daily spiritual experiences

8/7/2019 daily spiritual experiences

1/25

Daily Spiritual Experiences and Psychological Well-being

Among US Adults

Christopher G. Ellison Daisy Fan

Accepted: 3 September 2007 / Published online: 10 October 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This study focuses on one of the most significant recent innovations in the

conceptualization and measurement of religiousness and spirituality, the Daily Spiritual

Experience scale (DSES; Underwood (2006) Archive for the Psychology of Religion/

Archiv fur Religion Psychologie, 28, 181218). Using data from 1998 and 2004 NORC

General Social Surveys, we address a number of questions regarding the social patterning

of daily spiritual experiences, and the relationships between spiritual experiences and

multiple dimensions of psychological well-being. Our results suggest a robust positiveassociation between DSES and psychological well-being. By contrast, DSES appears to

have little bearing on negative affect. We also found that DSES does not account for the

association between religious practices and psychological variables. That is, DSES appears

to tap another aspect of spirituality that is relevant for well-being, above and beyond the

influence of religious practices. Various implications of the findings, as well as study

limitations and future research direction are discussed.

Keywords Daily spiritual experiences Mental health Psychological well-being

Spirituality Religion

1 Introduction

A large and growing research literature over the past two decades has focused on the

connections between religion, spirituality, and health, broadly defined. In their magisterial

Handbook of Religion and Health, Koenig et al. (2001) identified over 1,200 studies in this

area, and numerous others have appeared in print during the period since publication of

that work. To date, findings have linked various aspects of religiousness and spirituality

C. G. Ellison (&) D. FanDepartment of Sociology, The University of Texas, 1 University Station A1700, Austin,TX 78712-0118, USAe-mail: [email protected]

D. Fane-mail: [email protected]

123

Soc Indic Res (2008) 88:247271DOI 10.1007/s11205-007-9187-2


2/25

with a broad array of health outcomes, including mental health, physical health, and

mortality risk. However, perhaps the largest single body of studies has centered on aspects

of psychological well-being, ranging from depression and anxiety to non-specific distress,

to indicators of positive mental health such as morale, happiness, and life satisfaction

(Hackney and Sanders 2003; Smith et al. 2003; Sawatzky et al. 2005; Zullig et al. 2006).Although these studies have varied widely in their conceptualization and measurement

of religiousness and spirituality, significant numbers of studies have relied upon behavioral

indicators of organizational religious involvement, e.g., frequency of attendance at services

or similar indicators, and non-organizational (private) practices, e.g., frequency of prayer

or other devotional pursuits. There is evidence that both organizational and non-organi-

zational dimensions may have implications for mental health, although at least one meta-

analysis has concluded that the latter may be more somewhat more important (Hackney

and Sanders 2003).

In recent years, investigators have pressed ahead with the development of additional

measures, for at least three reasons: (1) Mounting evidence reveals potential response biasand other measurement problems with items tapping religious behaviors, particularly

religious attendance (e.g., Hadaway, Marler, and Chaves 1993). (2) Theoretical advances

have specified numerous mechanisms or pathways linking religion and spirituality with

mental health that are not well captured by the limited set of behavioral measures

(Pargament 1997; Ellison and Levin 1998; Idler et al. 2003). (3) The most common

indicators are tilted heavily in the direction of conventionaland particularly Judeo-

Christianpractices, at a time when the religious and spiritual landscapes of the US and

other Western societies are characterized by increasing levels of privatism and diversity

(Roof 1993, 2000). For all of these reasons, many observers believe that the standardbehavioral measures are probably missing important aspects of the links between religion,

spirituality, and mental health.

Our study contributes to this literature by focusing on one of the most significant recent

innovations in the conceptualization and measurement of religiousness and spirituality for

health-related research, the focus on ordinary spiritual experiences via the Daily Spiritual

Experiences scale (DSES; Underwood 2006; Underwood and Teresi 2002). Specifically,

we analyze data on two large, nationally representative samples of US adults on which

short forms of the DSES have been included, the 1998 and 2004 NORC General Social

Surveys. Using these data, we address a number of questions regarding the social distri-

bution of spiritual experiences, the relationships between spiritual experiences and multipledimensions of psychological well-being, and subgroup variations and other contingencies

in these relationships. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of further

work on daily spiritual experiences, as well as future work on religion, spirituality, and

health more generally.

2 Background

As we noted earlier, much of the literature on religion, spirituality, and well-being haslinked behavioral indicators of religiousness and spirituality, such as the frequency of

attendance at worship services and the frequency of personal prayer, with desirable psy-

chological outcomes (Koenig et al. 2001; Hackney and Sanders 2003; Hill and Pargament

2003). Amid calls for new conceptual and measurement strategies, researchers have

increasingly focused on the functions of religiousness or spirituality, such as coping and

support (Ellison and Levin 1998). For example, the dynamic program of Pargament and his

248 C. G. Ellison, D. Fan

123


3/25

colleagues has identified a rich repertoire of religious coping practices and styles, with

diverse implications for psychological well-being (Pargament 1997; Pargament et al. 1998,

2000). Further, the work of Krause (2002, 2006a) and others has called attention to various

facets of congregational support networks and practices, and has begun to document their

links with health and well-being. Other work examines the role of religion as a source ofmeaning and purpose (e.g., Krause 2003), as well as various other potential functions that

may enhance well-being.

Along with these behavioral and functional measures, there is new interest in other

content-based approaches, including studies that examine specific beliefs, such as those

concerning the afterlife (Flannelly et al. 2006), forgiveness (Krause and Ellison 2003),

gratitude (Kendler et al. 2003; Krause 2006b), unvengefulness (Kendler et al. 2003),

divine control (Schieman et al. 2005) and other beliefs (Holland et al. 1998; Ironson et al.

2002). Others have sought to integrate spiritual dimensions into measures of well-being or

quality of life (e.g., Peterman et al. 2002).

Still other approaches focus squarely on the nature and content of spiritual experiences.Of particular note in this regard has been the work of Underwood (2006; Underwood and

Teresi 2002), who has explored the possible role of routine spiritual experiences for health

and well-being. Briefly, this line of inquiry aims to tap feelings and awareness of the

transcendent in daily life. Such ordinary spiritual experience is carefully distinguished

from the types of miraculous, life-transforming mystical experiences that have long

been studied by theologians and psychologists (e.g., Otto [1923]1958; Underhill

[1911]1961; Hood 1997). This relatively recent focus on daily spiritual experiences

direct individual encounters with the transcendentis different from other strands of work

on religiousness, spirituality, and health in at least three other ways. First, is not rooted inany institutional or organizational religious activity whatsoever. Second, in contrast to the

heavy Judeo-Christian tenor of many other religious and spiritual measures, Underwood

and her colleagues have developed an instrumentthe DSESthat self-consciously

incorporates themes and insights from a broad range of major world religious and spiritual

traditions (Underwood 2006; Underwood and Teresi 2002). Third, this approach encom-

passes both (a) experiences that involve personal intimacy with the transcendent (i.e.,

theistic experiences, such as feeling Gods presence) and (b) those that involve more a

general sense of unity (i.e., non-theistic experiences, such as feeling a connection to all of

life) (Underwood and Teresi 2002).

How and why might such daily spiritual experiences be related to health and in par-ticular, to mental health? Underwood and Teresi (2002) identify several promising

theoretical connections. First, they suggest that certain feelings tapped by their DSES scale,

such as experiences of Gods presence and guidance, may reduce feelings of psychological

stress, thereby moderating the link between social stressors and health and well-being. In

addition, they note that experiences of comfort, love, and spiritual peace may reduce

feelings of anxiety and depression, and may elevate mood and promote optimism and self-

esteem. And a sense of spiritual peace and connectedness, gauged by the DSES, may also

enhance personal morale and promote positive psychological outcomes.

Relationships between the measures of daily spiritual experiencesthe full 16-itemDSES, as well as shorter versionsand physical and mental health have begun to surface

in the research literature. For example, in a cross-sectional survey of more than 800

consecutively admitted patients at Duke University Medical Center, Koenig and colleagues

found significant positive associations between the DSES and social support and levels of

cooperativeness, and inverse associations between the DSES and depressive symptoms and

number of days of long-term care required (Koenig et al. 2004a, b). Underwood and Teresi

Daily Spiritual Experiences and Psychological Well-being 249

123


4/25

(2002) report findings from several samples, including: (a) a small subsample (N = 233) of

respondents from the Chicago site of the Study of Women Across the Nation (SWAN), a

study of midlife women; and (b) a small sample (N = 122) of Chicago-area individuals

surveyed by Loyola University researchers. Analyses of data from the Chicago SWAN

study yielded significant correlations between the DSES and a host of relevant outcomes,such as quality of life, anxiety, depression, anger and hostility, optimism, and perceived

social support. In the Loyola study, the DSES was associated with higher levels of positive

affect, but interestingly, spiritual experiences were uncorrelated with negative affect (see

Underwood and Teresi 2002).

Researchers have also linked measures of daily spiritual experiencesparticularly

using shorter forms of the DSESwith desirable outcomes in studies of epilepsy, inner

city elders, adolescents, substance abuse, caregiver burnout, and coping with arthritis pain

(Keefe et al. 2001; Hayton 2002; Pearce et al. 2003; Dunn et al. 2004; Fowler and Hill

2004; Holland and Niemeyer 2006). Studies have also established relationships between

daily spiritual experiences and favorable mental health outcomes in samples of collegestudents (Ciarrocchi and Deneke 2004) and rural elders (Parker et al. 2003).

To date, however, research on the patterns, correlates, and sequelae of daily spiritual

experiences has been conducted mainly among small, non-representative samples,

including a number of clinical samples. Although there is much to be learned from such

studies, especially regarding the role of spirituality in coping with health problems, these

findings cannot be generalized to the overall community-dwelling population of US adults.

The design, goals, and sample sizes of these previous studies have also precluded any

sustained interest in possible subgroup differences in the links between spiritual experi-

ences and health or well-being. This is an important gap in the literature, because mountingevidence suggests that the roles of religious practice, support, meaning, and other

important facets of religion and spirituality may be contingent on aspects of social location,

culture, and circumstance. For example, several studies over the years have reported that

religiousness may be more closely linked with psychological well-being (a) among women

as compared with men (e.g., Idler 1987; Mirola 1999), (b) among African Americans as

compared with whites (e.g., St. George and McNamara 1984; Thomas and Holmes 1992;

Krause 2003), (c) among older adults as compared with younger persons (e.g., Ellison

1991), and (d) among lower SES individualsespecially those with lower levels of edu-

cationas compared with others (e.g., Pollner 1989; Ellison 1991; Krause 2006c). Given

such findings, there is a clear rationale for investigating the extent to which the associationsbetween ordinary or daily spiritual experiences and well-being may differ across various

sociodemographic subgroups within the US population.

In addition, a long tradition of theory and research suggests that aspects of religiousness

and spirituality may be particularly helpful for individuals who are dealing with stressful

events and conditions. Studies in this tradition have focused on the role of religion in

coping with specific stressors (e.g., bereavement, health problems, family conflicts) as well

as the number or volume of personal difficulties confronted by any individual (e.g., Cook

and Wimberley 1983; Ellison 1991; Ellison et al. 2001; Strawbridge et al. 1998; Krause,

2006a). Moreover, as noted earlier, some researchers have identified specific styles ormodes of religious copingi.e., the content of the ways in which individuals draw upon or

experience religion or spirituality in times of troublethat appear to yield salutary effects

on psychosocial outcomes (Pargament 1997; Pargament et al. 1998, 2000). In light of this

work, as well as the theoretical discussions concerning the DSES (e.g., Underwood and

Teresi 2002), it will be useful to examine the extent to which the DSES may moderate, or


123


5/25

buffer, the otherwise deleterious effects of stressful events and conditions on aspects of

personal well-being.

With this background in mind, the current study addresses the following specific

research questions:

1. Are ordinary (or daily) spiritual experiences, as gauged by the DSES, associated with

psychological well-being in the general (US) adult population?

2. Do the estimated net effects of daily spiritual experiences differ across positive versus

negative psychosocial outcomes, as suggested by some of the findings from the Loyola

pilot study (as reported in Underwood and Teresi 2002)?

3. Do daily spiritual experiences mediate (or help to explain) the observed salutary

associations between religious practices (organizational and/or non-organizational)

and well-being?

4. Do these estimated net effects differ for theistic versus non-theistic, or self-

transcendent, types of ordinary spiritual experiences, a distinction that has been madein at least one previous study (Zemore and Kaskutus 2004; Underwood 2006)?

5. Do the relationships between the DSES and well-being differ by gender, age, race, or

socioeconomic status (SES)?

6. Finally, under what, if any, circumstances do spiritual experiences moderate (or

buffer) the links between social stressors and well-being?

3 Data

Data for this study come from the 1998 and 2004 editions of the General Social Survey

(GSS). Briefly, the GSS is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of US adults

residing in the 48 contiguous states, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center

beginning in 1972 (Davis et al. 2004). Between 1972 and 1993 (except for 1979, 1981, and

1992), the GSS surveyed approximately 1,500 US adults annually. Since 1994, the GSS

conducts surveys roughly 3,000 US adults in even-numbered years. We focus on the 1998

and 2004 surveys because in those years the GSS included special modules on religion and

spirituality; the 1998 GSS contained a short (6-item) form of the DSES scale, while the

2004 GSS included the full (16-item) DSES. Both editions of the GSS also contained data

on facets of well-being (e.g., happiness, excitement with life, psychological distress, self-esteem, optimism, etc.). Although the precise measures vary somewhat across the two

surveys, in each of these years the GSS allows for an investigation of associations between

the DSES and various aspects of well-being, including controls for an array of relevant

sociodemographic and other potentially confounding variables.

Since 1987, the GSS has employed a split-ballot design, in which (a) a core set of items

is asked of all GSS respondents, and (b) other items are included on only a randomly

selected subset of the interview schedules. In each year of our study (1998 and 2004), both

the DSES and well-being items were included on split ballots; consequently, the effective

Ns for our study are lower than the total

Ns for these years, ranging from 920 to 1,371 in1998, and from 854 to 1,318 in 2004. In addition, unlike the 1998 data, the 2004 GSS

includes a weight variable, designed to adjust for non-response as well as the number of

adults within the household, which affects the probability that any given individual will be

selected as a GSS respondent.


123


6/25

4 Measures

4.1 Dependent Variables: Psychological Distress and Psychological Well-Being

Our dependent variables include five dimensions of psychological outcomes (psycholog-ical distress, happiness, excitement with life, satisfaction with self and optimism about the

future) in 2004 and three dimensions of mental health outcomes (psychological distress,

happiness and excitement to the future) in 1998. The measures of happiness and excitement

to the future are identical across 2 years. Variables of Satisfaction with self and

optimistic about the future are only available in 2004 data, and therefore, they are not

included in the 1998 analysis.

4.1.1 Psychological Distress (1998)

To tap psychological distress, the respondents were asked to indicate how often, in the past

30 days, they felt the following six symptoms: (a) So sad nothing could cheer you up,

(b) Nervous, (c) Restless or fidgety, (d) Hopeless, (e) Everything was an effort,

and (f) Worthless. Response categories range from none (coded 1) to all time

(coded 5). Responses are averaged across non-missing items, and a higher score represents

greater level of psychological distress (a = .84).

4.1.2 Psychological Distress (2004)

The 2004 Psychological distress scale is measured by one single item: How many days

during past 30 days was your mental health not good? Responses range from

none,(coded 0) to 30 days (coded 30). A higher numerical score indicates greater

level of psychological distress.

4.1.3 Happiness (1998 and 2004)

The happiness measure assesses respondents level of happiness via the following ques-

tion: Taken together, how would you say things are these dayswould you say that youare very happy, pretty happy or not too happy? Responses range from not too happy

(coded 1) to very happy (coded 3). A higher score indicates greater level of happiness.

4.1.4 Excitement with Life (1998 and 2004)

Excitement with life is measured by the following single item: In general, do you find life

exciting, pretty routine or dull? Responses range from exciting (coded 3), pretty

routine (coded 2) or dull (coded 1). A higher number indicates greater level of

excitement with life.

4.1.5 Satisfaction with Self (2004)

This variable is assessed by respondents level of agreement to the following question: On

the whole, I am satisfied with myself. Responses range from strongly disagree, (coded


123


7/25

1) to strongly agree (coded 4). A higher score represents greater level of satisfaction with

self.

4.1.6 Optimistic About the Future (2004)

This variable is based on respondents level of agreement to the following question: I am

always optimistic to the future. Responses range from strongly disagree (coded 1) to

strongly agree (coded 4). A higher score signifies greater level of optimism about the

future.

4.2 Independent Variables

4.2.1 1998 DSES

The DSES, originally developed by Underwood and Teresi (2002), is a multi-item self-

report measure designed to capture how religiousness/spirituality is expressed in daily life

(Underwood 2006). The 1998 DSES (short form) index is measured by an unweighted six-

item index presented in the left-hand portion of Table 1. Respondents were asked to

Table 1 Factor Loadings from principal components analysis of daily spiritual experiences

1998 2004

Daily spiritualexperiences

Loading Loading

Theistic Feel Gods presence .89 Feel Gods presence .87

Desire to be closer to God .91 Desire to be closer to God .86

Feel Gods love directly orthrough others

.91 Feel Gods love directly .92

Feel Gods love through others .84

Ask for Gods help .88

Feel guided by god .92

Connection to god lifts daily concern .86The degree of closeness to god .74

Non-theistic Find strength and comfort inreligion

.86 Find strength in religion andspirituality

.86

Find comfort in religion andspirituality

.86

Spiritually touched by beautycreation

.81 Spiritually touched by beautycreation

.81

Feel deep inner peace orharmony

.87 Feel deep inner peace or harmony .81

Experience a connection to all of life .69Feel thankful for blessings .77

Feel selfless caring for others .70

Accept others even when they dothings wrong

.58

Total Feel Gods presence .85 Feel Gods presence .85


123


8/25

indicate how often, in their daily life, they have those spiritual experiences. The responses

range from never (coded 1) to many a day (coded 6). Items are all coded in the direction

that higher score reflects greater level of daily spiritual experiences (a = .91). Scores aresummed for each respondent and then average across the six items. In addition, we further

divide the scale into theistic and non-theistic (self-transcendent) subscales (see

Table 1) with alpha reliabilities of .88 and .80, respectively.

4.2.2 2004 DSES

The 2004 DSES (long form) is measured by a 16-item index presented in the right-hand

portion of Table 1. Respondent were asked to indicate how often, in their daily life, they

have those spiritual experiences. The responses range from never (coded 1) to many a day(coded 6). Items were all coded in the direction that higher score reflects greater level of

daily spiritual experiences (a = .96). Scores are summed for each respondent and then

averaged across the 16 items. Notably, one of these items (In general, how close do you

feel to God?) is reverse scored in a 4-point metric (not at all, somewhat close, very close,

as close as possible) rather than a 6-point Likert scale. To be consistent with the

Table 1 continued

1998 2004

Daily spiritual

experiences

Loading Loading

Desire to be closer to God .87 Desire to be closer to God .84

Feel Gods love directly orthrough others

.89 Feel Gods love directly .90

Find strength and comfort inreligion

.88 Feel Gods love through others .83


.73 Ask for Gods help .84

Feel deep inner peace orharmony

.79 Feel guided by God .90

Connection to God lifts dailyconcern

.85

The degree of closeness to God .70

Find strength in religion andspirituality

.88

Find comfort in religion andspirituality

.87


.76

Feel deep inner peace or harmony .77

Experience a connection to all of life .64

Feel thankful for blessings .73

Feel selfless caring for others .62

Accept others even when they dothings wrong

.50


123


9/25

directionality, in accordance with Underwoods suggestion (Underwood 2006), the raw

score of this item is reversed coded and the 4-point scale is adjusted to fit the 6-point

spectrum. We then average the adjusted score for this item into the total for the resulting

mean score. In addition, we further divide the scale into theistic and non-theistic (self-

transcendent) subscales (see Table 1) with alpha reliabilities of .95 and .90, respectively.

4.2.3 Religious Practices

Our analysis also takes into account conventional measures of organizational and nonor-

ganizational religious practices: religious attendance and prayer. Religious attendance is

measured via answers to the following question: How often do you usually attend reli-

gious services? Response options range from never (coded 0) to several a week (coded 8).

Higher score suggests greater level of religious attendance. Prayer is measured by a single

item: About how often do you pray? Responses range from never (coded 1) to daily(coded 6). A higher numerical score indicates greater frequency of prayer.

4.3 Sociodemographic Characteristics

We further adjust for respondents sociodemographic characteristics as possible con-

founders for distress and well-being. Our analyses include control for the following:

gender, age, education, race, marital status and income.

4.3.1 Gender

Gender is a dichotomized into 1 = female, 0 = male.

4.3.2 Age

To capture the effect of DSES on psychological well-being in different age groups, we

divide respondents into three age groups and create two sets of dummy variables com-

paring young adults (1839) and middle-aged (4059) to older adults (60+, referencegroup).

4.3.3 Education

Education is originally measured by highest educational degree earned by respondent

ranging from less than high school to graduate school. We further break down degree

completed into three levelshigh education (Junior college or more), middle educa-

tion (high school) and low education (less than high school). Two dummy variables are

created to compare respondents with high education and low education to middleeducation (reference group).

4.3.4 Race

This variable is dichotomized into two categories with 1 = black and 0 = others.


123


10/25

4.3.5 Marital Status

Marital status is a binary variable with 1 = married and 0 = others.

4.3.6 Income

Income is a 23-point summary measure. Two dummy variables are created to contrast

respondents in low income (under $1K and $124.9 K) and high income ($60K or above) to

middle income (2559.9 K, reference group), respectively. For most of the variables, missing

cases are few, and are generally handled via listwise deletion. However, family income has

approximately 1113% missing cases across two waves. To avoid possible bias, missing

values were imputed and a dummy variable is created to identify those missing cases.

4.4 Life Stressors

Our analysis utilizes six different measures of stress: bereavement, health stressors, work

problems, financial problems, family stressors, and legal problems. Note that these stressor

items are only available in 2004 data.

4.4.1 Bereavement

Bereavement is measured by whether the respondent experienced the death of (a) a close

friend, (b) a spouse, (c) a parent, and (d) a child in the past year? A dummy

variable is created to contrast those who experienced at least one death (coded 1) to those

who experienced no death in the past year (coded 0).

4.4.2 Health Stressors

Health stressors are measured by whether the respondent experienced the following health

related matters in the past year? (a) ill enough to go to a doctor, (b) a spouse/partnerwas a patient in the hospital, sanatorium, convalescent, or nursing home, (c) a child was

a patient in the hospital, sanatorium, convalescent, or nursing home, and (d) the

respondent himself(herself) was a patient in the hospital, sanatorium, convalescent or

nursing home. A dummy variable is created to compare respondents who had at least one

of the above health stressors (coded 1) to those who had none of the above health stressors

(coded 0).

4.4.3 Work Problems

Work problems are measured by whether the respondent experienced the following work-

related matters in the past year: (a) Fired or permanently laid off, (b) Demoted or

switched to a less favorable position, (c) A cut in pay (including reduced hours), (d)

Passed over for promotion, (e) Serious trouble with boss, (f) Respondents own

business (farm or professional office) lost money or failed, (g) Respondents spouse or


123


11/25

partner was fired or permanently laid off, (h) Respondents spouse or partner had a cut in

pay (including reduced hours), (i) Respondents spouse or partner was unemployed and

looking for a work as long as a month, and (j) Respondent himself(herself) was

unemployed and looking for work for as long as a month. A dummy variable is created to

contrast respondents reported to have at least one of the work related problems (coded 1)with those reported to have none of the work related problems (coded 0).

4.4.4 Financial Problems

Financial problems are measured by whether any of the following difficulties happened to

the respondent in the past year: (a) Went bankrupt (declared personal bankruptcy), (b)

Car, household appliances, or furniture repossessed, (c) Pawned or sold-off valuables

to make ends meet, (d) Pressured to pay bills by stores, creditors, or bill collectors, and

(e) Major worsening of respondents financial condition. We develop a dummy variablecomparing respondents who had experienced at least one of the above financial problems

(coded 1) to those who had experienced none of the financial difficulties mentioned above

(coded 0).

4.4.5 Family Stressors

Family stressors are measured via whether the respondent had the following family

problems in the past year: (a) Have serious trouble with spouse/partner, (b) Separatefrom spouse/partner, (c) Break up with a steady girlfriend/boyfriend or fiance, (d)

Have a serious trouble with a child, (e) Have serious trouble with a close friend, and

(f) Obtain a divorce or separation. A dummy variable is identified comparing respon-

dents who had experienced at least one of the above family stressors (coded 1) to those

who had experienced none of the family stressor mentioned above (coded 0).

4.4.6 Legal Problems

Legal problems are measured by whether any of the following criminal or legal eventoccurred to the respondent since February/ March, 1990: (a) A robbery (e.g., a mugging

or stick-up),(b) A personal assault (e.g., being beaten up, hit, or attacked with a

weapon), (c) Respondents home was burglarized or broken into, (d) Accused of

something for which a person might be sent to jail, and (e) Arrested. A dummy

variable is created comparing respondents who had experienced at least one of the above

legal problems (coded 1) to those who had experienced none of the legal problem men-

tioned above (coded 0). Descriptive statistics on all variables used in this study are

presented in Table 2.

5 Analytical Strategy

Our analysis proceeds in two stages. First, we perform a series of analysis linking DSES to

each psychological outcome in 1998 and 2004. Model 1(baseline model) includes only

sociodemographic variables and conventional religious measures. Models 24 add overall


123


12/25

measures of DSES (6-item in 1998 and 16-item in 2004), and theistic and non-theistic

DSES subscales, respectively.

Although the corresponding model for each psychological outcome includes the same

variable, the functional form for each set varies according to the dependent variable. We

begin by examining the relationship between DSES and psychological distress using a

series of OLS regression (Table 3) and zero-inflated Poisson regression (Table 4) for 1998

and 2004 data, respectively. As for positive psychological outcomes (happiness, excite-

ment with life, satisfaction with self, and optimism about the future), since they are all

ordinal variables, we use ordered logistic regression to examine the association between

Table 2 Descriptive statistics (1998 and 2004)

1998 2004 (Weighted)

N Mean (%) SD Range N Mean (%) SD Range

Mental health outcomes

Depression 1,371 1.91 .75 15 854 4.50 7.03 030

Happiness 1,364 2.19 .65 13 1,315 2.22 .64 13

Excitement with life 920 2.37 .61 13 880 2.46 .56 14

Satisfaction with self 1,090 1.75 .76 14

Optimistic about the future 1,086 2.12 .60 13

Sociodemographic control 1,374 1,318

Female (Male) 55.07% 01 52.33% 01

Young age (old age) 43.25% 01 42.38% 01Middle age 34.64% 01 37.90% 01

High education(Middle education) 31.30% 01 34.38% 01

Low education 16.23% 01 12.12% 01

Black (Others) 13.90% 01 10.97% 01

Married (Others) 47.31% 01 58.96% 01

Low income (Middle income) 33.41% 01 22.14% 01

High income 19.07% 01 32.59% 01

Missing income (Others) 11.79% 01 12.71% 01

Religious practices 1,374 1,318

Religious attendance 3.70 2.77 08 3.90 2.69 08

Prayer 4.27 1.51 16 4.33 1.68 16

DSES 1,374 1,318

Overall measures of DSES 3.90 1.31 16 4.01 1.20 16

Theistic DSES 3.85 1.47 16 3.85 1.41 16

Non-theistic DSES 3.95 1.28 16 4.18 1.07 16

Life stressors 1,318

Bereavement 25.11% 01

Health stressors 64.14% 01

Work problems 32.42% 01

Financial problems 24.33% 01

Family stressors 22.41% 01

Legal problems 13.74% 01


123


13/25

DSES and psychological well-being. All cell entries are in the form of odds ratios. After

testing the main effects model, next we add a series of cross-product interaction terms (the

cross-product term of DSES and sociodemographic characteristics) to test the hypothesis

that the association between DSES and psychological well-being vary by different soci-

odemographic strata. Finally, we test the hypothesis regarding the possible stress-buffering

properties of DSES on psychological well-being by including cross-product interaction

terms as shown in Table 10. As noted earlier, all analysis in 2004 is weighted to adjust for

subsampling of non-respondents and number of adults in the household.

6 Results

6.1 Psychological Distress

Tables 34 display results of the DSES on psychological distress using OLS regression for

the analysis in 1998 and zero-inflated Poisson regression for the analysis in 2004. In

general, our results provide limited support for the association between DSES and psy-

chological distress for each year. As shown in Table 3, OLS regression model reveals that

there is little (e.g., theistic DSES, p\ .1) or no association (e.g., overall and non-theistic

Table 3 OLS regression estimates of daily spiritual experiences on distress

Distress (1998)

N = 1,371

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Female .00 .01 .01 .00

Young age .30**** .30**** .30**** .30****

Middle age .25**** .24**** .24**** .25****

Low education .29**** .29**** .28**** .28****

High education .15** .14** .14** .15**

Black .10 .11 .11 .10

Married .07 .07 .07 .07

Low income .20**** .20**** .20**** .20****

High income .14* .14* .14* .14*

Missing income .04 .04 .04 .04

Religious attendance .03*** .03*** .03**** .03***

Prayer .04* .03 .02 .04*

Daily spiritual experiences .01

Theistic DSES .04

Non-theistic DSES .02

Intercept 1.67**** 1.65**** 1.62**** 1.70****

R2 .12 .12 .12 .12

Adj R2 .11 .11 .11 .11

Notes: Cell entries are OLS regression coefficients

****p\ .0001, ***p\ .001, **p\ .01, *p\ .05, p\ .1


123


14/25

Table 4 Zero-inflated Poisson regression coefficients estimating the effects of daily spiritual experienceson distress odds and counts

Distress (2004)

N = 854


Log odds of no distress

Female .39* .41* .40* .41*

Young age 1.12*** 1.13*** 1.16*** 1.10***

Middle age .93** .94** .96** .91**

Low education .12 .17 .18 .14

High education .26 .25 .24 .26

Black .31 .26 .25 .29

Married .25 .25 .25 .27

Low income .35 .36 .36 .36

High income .08 .05 .04 .08


Religious attendance .02 .00 .00 .01

Prayer .03 .08 .09 .04

Daily spiritual experiences .27*

Theistic DSES .24*

Non-theistic DSES .23*

Constant .48 .00 .23 .11

Log of distress counts

Female .05 .04 .05 .04

Young age .21 .21 .22 .21

Middle age .01 .02 .03 .01


High education .13 .14 .14 .13

Black .14 .11 .10 .12

Married .14 .15 .14 .15

Low income .15 .16 .16 .16

High income .04 .04 .03 .04


Religious attendance .05 .04 .04 .04

Prayer .04 .08 .08 .07

Daily spiritual experiences .09

Theistic DSES .08

Non-theistic DSES .09

Constant 2.01*** 2.17*** 2.08*** 2.21***

Log pseudo-likelihood 3023.91 3010.09 3011.62 3012.27

Notes: Cell entries are zero-inflated Poisson regression coefficients

****p\ .0001, ***p\ .001, **p\ .01, *p\ .05, p\ .1


123


15/25

DSES, ns) between the 6-item measure of DSES and psychological distress, net of other

controls.

Table 4 displays the results of zero-inflated Poisson regression of numbers of depressive

days on the sets of independent variables utilizing the 16-item measure of DSES. Because

approximately 40% of the respondents reported zero days of psychological distress in 2004data, the distribution of our dependent variable is inflated by zero. Zero-inflated Poisson

regression is appropriate to model outcomes measured as counts with excess zero values in

the data. This provides the prediction of the odds of no-distress and the number of days in

distress. The upper portion of Model 2 of Table 4 indicates that people with a unit increase

in daily spiritual experiences have 31% higher odds of having no distress, holding other

variables constant (OR = 1.31, p\ .05). This pattern holds for both theistic DSES and

non-theistic DSES. Although we have modest support for the negative association between

DSES and risk of distress, we find no evidence for the linkage between DSES and number

of days in distress. Indeed, as shown in the lower portion of Table 4, greater level of daily

spiritual experiences is not associated with fewer days in distress (OR = .91, ns), holdingother variables constant. Taken together, there is relatively limited evidence linking DSES

with negative psychological effects (Question 1).

6.2 Psychological Well-being

By contrast, our results strongly support the hypothesis that DSES is related to positive

psychological affects. Tables 58 presents cumulative odds ratios from a series of ordered

logistic models, estimating the net effects of daily spiritual experiences on four dimensionsof positive psychological affect, respectively: happiness, excitement with life, satisfaction

with self, and optimism about the future.

Several findings emerged from Tables 58 are especially noteworthy. First, results of

Models 24 show that the DSES items(overall, theistic, and non-theistic) are all strongly

positively related to positive psychological affect, net of the controls of social demographic

characteristics and conventional religious practices (attendance and prayer), suggesting

that DSES has a bearing on positive affect through aspects of spirituality other than

conventional religious practices. This pattern holds for each positive psychological out-

come across both years. Overall, individuals with a unit increase of daily spiritual

experiences is associated with significantly higher odds (1372% increase) of being happy,excited, satisfied with self, and optimistic about the future in the ordered logit scale while

other variables are held constant (Question 1).

Second, the net effect sizes of DSES are generally similar in each year across four

dimensions of positive outcomes except in Model 3 of Table 5 where non-theistic DSES in

1998 (b = 1.20, p\ .001, see Table 5) seems to predict happiness somewhat better than

2004 items (b = 1.13 p\ .1). Taken as whole, our findings are in line with those of previous

work (the Loyola study), suggesting that the DSES is strongly associated with higher levels

of positive affect, but has relatively little bearing on negative affect (Question 2).

Third, consistent with previous studies, our results reveal that religious attendanceexerts a modest but positive significant effect on most of the outcomes (except for satis-

faction with self) as shown in Table 7. The inclusion of the DSES items in Models 24

does weaken the magnitude of attendance on most of the positive psychological outcomes,

especially for the analysis in 2004. However, no persistent pattern is found across two

years. Based on results displayed in the left-hand portion of Tables 5, 6, the DSES only

accounts for a modest portion of the well-established association between religious


123


16/25

Table5

Orderedlogisticregressionestimatesfordail

yspiritualexperiencesonhappiness

Happiness

1998

2004(Weighted)

N=1,364

N=1,315

Model1

Mod

el2

Model3

M

odel4

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

Female

1.05

1.03

1.05

1.01

1.16

1.14

1.16

1.13

Youngage

.88

.90

.88

.93

1.16

1.17

1.16

1.19

Middleage

.70*

.69*

.68*

.71*

.75

.75

.75

.76

Loweducation

.89

.90

.89

.93

.67*

.65*

.65*

.66*

Higheducation

1.28

1.35*

1.33*

1.34*

1.16

1.18

1.18

1.16

Black

.63**

.59**

.60**

.59**

.92

.88

.89

.90

Married

2.29****

2.24****

2.27****

2.22****

2.14****

2.11****

2.11****

2.15****

Lowincome

.58***

.58****

.58***

.58***

.80

.78

.80

.77

Highincome

1.47*

1.53**

1.53**

1.49*

1.57**

1.60**

1.60**

1.58**

Missingincome

1.19

1.20

1.19

1.22

.73

.73

.73

.72

Religiousattendance

1.14****

1.09**

1.11****

1.08**

1.07**

1.04

1.05

1.04

Prayer

1.02

0.90*

0.94

0.90*

1.14***

1.03

1.08

1.02

DailySpiritualExperiences

1.38****

1.28***

TheisticDSES

1.20***

1.13

Non-theisticDSES

1.44****

1.39****

2Loglikelihood

2407.56

2378.68

2394.89

23

66.66

2321.80

2310.36

2318.52

2300.13

Dx

2

28.88

12.67

40.90

11.44

3.28

21.67

Notes:Cellsentriesa

recumulativeoddsratios

****p\

.0001,***p

\

.001,**p\

.01,*p\

.05,

p\

.1


123


17/25

attendance and psychological well-being in 1998 data. Taking happiness in 1998 as an

example (left-hand portion of Table 5), although the introduction of overall DSES and

theistic DSES in Models 2 and 4, partially attenuates the odds of religious attendance on

happiness from 1.14 (p\ .0001) to 1.09 (p\ .01) and 1.08 (p\ .01), respectively, the net

association between attendance and happiness remains strong and significant. Moreover,the incorporation of theistic DSES in Model 3 of Table 5 has almost no bearing on the net

effect of religious attendance (OR = 1.11, p\ .0001). The results are similar to those

found in Table 6. In addition, interestingly, rather than a mediating pattern, findings in

Tables 7, 8 suggest a strong suppressor pattern between frequency of prayer and two

dimensions of positive affects (satisfaction with self and optimistic about the future), after

adjusting for the DSES. All in all, we do not find strong and consistent support for the

argument that DSES mediates the association between religious practices and psycho-

logical well-being (Question 3).

In addition, when comparing baseline model with Models 24 of Tables 58, in general,

we find that non-theistic items (Model 4) seem to be a better predictor of positive psy-chological outcomes than overall DSES (Model 2) and theistic DSES (Model 3). As the

model fit becomes better, 2 Log L decreases in magnitude and the difference with

baseline model (Dx2) becomes greater. Indeed, taking year 1998 (left portion of Table 5) as

an example, Model 4 has the smallest 2 Log L(2366.66) and largest Dx2 (40.49) compared

to Models 2 and 3, suggesting a better overall model fit with the inclusion of non-theistic

items. Similar patterns can also be found for other psychological outcomes such as

excitement with life, satisfaction with self and optimism about the future presented in

Tables 68 (Question 4).

6.3 Interaction Effects

In addition to examining the possible direct and mediating effects of the DSES on psy-

chological well-being, we next examine whether the DSES exerts different effects among

specific groups (age, gender, race, or SES). The results of the interaction between the

DSES and sociodemographic variables on psychological outcomes (with the adjustment

for other sociodemographic factors and religious practices) are summarized in Table 9.

Since we are more interested in the direction and significance level of the cross-product

term than the exact coefficient, only that information is rerported. As shown in the lower-portion of Table 9, the only significant relationship in 1998 data is the interaction between

young age and DSES on excitement about the future (p\ .05). As for results of 2004, we

find that the effects of DSES on some of the positive outcomes are particularly salient

among the female, African American, and missing income groups (e.g., the cross-product

term of female and DSES on happiness and satisfaction with self, the cross-product term

of black and DSES on optimistic about the future and the cross-product term of missing

income and DSES on excitement with life) at .05 or .1 level. Similarly the DSES seems to

protect against distress among well-educated people (p\ .05) but to exacerbate distress

among African Americans (p\

.05). Overall, no consistent or interpretable pattern ofinteractions is found in either year. As a result, contrary to hypothesis 2, we find no clear

evidence of any group difference in the effects of the DSES on psychological well-being

(Question 5).

Finally, in Table 10, we examine the possibility that the links between the DSES and

psychological outcomes are contingent on levels of stress. Contrary to our expectation,

there are only two significant interactions among 30 possible stress-buffering relationships:


123


18/25

Table6

Orderedlogisticregressionestimatesfordail

yspiritualexperiencesonexcitem

entwithlife

Excitementwithlife

1998

2004(Weighted)

N=920

N=880

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

Model1

M

odel2

Model3

Model4

Female

.65**

.64**

.65**

.63**

1.10

1.08

1.09

1.06

Youngage

1.28

1

.32

1.28

1.36

1.17

1.17

1.15

1.21

Middleage

1.29

1

.30

1.28

1.34

1.25

1.26

1.24

1.28

Loweducation

.52***

.53**

.52***

.54**

.89

.87

.86

.89

Higheducation

1.76***

1

.83***

1.82***

1.81***

1.85****

1.91****

1.91****

1.88****

Black

.71

.67*

.68

.68

.76

.71

.72

.72

Married

1.09

1

.08

1.09

1.07

.99

.99

.98

1.00

Lowincome

.75

.76

.76

.76

.81

.78

.79

.76

Highincome

1.82**

1

.88**

1.87**

1.85**

1.49*

1.47*

1.50*

1.43*

Missingincome

1.00

1

.01

1.00

1.02

.76

.72

.75

.69

Religiousattendance

1.11***

1

.08*

1.09**

1.07*

1.07*

1.03

1.04

1.04

Prayer

1.12*

1

.02

1.05*

1.02

1.06

.91

.94

.93

Dailyspiritualexperiences

1

.26**

1.40***

TheisticDSES

1.15*

1.24*

Non-theisticDSES

1.29***

1.47****

2Loglikelihood

1520.12

1510

.20

1515.64

1506.68

1356.36

1343.36

1349.84

1338.63

Dx

2

9

.92

4.48

13.44

13.00

6.52

17.73

Notes:Cellsentriesa

recumulativeoddsratios

****p\

.0001,***p

\

.001,**p\

.01,*p\

.05,

p\

.1


123


19/25

the cross-product term of legal problems and DSES on happiness and excitement with life.

Although this suggests that the DSES may be able to boost happiness and excitement

among those with legal problems (p\ .1), due to small number of significant interactions,

there is no consistent overall pattern to confirm the stress-buffering effect of the DSES

(Question 6).

7 Discussion

The goal of this study has been to augment our knowledge of a new, and increasingly

popular, measure of spirituality, the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (DSES; Underwood

2006; Underwood and Teresi 2002) by: (a) examining its associations with multiple

psychosocial outcomes, as well as (b) exploring variations in these associations by

demographic subgroup, stressor exposure, short versus long versions of the DSES, and

theistic versus non-theistic subscales, using data from two nationwide surveys of US

adults, the 1998 and 2004 NORC General Social Surveys. Several important substantive

conclusions emerge from these analyses:

First, the DSES is a relatively strong predictor of positive well-being outcomes avail-

able in the GSS: happiness, excitement with life, self-esteem, and optimism. The effect

sizes are substantial, and where comparisons across versions of the DSES are possible (i.e.,

between the 6-item short form and the 16-item long form), there are no clear differences in

Table 7 Weighted ordered logistic regression estimates for daily spiritual experiences on satisfaction withself (2004)

Satisfaction with self (2004)

N = 1,090


Female .87 .85 .86 .84

Young age .90 .91 .89 .95

Middle age .63** .62** .61** .63*

Low education 1.06 1.03 1.01 1.06

High education 1.52** 1.59*** 1.60*** 1.54**

Black 1.50 1.48 1.45 1.53*

Married 1.39* 1.37* 1.36* 1.41*

Low income .98 .94 .96 .92

High income 1.47* 1.51** 1.54** 1.45*

Missing income 1.06 1.04 1.06 1.01

Religious attendance 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00

Prayer 1.04 .84** .88* .87**

Daily spiritual experiences 1.64****

Theistic DSES 1.39***

Non-theistic DSES 1.72****

2 Log likelihood 1865.29 1830.37 1845.10 1821.28

Dx2 34.92 20.19 44.01

Notes: Cells entries are cumulative odds ratios

****p\ .0001, ***p\ .001, **p\ .01, *p\ .05, p\ .1


123


20/25

the magnitude or statistical significance of relationships. On the other hand, the DSES

bears little or no association with two different indicators of psychological distress that are

contained in these databases.

Second, there is no evidence that the DSES mediates the associations between religious

practices (chiefly measured in terms of self-reported religious attendance) and these psy-

chosocial outcomes. Consistent with a wealth of previous studies, we find that religious

attendance bears a modest but significant positive association with most of the outcomes

examined here. However, the DSES bears a strong independent link with well-being; its

inclusion adds significantly to the fit of all models of positive psychosocial outcomes, but

controlling for the DSES has little impact on the estimated net effect of attendance. In other

words, daily spiritual experiences do not help to account foror explain (away)the links

between religious attendance and well-being; instead, the DSES appears to tap yet another

aspect of spirituality that is associated with these outcomes.

Third, the use of different versions of the GSS contained in the 1998 and 2004 editions

of the GSS provides an opportunity to compare their respective associations with well-being. However, based on these results, it is not clear that the long form (16 items, 2004)

predicts these outcomes better than the short form (6 items, 1998). To the contrary, the

estimated net effect sizes appear similar. Because each version of the DSES contains a mix

of theistic and non-theistic items by design, it is possible to compare their respective

associations with well-being, within and across the two years of the GSS. Based on the

Table 8 Weighted ordered logistic regression estimates for daily spiritual experiences on optimistic aboutthe future (2004)

Optimistic about the future (2004)

N = 1,086


Female .85 .82 .83 .81

Young age 1.35 1.45* 1.39 1.50*

Middle age 1.08 1.12 1.10 1.14


High education 1.00 1.03 1.05 .99

Black 1.28 1.25 1.21 1.31

Married .97 .96 .94 .97

Low income 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.19

High income 1.36* 1.38* 1.42* 1.33

Missing income 1.34 1.34 1.37 1.30

Religious attendance 1.07** 1.02 1.02 1.04

Prayer 1.03 .82*** .84** .86**

Daily spiritual experiences 1.71****

Theistic DSES 1.50****

Non-theistic DSES 1.69****

2 Log likelihood 2099.75 2056.76 2067.84 2056.53

Dx2 42.99 31.91 43.22

Notes: Cells entries are cumulative odds ratios

****p\ .0001, ***p\ .001, **p\ .01, *p\ .05, p\ .1


123


21/25

Table 9 The interaction between daily spiritual experiences and social demographic characteristics onmental health outcomes

2004

Distress Happiness Excitement with life Satisfactionwith self

Optimistic about the future

Female 0 + 0 +* 0

Young age 0 0 0 0 0

Middle age 0 0 0 0 0

Low education 0 0 0 0 0

High education * +* 0 0 0

Black +* 0 0 0 +*

Married 0 0 0 0 0

Low income 0 0 0 0 0High income 0 0 0 0 0

Missing income 0 0 + 0 0

1998

Distress Happiness Excitement with life

Female 0 0 0

Young age 0 0 *

Middle age 0 0 0

Low education 0 0 0

High education 0 0 0

Black 0 0 0

Married 0 0 0

Low income 0 0 0

High income 0 0 0

Missing income 0 0 0

Notes: Only statistically significant relationships are displayed. All models adjust for other sociodemo-graphic characteristics, religious attendance and frequency of prayer

*p\ .05, p\ .1

Table 10 The interaction between daily spiritual experiences and life stressors on mental health outcomes(2004)

Distress Happiness Excitementwith life

Satisfaction with self Optimistic about the future

Bereavement 0 0 0 0 0

Health stressor 0 0 0 0 0

Work problems 0 0 0 0 0

Financial problems 0 0 0 0 0Family stressor 0 0 0 0 0

Legal problems 0 +* +* 0 0

Notes: Only statistically significant relationships are displayed. All models adjust for sociodemographiccharacteristics, religious attendance and frequency of prayer

*p\ .05, p\ .1


123


22/25

pattern of results observed here, it seems that the non-theistic subscale consistently out-

performs the theistic subscale as a predictor of well-being. This is true in each year, and

across most of the outcomes examined in this study. Thus, it may be important for

investigators to distinguish between these two subscales, and the reasons for this pattern of

differences certainly merits closer scrutiny in the future.Fourth, a clear advantage of including the DSES in a nationally representative sample of

US adultsas opposed to specialized and/or clinical samplesis to gauge the robustness of

its associations with well-being. To what extent are these relationships confined to specific

segments of the population, e.g., certain SES or racial/ethnic subgroups, or age categories,

or one gender group? In these data we find no consistent or meaningful pattern of subgroup

variations in the links between the DSES and well-being, for any outcome, for either year.

Indeed, in 1998 only 1 of 30 statistical interactions tested was significant at even the p\ .05

level (two-tailed); in 2004, only 5 of 50 interactions were significant at this level, while 2

others were significant at the p\ .10 level (two-tailed, i.e., p\ .05, one-tailed). Thus, in

each year only a small number of interactions, or contingent associations, were detected,which is roughly what chance alone would predict (i.e., 310% of tests were statistically

significant). Also, the pattern of interactions was quite scattered across the subgroups,

yielding no clear or interpretable patterns. Moreover, it would be appropriate to introduce

statistical adjustment for the number of tests conducted, in order to avoid the potential for

capitalizing on chance associations. Examples of this would include a Bonferroni adjust-

ment, or a simple division of the alpha level by the number of tests conducted. Any such

adjustment would render virtually all of these interactive findings non-significant.

Fifth, in a similar vein, although theoretical analyses have suggested that the DSES may

serve as a stress buffer, we find no evidence that the links between the DSES and well-being are stronger for persons who have encountered (a) multiple stressful life events or

conditions during the preceding year, or (b) any specific type or pattern of stressors (e.g., in

certain domains, such as family, bereavement, financial problems, etc.). It was only pos-

sible to address this question using the 2004 GSS data, which included information on a

broad array of social stressors. However, two of 30 possible interactions were significant,

each of those at the p\ .05 level (two-tailed). Once again, adjustment of the alpha level

for the number of tests conducted (.05/30 = .0017) would eliminate these two patterns.

Given the evidence of robust associations between the DSES and psychological well-

being in these general population samples, the DSES measure of daily (or routine) spiritual

experiences clearly deserves further study. Several directions for future research seemespecially promising. First, the DSES was initially developed for use in health-related

studies, and its inclusion in additional work on psychosocial outcomes certainly seems

warranted. Although our results underscore the robust associations between the DSES and

various facets of well-being, two caveats should be entered. First, a limitation of this study

is that the GSS contains only a handful of items tapping psychosocial outcomes, and the

reliability and validity of most of these measures is unclear, as is their relationship to more

established measures of optimism, self-esteem, and other dimensions of well-being. Thus,

replication using such measures is recommended. Second, as noted earlier, it is less clear

whether or how the DSES is associated with negative mental health outcomes. Themeasures of distress included in the 1998 and 2004 GSSwhich are the only negative

outcomes available in either year of the GSSmay be less than ideal for drawing firm

conclusions on this matter. The 1998 measure is a brief measure of non-specific distress (a

composite of depressed affect, anxiety, hopelessness, and worthlessness; see Kessler et al.

2002), while the 2004 measure is simply a count of the total number of days during the

preceding month in which the respondent experienced feelings of emotional upset.


123


23/25

Thus, it will be important to conduct further work using recognized indicators of

clinically relevant aspects of psychopathology, e.g., the SA-45 (Sitarenios et al. 2000), or

diagnostic measures based on the DSM-IV (e.g., major depression, generalized anxiety

disorder, etc.). Further, despite its advantages (i.e., size, representativeness), one key

limitation of the GSS is its replicated cross-sectional design. It would be extremely helpfulto know the extent to which observed associations between the DSES and various indi-

cators of well-being reflect relatively stable, dispositional factors, and whether daily

spiritual experiences actually influence changes in these outcomes over time. The inclusion

of at least the short form of the DSES in longitudinal studies (ideally, across more than two

waves of data) would be a major step forward, because it would allow for direct exami-

nation of this issue.

Although the DSES items were developed with specific reference to accounts of

spiritual experiences drawn from multiple world religious traditions, and were intended to

be relevant to individuals from a broad array of religio-cultural backgrounds and contexts

(Underwood 2006; Underwood and Teresi 2002), the extent to which this laudable goalwas achieved can only be assessed via further research on non-Judeo-Christian groups.

Such studies are needed (a) within the US and other western societies, which are under-

going slow but steady religious diversification (e.g., Smith 2002), and in other societies,

e.g., in South and East Asia (e.g., Kim 2003).

Finally, in light of the mounting evidence of the potential value of the DSES, the

determinants and antecedents of such routine daily spiritual experiences should be

investigated thoroughly, as well as the sequelae. Specifically, it may be worth knowing

about the social processes, religious socialization practices, life circumstances, and other

factors that may foster or impede such experiences of the transcendent in daily life. Thismight also extend to possible biosocial or genetic influences. For example, recent work

underscores the significant genetic contribution in religiousness and spirituality, and par-

ticularly the tendencies toward major, life-changing religious or spiritual experiences (i.e.,

more so than other facets, such as religious affiliations, practices, or doctrinal beliefs)

(Bradshaw and Ellison 2007). Thus, the potential genetic background must be taken into

account before firm conclusions about causal relationships between the DSES and well-

being or other outcomes can be reached.

In sum, this study has contributed to our understanding of a neglected domain of

religiousness and spirituality, daily or routine spiritual experiences, and the associations

between an increasingly popular measure of this domain (the DSES; Underwood 2006) andpsychological well-being. Our results indicate that the DSESand especially its non-

theistic componentbears a substantial association with positive well-being variables. To

our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate such associations within a high-

quality, nationally representative sample of community-dwelling US adults. Given the

strength of these associations, and their consistency across subgroups within the popula-

tion, the DSES merits further study and incorporation into research on the links between

religiousness and spirituality with health, well-being, and perhaps other outcomes as well.

We hope this paper will stimulate interest in, and attention to, these objectives.

References

Bradshaw, M., & Ellison, C. G. (2007). Is individual religious involvement the product of biologicalpredispositions, social forces, or both? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (in press).


123


24/25

Ciarrocchi, J. W., & Deneke, E. (2004). Happiness and the varieties of religious experience: Religioussupport, practices, and spirituality as predictors of well-being. Research in the Social Scientific Study ofReligion, 15, 211233.

Cook, J. A., & Wimberly, D. W. (1983). If I should die before I wake: Religious commitment andadjustment to death of a child. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 222238.

Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2004). General Social Surveys: Cumulative Codebook, 19722004, Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Machine-readable data file [MRDF] distributed byInteruniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, and Roper Center forPublic Opinion, Storrs, CT.

Dunn, K. S., Chapelski, E., Wordlaw Stinson, L., & Massanari, R. M. (2004). Everyday spirituality incentral city elders. Journal of Religious Gerontology, 15(3), 4159.

Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 32, 8099.

Ellison, C. G., Boardman, J. D., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). Stress, religious involvement, andmental health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Area Study. Social Forces, 80, 215249.

Ellison, C. G., & Levin, J. S. (1998). The religion-health connection: Evidence, theory, and future directions.Health Education and Behavior, 25, 700720.

Flannelly, K. J., Koenig, H. G., Ellison, C. G., & Galek, K. C. (2006). Belief in an afterlife and mentalhealth: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(7), 524529.

Fowler, D. N., & Hill, H. M. (2004). Social support and spirituality as culturally relevant factors in copingamong African American women survivors of partner abuse. Violence Against Women, 10, 12671282.

Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and mental health: A meta-analysis of recent studies.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 4356.

Hadaway, C. K., Marler, P. L., & Chaves, M. (1993). What the polls dont show: A closer look at US churchattendance. American Sociological Review, 58, 741752.

Hayton, T., Boylan, L. S., Jackson, S. C., & Devinsky, O. (2002). Religious/spiritual beliefs and behavior inepilepsy. Annals of Neurology, 52(3), S20.

Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion andspirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist, 58, 6474.

Holland, J. C., Kash, K. M., Passik, S., Gronert, M. K., Sison, A., Lederberg, M., Russak, S. M., Baider, L.,& Fox, B. (1998). A brief spiritual belief inventory for use in quality of life research in life-threateningdisease. Psycho-oncology, 7(6), 460469.

Holland, J. M., & Niemeyer, R. A. (2006). Reducing the risk of burnout in end-of-life settings: The role ofdaily spiritual experiences and training. Palliative and Supportive Care, 3, 173181.

Hood, R. W., Jr. (1997). The empirical study of mysticism. In B. Spilka & D. N. McIntosh (Eds.), ThePsychology of Religion (pp. 222232). Boulder: Westview Press.

Idler, E. L. (1987). Religious involvement and the health of the elderly: Some hypotheses and an initial test.Social Forces, 66, 226238.

Idler, E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K., Krause, N., Ory, M., Levin, J. S., Pargament, K. I.,Powell, L., Underwood, L., & Williams, D. R. (2003). Measuring multiple dimensions of religion andspirituality for health research. Research on Aging, 25, 327365.

Ironson, G., Solomon, G. F., Balbin, E. G., OCleirigh, C., George, A., Kumar, M., Larson, D., & Woods, T.E. (2002). The Ironson-Woods spirituality/religiousness index is associated with long survival, healthbehaviors, less distress and low cortisol in people with HIV/AIDS. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,24(1), 3448.

Keefe, F. J., Affleck, G., Underwood, L. G., Lefebvre, J., Caldwell, D. S., Drew, J., Egert, J., Gibson, J., &Pargament, K. (2001). Living with rheumatoid arthritis pain: The role of daily spirituality and dailyreligious and spiritual coping. Journal of Pain, 2(2), 101110.

Kendler, K. S., Ling, X. Q., Gardner, C. O., McCullough, M. E., Larson, D. B., & Prescott, C. A. (2003).Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and substance use disorders.American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 496503.

Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S.-L. T., Walters, E. E., &Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence and trends in non-

specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959976.Kim, A. E. (2003). Religious influences on personal and societal well-being. Social Indicators Research, 62,

63, 149170.Koenig, H. G., George, L. K., & Titus, P. (2004a). Religion, spirituality, and health in medically ill

hospitalized older patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52, 554562.Koenig, H. G., George, L. K., Titus, P., & Meador, K. G. (2004b). Religion, spirituality, and acute care

hospitalization and long-term care by older patients. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164, 15791585.


123


25/25

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

Krause, N. (2002). Exploring race differences in a comprehensive battery of church-based social supportmeasures. Review of Religious Research, 44, 126149.

Krause, N. (2003). Religious meaning and subjective well-being in late life. Journal of Gerontology:

Psychological Sciences, B58, S160S170.Krause, N. (2006a). Exploring the stress-buffering effects of church-based and secular social support on self-

rated health in late life. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 61B, S35S43.Krause, N. (2006b). Gratitude toward God, stress, and health in late life. Research on Aging, 28, 163183.Krause, N. (2006c). Religious doubt and psychological well-being: A longitudinal investigation. Review of

Religious Research, 47, 287302.Krause, N., & Ellison, C. G. (2003). Forgiveness of others, forgiveness by God, and psychological well-

being in late life. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 7793.Mirola, W. A. (1999). A refuge for some: Gender differences in the relationship between religious

involvement and depression. Sociology of Religion, 60, 419437.Otto, R. ([1923] 1958). The idea of the holy. London: Oxford University Press.Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping. New York: Guilford.

Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods of religious coping: Devel-opment and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 519543.

Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (1998). Patterns of positive and negativereligious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 710724.

Parker, M., Roff, L., Klemmack, D. L., Koenig, H. G., & Baker, P. (2003). Religiosity and mental health insouthern, community-dwelling older adults. Aging and Mental Health, 7, 390397.

Pearce, M. J., Little, T. D., & Perez, J. E. (2003). Religiousness and depressive symptoms among adoles-cents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 267276.

Peterman, A. H., Fitchett, G., Brady, M. J., Hernandez, L., & Cella, D. (2002). Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy- spiritual well-beingscale (FACIT-Sp). Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24(1), 4958.

Pollner, M. L. (1989). Divine relations, social relations, and well-being. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 30, 90104.Roof, W. C. (1993). A generation of seekers. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Roof, W. C. (2000). Spiritual marketplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Sawatzky, R., Ratner, P. A. & Chiu, L. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between spirituality and

quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 72, 153188.Schieman, S., Pudrovska, T. & Milkie, M. A. (2005). The sense of divine control and the self-concept: A

study of race differences in late life. Research on Aging, 27, 165196.Sitarenios, G., Rayes, M., & Morrison, J. (2000). SA-45: The symptom assessment-45 questionnaire. North

Tonawanda (NY): Multi-Health Systems.Smith, T. W. (2002). Religious diversity in America: The emergence of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and

others. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 577585.Smith, T. B., McCullough, M. E., & Poll, J. (2003). Religiousness and depression: Evidence for a main

effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 614636.St. George, A., & McNamara, P. H. (1984). Religion, race, and psychological well-being. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 23, 351363.Strawbridge, W. J., Shema, S. J., Cohen, R. D., Roberts, R. E., & Kaplan, G. A. (1998). Religiosity buffers

the effects of some stressors on depression but exacerbates others. Journal of Gerontology: SocialSciences, B53, S118S126.

Underhill, E. ([1911] 1961). Mysticism. New York: E.P. Dutton.Underwood, L. G. (2006). Ordinary spiritual experience: Qualitative research, interpretive guidelines, and

population distribution for the daily spiritual experiences scale. Archive for the Psychology of Religion/Archiv fur Religion Psychologie, 28, 181218.

Underwood, L .G., & Teresi, J. A. (2002). The daily spiritual experience scale: Development, theoreticaldescription, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using health-

related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 2233.Thomas, M. E., & Holmes, B. J. (1992). Determinants of satisfaction for blacks and whites. The Sociological

Quarterly, 33, 459472.Zemore, S. E., & Kaskutus, L. A. (2004). Helping, spirituality, and Alcoholics Anonymous in recovery.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 383391.Zullig, K. J., Ward, R. M., & Horn, T. (2006). The association between perceived spirituality, religiosity, and

life satisfaction: The mediating role of self-rated health. Social Indicators Research, 79(2), 255274.


daily spiritual experiences

Documents