Supernatural and Psychology

As we mentioned earlier, this discussion has been of interest to researchers since the beginning of the psychological tradition and has seen many ups and downs. Today, the discussion of the causal influence of religion and spirituality on psychological and physical variables is the subject of much controversy. Piedmont (2013) believes in the causal impact of these two constructs (through the creation of internal resources) on the psychological world and cites considerable research in this area (p. 325). He does, however, consider a more definitive opinion on the relationship between the constructs of religion and spirituality and psychological functions to be dependent on more precise psychometric instruments and experimental and longitudinal designs.

Religion and Spirituality: Two Broad Constructs

Following the presentation of Piedmont's model of religion and spirituality as two independent personality factors, numerous factor analyses in different countries and with different samples have confirmed this model and demonstrated the importance of the ASPIRES scale.

The conclusion is that the two constructs of religion and spirituality are of great psychological importance, and the scales measuring them possess interpretive and predictive power.

Conclusion

The two theories presented in this article hold two opposing views; on one hand, religion and spirituality are considered a function of other personality factors, based on which one can also predict their quality. The rival theory, relying on the low correlation of these factors and the fact that correlational research does not imply causation, critiques the first theory and considers religion and spirituality to be an independent factor. Both theories utilize factor analysis methods and meta-analyses of conducted research to prove their points, and although the second theory currently has more evidence, it seems that neither can drive the other from the field. What may be illuminating in this context are the research imperatives raised by Piedmont, the most important of which are methodical longitudinal studies.

The aim of this article was to show that in such complex matters, we need methodical empirical research and not reliance on conjecture, introspection, limited and unsystematic observations, or personal taste and experience.

In closing, as dictated by the ethical and religious duty of gratitude, I bow my head in humility before my teacher and wish them health and a long life.

.

---

.

References

Spilka, Bernard; Hood, Ralph W., Jr.; Hunsberger, Bruce; Gorsuch, Richard. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. Translated by Mohammad Dehghani. Tehran: Roshd, 2011.

Prochaska, James O.; Norcross, John C. Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis. Translated by Hamayak Avadis Yanes. Tehran: Roshd, 2011.

Fathi Ashtiani, Ali; Dastani, Mahboubeh. Psychological Tests: Personality and Mental Health Evaluation. Tehran: Besat, 1392 [2013].

Adler, A. (1998). Understanding human nature: The psychology of personality. Center City, MN:

Hazelden. (Original work published 1927)

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

Ashton, M. c., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-

descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707-721.

Baumeister, R. F., Bauer, I. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (2010). Choice, free will, and religion. Psychology

of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 67-82.

Boyatzis, C. J. (2003). Religious and spiritual development: An introduction. Review of Religious

Research, 44(3),213-219.

Boyatzis, C. J. (2005). Religious and spiritual development in childhood. In R. F. Paloutzian & c.

1. Park (Eds.), The handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 123-143).

New York: Guilford Press.

Buss, D. M.(2002). Sex, marriage, and religion: What adaptive problems do religious phenomena

solve? Psychological Inquiry, 13,201-203.

Champagne, E. (2003). Being a child, a spiritual child. The International Journal of Children's

Spirituality, 8,43-53.

Chen, T. P. (2011). Cross-cultural psychometric evaluation of the ASPIRES in mainland China.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University.

Coleman, P. G., Carare, R. 0., Petrov, I., Forbes, E., Saigal, A., Spreadbury, J. H., et al. (2011).

Spiritual belief, social support, physical functioning and depression among older people in

Bulgaria and Romania. Aging & Mental Health, 15(3), 327-333.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEG PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). "Set like plaster"?: Evidence for the stability of adult

personality. In T. F. Heatherton, & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp.

21-40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysenck's P-E-N system: Three- and

five-factor solutions. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 690, 308-317.

Dalby, P. (2006). Is there a process of spiritual change or development associated with ageing?: A

critical review of research. Aging & Mental Health, 10,4-12.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review

of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Dy-Liacco, G. S., Piedmont, R. L., Murray-Swank, N. A., Rodgerson, T. E., & Sherman, M. F.

(2009). Spirituality and religiosity as cross-cultural aspects of human experience. Psychology

of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 35-52.

Emmons, R. A., & Paloutzian, R. F. (2003). The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology,

54, 377-402.

Erikson, E. H. (1997). The life cycle completed. Extended version with new chapters on the ninth

stage of development by Joan M. Erikson. New York: Norton.

Frankl, V. (1959). Man's search for meaning. Boston: Beacon.

Frankl, V. (1969). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of logo therapy. New York:

Meridian.

Freud, S. (1950). Totem and taboo. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1913)

Freud, S. (1961). The future of an illusion. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1927)

Froehlich, J. P., Fialkowski, G. M., Scheers, N. J., Wilcox, P. c., & Lawrence, R. T. (2006).

Spiritual maturity and social support in a national study of a male religious order. Pastoral

Psychology, 54(5), 465-478.

Funder, D. C. (2002). Why study religion? Psychological Inquiry, 13,213-214.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big Five structure. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48,

26-34. doi:10. 1037/0003-066X. 48. 1. 26

Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 201-221.

Heath, A. C., Neale, M. c., Kessler, R. c., Eaves, L. J., & Kendler, K. S. (1992). Evidence for

genetic influences on personality from self-reports and informant ratings. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 63, 85-96.

Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrocchi, J. (2007). Personality and religious values among adolescents: A

three-wave longitudinal analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 681-694.

Hill, P. c., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., et al.

(2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality, points of departure.

Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 51-77.

Houskamp, B. M., Fisher, L. A., & Stuber, M. L. (2004). Spirituality in children and adolescents:

Research findings and implications for clinicians and researchers. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric

Clinics of North America, 13, 221-230.

James, W. (1982). The varieties of religious experience. New York: Penguin Books. (Original work

published 1902)

Jung, c. G. (1966). Psychology and religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Original

work published 1938)

Jung, c. G. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work

published 1921)

Kapuscinski, A. N., & Masters, K. S. (2010). The current status of measures of spirituality: A

critical review of scale development. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 191-205.

MacDonald, D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement and relation to the Five-Factor

Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 68, 153-197.

Marmor, G. S., & Montemayor, R. (1977). The cross-lagged panel design: A review. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 45, 883-893.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Religions, values, and peak-experiences. New York: Penguin Books.

McCrae, R. R. (2010). The place of the FFM in personality psychology. Psychological Inquiry,

21(1),57-64.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American

Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

McCullough, M. E., Enders, C. K., Brion, S. L., & Jain, A. R. (2005). The varieties of religious

development in adulthood: A longitudinal investigation of religion and rational choice. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 78-89.

McCullough, M. E., Tsang,]., & Brion, S. (2003). Personality traits in adolescence as predictors

of religiousness in early adulthood: Findings from the Terman longitudinal study. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 980-991.

Mercer, ]. A. (2006). Children as mystics, activists, sages, and holy fools: Understanding the

spirituality of children and its significance for clinical work. Pastoral Psychology, 54, 497-

515.

Meyer, D. E. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence

of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2),

227-234.

Murray, K., & Ciarrocchi, ]. W. (2007). The dark side of religion, spirituality, and the moral

emotions: Shame, guilt, and negative religiosity as markers for life dissatisfaction. Journal of

Pastoral Counseling, 42, 22-41.

Musick, M. A., Traphagan,]. W., Koenig, H. G., & Larson, D. B. (2000). Spirituality in physical

health and aging. Journal of Adult Development, 7(2), 73-86.

Otto, R. (1958). The idea of the holy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published

1923)

Oud, ]. H. L. (2007). Continuous time modeling of reciprocal relationships in the cross-lagged

panel design. In S. Boker & M. Wenger (Eds.), Data analytic techniques for dynamical systems

(pp. 87-129). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pargament, K. 1. (2002). Is religion nothing but ... ? Explaining religion versus explaining religion

away. Psychological Inquiry, 13,239-244.

Piedmont, R. L. (1994). Validation of the NEO-PIR observer form for college students: Toward a

paradigm for studying personality development. Assessment, 1,259-268.

Piedmont, R. L. (1999a). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality?: Spiritual transcendence

and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67, 983-1013.

Piedmont, R. L. (1999b). Strategies for using the Five-Factor Model of personality in religious

research. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 27(4), 338-350.

Piedmont, R. L. (2001). Spiritual transcendence and the scientific study of spirituality. Journal of

Rehabilitation, 67,4-14.

Piedmont, R. L. (2005). The role of personality in understanding religious and spiritual constructs.

In R. F. Paloutzian & c. L. Park (Eds.), The handbook of the psychology of religion

and spirituality (pp. 253-273). New York: Guilford Press.

Piedmont, R. L. (2007). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale to the Philippines: Spirituality as a human universal. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10(2),

89-107.

Piedmont, R. L. (2010). Assessment of spirituality and religious sentiments, technical manual

(2nd ed.). Timonium, MD; Author.

Piedmont, R. L. (2012). Overview and development of a trait-based measure of numinous constructs:

The Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) scale. In L.

Miller (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of spirituality and consciousness (pp.

104-122). New York: Oxford University Press.

Piedmont, R. L., Ciarrocchi, J. W., Dy-Liacco, G. S., & Williams, ]. E. G. (2009). The empirical

and conceptual value of the Spiritual Transcendence and Religious Involvement scales for

personality research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 162-179.

Piedmont, R. L., & Leach, M. (2002). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Spiritual Transcendence

Scale in India: Spirituality as a universal aspect of human experience. American

Behavioral Scientist, 45(12), 1888-190l.

Piedmont, R. L., Mapa, A. T., & Williams, J. E. G. (2006). A factor analysis of the FetzeriNIA

Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality (MMRS). Research in the

Social Scientific Study of Religion, 17, 177-196.

Piedmont, R. L., & Wilkins, T. A. (2013). Spirituality, religiousness, and personality: Theoretical

foundations and empirical applications. In K. Pargament, J. Exline, et al. (Eds.), APA handbook

of psychology, religion, and spirituality (pp. 173-186). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Rican, P., & ]anosova, P. (2010). Spirituality as a basic aspect of personality: A cross-cultural

verification of Piedmont's model. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,

20,2-13.

Rizzuto, A. (1979). The birth of the living God: A psychoanalytic study. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

R6zycka, J. (2011, April). Spirituality as a cultural and individual dimension. Paper presented at

the 9th Mid-Year Conference on Religion & Spirituality, Columbia, MD.

Ruckmick, C. A. (1920). The Brevity book on psychology. Chicago: Brevity.

Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five-factors of personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality

and Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.

Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness as a cultural adaptation of basic traits: A five-factor model perspective.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 108-125.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66,

495-524.

Saucier, G., & Skrzypinska, K. (2006). Spiritual but not religious?: Evidence for two independent

dimensions. Journal of Personality, 74, 1257-1292.

Sechrest, L. (1963). Incremental validity: A recommendation. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 23, 153-158.

Sperry, L. (2001). Spirituality in clinical practice: Incorporating the spiritual dimension in psychotherapy

and counseling. New York: Routledge.

Tomcsanyi, T., Ittzes, A., Horvath-Szab6, K., Martos, T., & Szabo, T. (2010). Key issues in

researching spirituality and religiosity in the light of the ASPIRES instrument (Assessment

of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments) developed by Ralph Piedmont. Psychiatria Hungarica:

A Magyar Pszichidtriai Tdrsasdg Tudomdnyos Folyoirata, 25(2), 110~120.

van Dierendonck, D., Rodriguez-Carvajal, R., Moreno-Jimenez, B., & Dijkstra, M. (2009). Goal

integration and well-being: Self-regulation through inner resources in the Netherlands and

Spain. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 746-760.

van Wick lin, ]. F. (1990). Conceiving and measuring ways of being religious. Journal of Psychology

and Christianity, 9, 27-40.

Wink, P., Ciciolla, L., Dillon, M., & Tracy, A. (2007). Religiousness, spiritual seeking, and personality:

Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 75, 1051-1070.

Wink, P., & Dillon, M. (2002). Spiritual development across the adult life course: Findings from a

longitudinal study. Journal of Adult Development, 9(1), 79-94.

Wink, P., & Dillon, M. (2008). Religiousness, spirituality, and psychosocial functioning in late

adulthood: Findings from a longitudinal study. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1,

102-115.

Woodworth, R. S. (1940). Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Henry Holt.

Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion. Classic and contemporary (2nd ed.). New York:

Wiley.

Zinnbauer, B. ]., & Pargament, K. 1. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian

& c. L. Park (Eds.), The handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp.

21-42) .. New York: Guilford Press.

.

---

.

[1] In compiling this section, I have drawn upon Chapter 15 of the 2013 edition of the Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, edited by Paloutzian and Park. Therefore, the citations in this section are also mostly from that book and not from the author's direct consultation. I provide these sources at the end of the article for interested readers.

[2] For example, Kosek (1999), MacDonald (2000), and Tyler and MacDonald (1999) found that measures of agreeableness and conscientiousness are positively correlated with measures of religious commitment and intrinsic religious orientation. MacDonald found that "cognitive bias toward spirituality" is related to extraversion, agreeableness, and openness, whereas the experiential form of spirituality is related only to extraversion and openness. Saroglou's (2000) meta-analysis also shows that religiosity has a strong correlation with high agreeableness and conscientiousness, a very low correlation with neuroticism, and is unrelated to the other traits of the Five-Factor theory. Furthermore, Leslie Francis (1994) summarized a large number of studies on the relationship between religious development and personality based on Hans Eysenck's (1981) theory and concluded that among children, religiosity and introversion have a positive relationship with each other, and these in turn are associated with substance avoidance (Francis, 1997a) (Spilka et al., p. 135).

[3] For example, there is a famous saying by Martyr Motahhari in the book Twenty Discourses: "The fatwa of a city jurist smells of the city, and the fatwa of a village jurist smells of the village."

[4] For example, from Freud's perspective, these fundamental units are the id, ego, and superego; from Murray's perspective, needs; from Rogers's perspective, the self and self-concept; and from Allport's and Eysenck's perspective, these fundamental units are traits (Friedman & Schustack, 2009).

[5] Allport and Odbert (1936) extracted 17,953 words from Webster's International Dictionary and reduced them to 4,500 traits. Later, Cattell (1993), by conducting several factor analyses on these traits, obtained 12 personality factors, which eventually became Cattell's 16-factor questionnaire. Eysenck (1991) recognized only three factors: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. McCrae and Costa (1985), and Goldberg (1981) arrived at five factors. Tellegen and Waller (1987) added the two factors of positive valence and negative valence to their five factors. Ashton and Lee (2001) by adding the dimension of honesty-humility, and Hogan (1986) by dividing the extraversion dimension into ambition and sociability, created a six-factor model. Paunonen and Jackson (2000), through a re-analysis of traits in the English language, added 10 factors to Goldberg's five factors, among which was religiosity. A factor whose independence Piedmont also accepts, and upon which the present writing relies. Some researchers (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Carver et al., 2000; Blackburn et al., 2004; Amigo et al., 2010) have produced a two-factor model of personality traits, and recently, a theory based on a single general factor of personality has also been proposed (Amigo et al., 2010; Rushton & Irwing, 2008). Of course, there are numerous other views, with differences in the details and content of the factors, the degree of correlation between factors, the number of sub-traits of the factors, and their characteristics. One of the main bases for these disagreements is the incomplete search for traits in language; and more importantly, the neglect of cultural and linguistic differences in describing personality characteristics. Although some experts (John, Goldberg, & Angleitner, 1984; Cooper & Diener, 1998) tried to confirm the universality of the Five-Factor theory of personality and its related traits through cross-cultural studies, subsequent research (e.g., Steven et al., 2005) did not show this and highlighted the role of culture in the formation and development of personality, as well as the need to study personality-related vocabulary within the framework of the specific culture.

[6] NEO-Personality Inventory- Revised (NEO-PI-R)

[7] characteristic adaptaion

[8] beta weights; Beta weight or predictor coefficient; the weight of the predictor variable in regression, which is the amount of variance in the criterion variable that is predictable by the predictor variable.

[9] religiosity

[10] Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) scale

[11] motive

[12] sentiment

[13] incremental validity

[14] discriminant validity

.

---

.