Disappointment in God and Relational Spirituality: Moderator Effects for Meditative Prayer

Abstract

In recent years, there have been a number of studies exploring the positive and negative aspects of spirituality. While many studies have indicated spirituality has a generally positive influence in persons’ lives, people also experience negative effects associated with spiritual struggles. Studies have also suggested that spiritual practices such as prayer have the potential to mitigate the difficult and distressing aspects of spirituality. In this study, we explore the role of prayer in the relationship between disappointment in God and relational spirituality (i.e. how one relates to what they perceive to be sacred). Our results indicated that meditative prayer has a moderating effect, such that the negative relationship between disappointment in God and relational spirituality outcomes became less significant as subjects engaged in more frequent meditative prayer. Significant effects were not found for colloquial prayer or petitionary prayer.

Keywords

psychology of religion spiritual growth/spiritual well-being/spiritual maturity positive psychology

Psychologists have defined spirituality as the process of searching for what we perceive to be sacred. Religion is understood as the context in which this search takes place (Hill & Pargament, 2008). A number of empirical studies demonstrate that religion and spirituality (R/S) are positively correlated with desired outcomes (i.e., psychological health, physical health, virtue, subjective well-being) and negatively correlated with problematic outcomes (i.e., psychiatric diagnoses, substance abuse, delinquency, sexually risky behavior) (Bonelli & Koenig, 2013; Hill & Pargament, 2008; Jim et al., 2015; Karaga, Davis, Choe, & Hook, 2016; Koenig, 2009; Koenig, McCullough, & Larsen, 2001; Krause & Hayward, 2015). However, R/S are not inherently positive phenomena (Exline, 2013). While spirituality can be a source of hope, comfort, and strength in times of adversity (see Koenig et al., 2001; Pargament, 1997; Pargament, Murray-Swank, Magyar, & Ano, 2005), it can also be a source of struggle, frustration, distress, and despair (Exline, Pargament, Grubbs, & Yali, 2014; Pargament et al., 2005). Failure to account for the complexity of spiritual experience in research and practice occludes knowledge of the diverse connections between R/S and mental health. In this article, we seek to illuminate the complexity of this relationship by exploring the interrelationships between prayer, disappointment in God, and relational spirituality.

Prayer is a religious practice that has been associated with both desirable and problematic outcomes. The 2014 Pew Forum Survey indicated that 55% of adults report engaging in daily prayer and that 71% of adults pray at least once a week (Religious Landscape Study, 2017). Multiple empirical studies indicate prayer plays a significant role in psychological well-being (Ai, Tice, Peterson, & Huang, 2005; Boelens, Reeves, Replogle, & Koenig, 2012; Francis & Robbins, 2009; Hebert, Dang, & Schulz, 2007; Lambert, Fincham, Marks, & Stillman, 2010; Rainville, 2017; You & Yoo, 2016). However, it is often the case that both public surveys and psychological studies do not distinguish between different styles of prayer. Empirical data suggest that particular approaches to prayer are sometimes associated with undesired outcomes such as negative affect, lower levels of hope, and other psychological difficulties (Black, Possel, Jeppsen, Bjerg, & Woolridge, 2015; Paine & Sandage, 2017). To our knowledge, few studies have explored whether the frequency of engagement in particular styles of prayer predicts effective coping with spiritual problems and/or a perceived close relationship with God. The lack of empirical investigation in this area is interesting given the fact that two common reasons for praying are to (a) cope with stress and (b) cultivate a positive relationship with God or the sacred (Dein & Pargament, 2012; Ladd & Spilka, 2006). Assuming these premises are accurate, it would be helpful for researchers to explore the degree to which particular styles of prayer are more or less associated with maintaining intimacy with the sacred despite spiritual struggles.

Disappointment in God is a subjectively painful spiritual struggle that can include feelings of anger, frustration, and discouragement toward God (Hall & Edwards, 2002). Disappointment in God has also been linked to decreases in persons’ felt closeness to God (Hall & Edwards, 2002). In this study, we assess the role of prayer frequency and prayer style in the association between disappointment in God and individual styles of relating to the sacred. We employ Worthington and Sandage’s (2016) relational spirituality model as a conceptual foundation and interpretive framework for this study.

First, we provide a brief overview of the relational spirituality model and discuss its implications for spiritual development. Second, we explore the empirical literature on prayer and its theoretical connections to both relational spirituality and disappointment in God. Third, we discuss disappointment with God as a difficult, but potentially transformative, spiritual experience. Fourth, we report results from an empirical study exploring whether or not the frequency of engagement in particular styles of prayer moderates the link between disappointment in God and participants’ relational spirituality. Plausible interpretations and practical implications for research and practice are discussed.

The Relational Spirituality Framework

In recent years, scholars have conceptualized spirituality as being rooted in the “search for the sacred” (Hill & Pargament, 2008, p. 4). The “sacred” is understood as an object or objects of ultimate devotion, not limited or exclusive to a particular deity or entity. Building on this work, Shults and Sandage (2006) offer a definition of spirituality as “ways of relating to the sacred” (p. 161), which may be understood as relational spirituality. A relational spirituality framework is based on a relational theological anthropology and the theoretical assumption that individuals are in relationship to that which they consider sacred. This is distinct from a purely cognitive or detached understanding of the sacred. For example, one may hold a deist position in which God is perceived as sacred but impersonal and uninterested in human affairs. The study of relational spirituality focuses on persons’ experiences of the sacred and perceptions of how they stand in relation to the sacred. An individual’s perception of being in a personal relationship with God is a relatively common manifestation of this experience. However, relational spirituality is not limited to a felt connection to a divine being. Spiritual experiences and practices may also be thought to facilitate relationships with impersonal entities or processes that are perceived as sacred.

Individuals relate to what they perceive to be sacred in diverse ways. Scholars have articulated and studied several expressions of relational spirituality, including spiritual well-being, intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity, spiritual instability, and spiritual grandiosity, among others (Hall & Edwards, 2002; Worthington & Sandage, 2016). Spiritual well-being is defined as the degree to which an individual experiences a close relationship to the sacred and a sense of meaning and purpose in life (Ellison, 1983; Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). Spiritual well-being has been linked with higher quality of life and lower reported distress in women being treated for illnesses such as AIDS, HIV, and diabetes (Dalmida et al., 2011; Newlin et al., 2010). Rosik and Soria (2012) found that higher levels of spiritual well-being, religious well-being, and existential well-being predict lower levels of pathological and non-pathological dissociation in a sample of full-time religious workers. The existential component of spiritual well-being (having a sense of meaning and purpose in life) has been linked with lower levels of suicidality and lower risk of major depression in samples comprised of college students, young adults, and older adults (Maselko, Gliman, & Buka, 2009; Taliaferro, Rienzo, Pigg, Miller, & Dodd, 2009).

Intrinsic religiosity has been defined as the degree to which individuals engage in religion for its own sake (Gorusch & McPherson, 1989). Extrinsic religiosity is defined as the degree to which religion is used as a means to achieve some personal or social benefit (Gorusch & McPherson, 1989). From a relational spirituality perspective, one might say that intrinsic religiosity involves cultivating a relationship with God for its own sake, while extrinsic religiosity involves cultivating a relationship with God for some extraneous benefit. An overview of the literature reveals that intrinsic religiosity appears to be more psychological and relationally advantageous than extrinsic religiosity (see Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, & Gorusch, 2003, pp. 448–459). Intrinsic religiosity has been found to be associated with fewer depressive symptoms and higher reported quality of life in subjects suffering from bipolar disorder (Stroppa & Moreira-Almeida, 2013). Other studies reveal intrinsic religiosity predicted lower levels of death anxiety in a sample of older adults (Hui & Coleman, 2013) and better psychological adjustment in adolescents (Milevsky & Levitt, 2004). Evidence also indicates that intrinsic religiosity predicts psychological well-being over and above the effect of religious participation. Steffen, Masters, and Baldwin (2016) recently found that intrinsic religiosity mediated the relationship between religious service attendance and psychological well-being such that increases in intrinsic religiosity was associated with decreases in depression and anxiety.

Spiritual instability is an emotionally dysregulated style of relating to the sacred, characterized by emotional reactivity, fear of punishment, and fear of being abandoned by the sacred (Sandage & Crabtree, 2012). Spiritual instability correlated positively with psychiatric symptoms, as well as alienation and egocentricity subscales on the Bell Object Relations Inventory (Hall & Edwards, 2002). Another cross-sectional study demonstrated that spiritual instability predicted decreased levels of hope in a sample of Protestant seminarians (Paine & Sandage, 2015). Spiritual grandiosity is a narcissistic style of relating with the sacred that involves perceiving oneself as more spiritual proficient than others, favored by the sacred, and entitled to spiritual rewards (Moore, 2003; Sandage & Moe, 2011). Spiritual grandiosity was correlated positively with alienation and egocentricity subscales on the Bell Object Relations Inventory (Hall & Edwards, 2002). It also predicted higher scores on the exhibitionism and exploitativeness subscales from the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Hall & Edwards, 2002). Finally, evidence indicates it is negatively correlated with both intercultural competence and humility (Sandage & Harden, 2011; Sandage, Paine, & Hill, 2015).

One of the ways in which persons seek to cultivate a positive relationship with the sacred is prayer (Dein & Pargament, 2012). In the next section, we explore the role of prayer in coping with distress and engaging in a relationship with the divine.

Prayer and Relational Spirituality

Prayer is a religious and spiritual practice defined as a form of communication “with a power recognized as divine” (Baesler, 2003; James, 1963/1902, p. 464; Whittington & Scher, 2010). Prayer has been conceptualized on several dimensions including subjective experience, content, behavior, and prayer objectives (see Ap Siôn, 2008; Dein & Littlewood, 2008; Ladd & Spilka, 2006; Laird, Snyder, Rapoff, & Green, 2004; Poloma & Pendleton, 1991). While prayer may be understood on these dimensions, it may also be conceptualized as relational. Wittington and Scher (2010) present this relational conceptualization, defining prayer as “an attempt to create a meaningful relationship with a deity” (p. 59). Prayer may be used to establish, restore, or repair a relationship with God or the sacred (2 Chronicles 6:14–40; Matthew 6:5–13).

Prayer frequency has been linked to subjective well-being, reported happiness, and life satisfaction (Maltby, Lewis, & Day, 2008; Poloma & Pendleton, 1991; Robbins, Francis, & Edwards, 2008). It has also been linked with decreased symptoms of anxiety and depression (Boelens, Reeves, Replogle, & Koenig, 2009, 2012; Koenig et al., 1993). Experimental studies indicate that prayer may have a causal influence on positive mental health outcomes (Boelens et al., 2009, 2012; Monroe & Jankowski, 2016). This is consistent with data indicating that regular prayer is correlated with effective coping and management of life stress (Ai et al., 2005; Hebert, Dang, & Schultz, 2006, 2007). A biblical theology of prayer similarly confirms important patterns of connection between prayer and well-being (Job 33:26), healing (James 5:13–16), and communal peace (Psalms 122:6).

Poloma and Pendelton (1989) found that different styles of prayer (i.e., meditative, petitionary, colloquial, and ritual) are associated with different outcomes. Meditative prayer is the defined as the practice of being aware of and/or being in the presence of God (Psalms 1:2; 48:9; 119:15–148). Petitionary prayer is the practice of asking God to meet the needs of yourself and others (Philippians 4:6; Hebrews 5:7). Colloquial prayer is an informal, ongoing, conversational prayer style that includes elements of both meditative and petitionary prayer and allows the prayer to be guided by God (Isaiah 58:9, 11; Psalm 143:10; John 10:27; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). Willard (2012) describes prayer in this colloquial fashion as “conversational life with God” (p. 97) and invokes many biblical examples to suggest it was a normal experience for early Christians. Ritual prayer is a practice, usually prescribed by a particular religious tradition, which often involves recitation of memorized verses, Psalms, or designated readings (Foster, 1992).

Poloma and Pendleton’s (1991) study indicated that these forms of prayer were differentially associated with higher levels of reported life satisfaction, existential well-being, happiness, and religious satisfaction. That is, higher frequency of each type of prayer was positively correlated with each of the respective, aforementioned outcomes, even after controlling for the other styles of prayer. However, petitionary prayer was also associated with higher endorsement of negative affect. The findings of this study indicated that the nature of the relationship between prayer and well-being is likely positive, but may also depend on the style of prayer one engages in. These findings were recently replicated by Black, Possel, Jeppsen, Bjerg, and Woolridge (2015).

The literature in this area also suggests that prayer is closely linked with relational spirituality. Several researchers have found that increased prayer frequency is associated with a greater sense of closeness or intimacy with the sacred (Baesler, 2002; Simpson, Woike, Musick, Newman, & Fuqua, 2009). Jeppsen, Possel, Black, Bjerg, and Wooldridge (2015) make a case for prayer as a form of social support in that it is used to cultivate a relationship with God. They also found that experienced closeness with God mediated the relationship between prayer and mental health outcomes. However, the interaction between prayer and one’s experienced relationship with God may not always be linked to positive outcomes. Paine and Sandage (2015) found that petitionary prayer moderated the negative association between spiritual instability and hope, such that this negative correlation became more pronounced as participants engaged in more frequent prayer. In other words, spiritually unstable persons who prayed more were less hopeful than those who prayed less, and this finding has some theological resonance with teaching about relational spirituality in the Epistle of James (1:5–6). In support of these empirical results, Paine and Sandage (2017) also found that spiritual instability and spiritual disappointment predicted depressive symptoms over and above the impact of religious involvement, a multidimensional construct tapping, among other practices, prayer frequency. The degree to which particular prayer types and frequency of prayer are respectively associated with positive and negative relational spirituality outcomes is unclear. In this study, we assess the role of prayer type and prayer frequency in connection with both positive and negative expressions of relational spirituality, such as disappointment in God.

Disappointment in God is an experience that can have a significant impact on the way in which persons relate to the sacred. A centuries-long body of literature highlights diverse theological perspectives on this experience and its impact on one’s experienced relationship to God. Reviewing the theological and spiritual literature on disappointment in God is beyond the scope of this article. However, it may be useful to briefly examine some theological perspectives in Christianity in order to establish a dialectical understanding of disappointment in God. We believe focusing on Christian theology is appropriate since the participants in the present study are from an Evangelical Protestant seminary and are more likely to understand their experiences in those terms. In the next section, we explore the nature of disappointment in God and its associations with prayer and relational spirituality.

Disappointment with God

Some Christian traditions seem to conceptualize disappointment in God as inherently problematic, while others view it as a potential catalyst for spiritual formation. Scripture may be used to support either position. Those who view disappointment with God as inherently problematic may point to St. Paul’s exhortation to “Rejoice in the Lord always” (Phil. 4:4). Those who view disappointment as an opportunity for growth may cite the book of Job, the Psalms of lament (e.g., Psalms 10, 13, 74, 88), the book of Lamentations, and Jesus’ prayer of lament in Matthew 27:46 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann’s (1984) work on the Psalms includes the influential categorization of Psalms of orientation, disorientation, and new orientation. He suggests recurring movements from a settled spiritual orientation into disorientation, often followed by movement toward a new orientation. This is consistent with Worthington and Sandage’s (2016) crucible model of relational spirituality, suggesting that disappointment in God could be sign of growth in one’s relationship with the sacred. The spiritual acknowledgement of disorientation in the Psalms frequently involves voicing temporary disappointment with God. However, other Christian theologians view disappointment with God as inherently negative. For example, John Piper (2006), a New Calvinist pastor and New Testament scholar, states that “failing to rejoice in God when we are commanded to rejoice is sin” (p. 50).

Psychological perspectives suggest that disillusionment, de-idealization, and shame are often corollaries of disappointment in God, which in turn make one susceptible to negative psychological symptoms (Exline et al., 2014; Exline, Prince-Paul, Root, & Peereboom, 2013; Horak, 2006; Jones, 2002). Also, empirical studies indicate disappointment in God and other spiritual struggles are linked to several undesirable outcomes including depression, insecure attachment, egocentricity, and a decreased sense of meaning in life (Exline et al., 2014; Hall & Edwards, 2002; Sandage, Jankowski, & Link, 2010). However, as stated earlier, disappointment in God may also provide an opportunity for spiritual growth, which may be facilitated by spiritual practices such as prayer.

Psychologists of religion recognize the potential power of disappointment in spiritual transformation. Jones (2002) identifies idealization as integral to any religion in which believers devote themselves to sacred entities (p. 14). While idealization can be both orienting and motivating, it also holds the potential for de-idealization and disappointment. De-idealization may result from a range of experiences such as conflict with religious authority, violated expectations, or theological doubts. While these experiences may lead to a weakening of religious commitment, tolerance of de-idealization can be a formative psychological process. It may help believers keep their “passions and wishes grounded” while remaining “passionately invested” in the sacred (Jones, 2002, p. 108). Hall and Edwards (2002) describe and empirically validate a similar psychological phenomenon called “realistic acceptance of God,” in which persons work to maintain closeness to God despite experiences of disappointment. It is possible that mature relational spirituality may be achieved through the endurance and processing of disappointment in God.

However, disappointment in God is associated with multiple negative psychological outcomes such as insecure attachment, egocentricity, alienation, and decreased purpose in life (Hall & Edwards, 2002). As stated earlier, disappointment in God negatively mediated the relationship between religious involvement and depressive symptoms in a recent study (Paine & Sandage, 2017). It is a potentially painful experience, which may require healing spiritual resources such as prayer. Prayer may foster positive coping when disappointed (Pargament, Koenig, & Perez, 2000). Some forms of prayer, such as meditative and colloquial (or conversational), seem to emphasize the cultivation of greater intimacy with God. Next, we empirically examine the interrelationships between prayer, disappointment in God, and relational spirituality in a cross-sectional study.

The Present Study

The sample, as described below, consists of graduate students from an Evangelical Protestant seminary in the Midwest. We test three hypotheses in this study. First, we hypothesize that there will be a negative correlation between disappointment in God and adaptive expressions of relational spirituality (i.e., intrinsic religiosity, spiritual well-being). We predict these negative associations will become weaker at higher levels of meditative prayer among participants, since meditative prayer is linked to adaptive relational styles and higher levels of hope on average (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014, 2011). Second, there is empirical evidence indicating petitionary prayer is respectively linked with negative affect (Black et al., 2015) and decreases in hope at higher levels of spiritual struggle (Paine & Sandage, 2015). Therefore, we hypothesize that the correlation between disappointment in God and maladaptive forms of relational spirituality (i.e., spiritual instability, spiritual grandiosity) will become increasing positive at higher levels of petitionary prayer among participants. Finally, colloquial prayer has been associated with intrinsic religiosity, positive religious coping, closeness to God, meaningful communication with God, and positive affect (Black et al., 2015; Jeppsen et al., 2015; Maltby, Lewis, Freeman, Day, Cruise, & Breslin, 2010). We hypothesize that colloquial prayer will also moderate the relationship between spiritual disappointment and adaptive expressions of relational spirituality. In other words, the negative correlation between disappointment in God and adaptive forms of relational spirituality will weaken as colloquial prayer increases. We did not develop hypotheses for Polomaand Pendleton’s measure of ritual prayer since it is not clear that approach to prayer is common among Evangelical Christians.

Methods

Participants

Participants include 207 graduate students in the helping professions at an Evangelical Protestant seminary in the Midwest United States. They range in age from 21 to 61 years and the mean age is 33.99 (SD = 10.58) years. The sample is 56.0% female and 44.0% male. Participants identified as 90.9% Caucasian, 3.8% Asian/Asian-American, 2.9% Black/African American, 1.0% Chicano/Hispanic/Latino, 0.5% Multi-Racial, 1.0% Other.

Procedure

After obtaining institutional review board approval, the researchers sought permission from appropriate staff for opportunities to recruit participants from classes and orientation sessions. A $15 gift certificate to a bookstore was offered as an incentive for participating in the study. Students who took part in the study completed a packet of questionnaires, which included a written explanation of informed consent.

Measures

Prayer

Prayer was assessed using Poloma and Pendleton’s (1989) 15-item self-report measure of four distinct prayer types: meditative, colloquial, ritual, and petitionary. Participants rated the extent to which they engaged in the descriptors of different prayer practices on a scale from 0 (never) to 6 (several times a day). A sample from the five-item meditative prayer subscale includes, “How often do you spend time just ‘feeling’ or being in the presence of God?” A sample item from the petitionary prayer subscale is, “How often do you ask God for material things you may need?” Construct validation evidence exists for the meditative, petitionary and colloquial prayer scales (Maltby et al., 2008; Poloma & Pendleton, 1989). Poloma and Pendleton (1989) reported Cronbach’s alphas for each prayer subscale (Meditative = .81, Ritual = .59, Petitionary = .78, Colloquial = .85). In this study, Cronbach’s alphas for meditative prayer (.81), petitionary prayer (.86), and colloquial prayer (.72) were comparable. Ritual prayer was not included in the analysis because the associated items did not fit the theological context.

Disappointment in God

Disappointment in God (DG) was assessed using a seven-item subscale of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory (SAI). The SAI is a 54-item self-report measure designed the qualities of one’s perceived relationship to God (Hall & Edwards, 2002; Hall, Reise, & Haviland, 2007). Hall and Edwards (2002; also, see Hall et al., 2007) have demonstrated construct, convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the SAI and its subscales. Participants are asked to respond using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Items on the disappointment scale include, “There are times when I feel disappointed in God,” “There are times when I feel betrayed by God,” and “There are times when I feel angry at God.” Hall and Edwards (2002) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 for the disappointment subscale. Reliability coefficient for this study was .91.

Spiritual well-being

Spiritual well-being was assessed using the 20-item Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) (Ellison, 1983). Items are scored using a 6-point modified Likert scale with responses ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree.” The scale conceptualizes spiritual well-being as having two components, religious well-being and existential well-being. The Religious Well-Being (RWB) scale assesses participants’ perceptions of the quality of their relationship with God. Examples of items include “I believe God loves and cares about me” and “My relationship with God helps me not to feel lonely.” Existential Well-Being (EWB) assesses one’s felt sense of meaning and purpose in life. Other examples of items include “I believe there is some real purpose for my life” and “I feel a sense of well-being about the direction my life is headed in.” Construct and concurrent validity for the instrument has been supported (see Bufford, Paloutzian, & Ellison, 1991; D’Costa, 1995; Genia, 2001). Ellison (1983) reported Cronbach’s alphas of .89 (SWB), .87 (RWB), and .78 (EWB). Cronbach’s alphas for this study are .90 (SWB), .86 (RWB), and .86 (EWB).

Spiritual instability

Spiritual instability (SI) will be measured using a subscale from the Spiritual Assessment Inventory (SAI). The nine-item Spiritual Instability subscale is intended to measure consistency in one’s perceived relationship with God. Examples of SI items include “I am afraid that God will give up on me” and “There are times when I feel that God is punishing me.” Participants are asked to respond using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Construct, convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the SI subscale was also established (Hall & Edwards, 2002; Hall et al., 2007). Hall & Edwards (2002) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 for the SI subscale. Cronbach’s alpha for this study is .62. This reliability considered slightly low. Therefore, any findings involving this construct will be interpreted with caution.

Intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity

Intrinsic religiosity will be assessed using the 14-item Religious Orientation Scale Revised (Gorusch & McPherson, 1989). Items were assessed on a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree.” The intrinsic subscale measures the degree to which one relates to the sacred through internal religious and/or a commitment to religion as an end in itself. Items include “It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer” and “I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs.” The extrinsic subscale assesses the degree to which one relates to the sacred as a means to desired personal or social ends (i.e., decreased anxiety, support from others). Items include “I pray mainly to gain relief and protection” and “I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends.” Gorusch and McPherson (1989) report a Cronbach’s alphas of .83 for the intrinsic subscale and .65 for the extrinsic subscale. Cronbach’s alphas for this study are .77 (intrinsic) and .81 (extrinsic). Quest religiosity was not assessed because the relational spirituality constructs in this study are conceptualized as outcomes, while quest is inherently understood as a process or search (Batson, 1982).

Spiritual grandiosity

Spiritual grandiosity (SG) was measured using a subscale from the Spiritual Assessment Inventory (SAI). The seven-item SG subscale is intended to measure qualities consistent with narcissistic personality traits. Examples of SG items include “I have a unique ability to influence God through my prayers” and “My relationship with God is an extraordinary one that most people would not understand.” Participants are asked to respond using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Hall and Edwards (2002; also, see Hall et al., 2007) have demonstrated construct, convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the SAI. Hall and Edwards reported Cronbach’s alpha of .73 for the SG subscale. Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .77.

Spiritual impression management

Davis, Worthington, and Hook (2010) recommended that a measure of impression management be included in the empirical study of humility. The five-item spiritual impression management (SIM) (Hall & Edwards, 2002) subscale of the SAI was used in this study to assess the tendency to exaggerate spiritual virtue. Sample items are rated on a five-point scale and include “I am always in the mood to pray” and “I am always as kind at home as I am at church.” Participants are asked to respond using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). The SIM scale was developed through factor analyses of the SAI to ensure impression management items loaded on a separate factor (Hall & Edwards, 2002) and it exhibited solid construct validity in relation to other measures of spiritual development (Sandage & Morgan, 2014). SIM has demonstrated an alpha coefficient of .77 (Hall & Edwards, 2002). The reliability coefficient for this study is also .77.

Data Analytic Procedures

Data were analyzed using hierarchical multiple regressions to test for moderation effects. Disappointment in God served as the independent variable predicting each of the relational spirituality constructs of interest. Three types of prayer (i.e., meditative, petitionary, and colloquial) were explored as potential moderators in the respective relationships between disappointment in God and each of the relational spirituality constructs. The respective relationships between disappointment in God and each of the dependent variables presented as normality distributed in an analysis of residuals. Scatter plot analysis of the relationships between these variables also appeared to meet the assumption of homoscedasticity. The analytical procedure is based on Baron & Kenny’s (1986) recommendation for testing moderation effects with continuous variables in social science research. All variables were mean-centered prior to analysis. Several researchers have recommended mean-centering continuous variables in moderation analyses in order to reduce multicollinearity between the independent variables and the product term of the interaction (see Cronbach, 1987; Smith & Sasaki, 1979).

Results

Eighteen distinct hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to test whether each prayer type moderates the relationship between disappointment in God and each relational spirituality variable. In the first step of each analysis, spiritual impression management was entered into the model as a control measure. Second, disappointment in God was entered into the model. Third, the prayer variable of interest (i.e., petitionary, meditative, or colloquial) was entered. An interaction term consisting of the product of disappointment in God and the prayer variable of interest was entered in the fourth step of each model. This process was completed for each prayer variable and each of the relational spirituality constructs assessed in this study (i.e., spiritual well-being as measured by both religious well-being and existential well-being, intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, spiritual instability, and spiritual grandiosity; see Table 2).

Increases in meditative prayer predicted higher levels of religious well-being (F(2, 204) = 38.60, p<.001, ∆R² = .117) and intrinsic religiosity (F(2, 204) = 38.68, p<.001, ∆R² =.114) after controlling for spiritual impression management and disappointment in God (see Table 1). Negative associations were observed between meditative prayer and extrinsic religiosity (F(2, 204) = 9.37, p =.003, ∆R² =.044) and spiritual instability (F(2, 204) = 6.68, p =.002, ∆R² =.028), respectively, after controlling for spiritual disappointment and impression management. No significant direct effects were observed between meditative prayer and existential well-being or spiritual grandiosity after controlling for the aforementioned variables. Higher levels of colloquial prayer predicted higher levels of religious well-being (F(2, 204) = 35.02, p<.001, ∆R² = .098) and intrinsic religiosity (F(2, 204) = 30.38, p<.001, ∆R² =.069) when controlling for spiritual disappointment and spiritual impression management. No significant direct effects were observed between colloquial prayer and spiritual grandiosity, spiritual instability, or extrinsic religiosity, respectively. Changes in petitionary prayer did not predict significant changes in any of the relational spirituality variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlation Matrix of Disappointment in God and Relational Spirituality Measures.

	DG	SG	SI	EWB	RWB	ER	IR
DG	–	−.012	.438**	−.350**	.259**	.088	−.201**
SG		–	.074	.103	.138*	.067	156*
SI			–	−.481**	−.403**	.319**	−.313**
EWB				–	.589**	−.250**	.381**
RWB					–	−.396**	.577**
ER						–	−.244**
IR							–

Note. N = 207. DG = Disappointment in God, SG = Spiritual Grandiosity, SI = Spiritual Instability, EWB = Existential Well-Being, RWB = Religious Well-Being, ER = Extrinsic Religiosity, IR = Intrinsic Religiosity. *p< .05, **p < .01.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlation Matrix of Prayer and Relational Spirituality Measures.

	SG	SI	EWB	RWB	ER	IR
PrayM	.247**	−.231**	−.236**	−.484**	−.201**	.476**
PrayP	.131	−.018	.064	−.151*	.020	.185**
PrayC	.180**	−.175*	−.173*	−.453**	−.089	.413**

Note. N = 207. DG = Disappointment in God, RA = Realistic Acceptance of God, AG = Awareness of God, SG = Spiritual Grandiosity, SI = Spiritual Instability, EWB = Existential Well-Being, RWB = Religious Well-Being, ER = Extrinsic Religiosity, IR = Intrinsic Religiosity. *p< .05, **p < .01

As predicted, meditative prayer moderated the relationship between disappointment and intrinsic religiosity (B = .137, p =.003) (see Table 3). The interaction plot reveals a decreasing negative association between spiritual disappointment and intrinsic religiosity as frequency of meditative prayer increased (see Figure 1). At low meditative prayer, intrinsic religiosity decreased as disappointment in God increased. At moderate meditative prayer, the decreases in intrinsic religiosity in relation to disappointment in God were smaller. The smallest decreases in intrinsic religiosity in relation to disappointment were observed at high levels of meditative prayer.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Results for Significant Interactions.

	B	95% CI	SE B	Β	R ²	∆R²
RWB
Step 1:SIM	.301**	(.205, 397)	.049	.397	.158	.158**
Step 2: SIM	.267**	(.169, .366)	.050	.352	.182	.024*
DG	−.111*	(−.200, −.022)	.045	−.161
Step 3: SIM	.138**	(.037, .240)	.051	.182	.299	.117**
DG	−.113**	(−.196, −.030)	.042	−.164
PrayM	.216**	(.143, .289)	.037	.382
Step 4: SIM	.150**	(.051, .250)	.051	.198	.314	.028**
DG	−.102*	(−.184, −.020)	.042	−.148
PrayM	.209**	(.137, .281)	.036	.370
DG*PrayM	.101**	(.032, .171)	.035	.167
IR
Step 1: SIM	.390**	(.267, .513)	.062	.401	.161	.161**
Step 2: SIM	.227**	(.100, .355)	.065	.234	.275	.114**
PrayM	.273**	(.178, .368)	.048	.377
Step 3: SIM	.239**	(.114, .365)	.064	.246	.306	.031
PrayM	.264**	(.171, .357)	.047	.364
DG*PrayM	.137**	(.047, .227)	.046	.177

Note. N = 107. RWB = Religious Well-Being, IR = Intrinsic Religiosity, SIM = Spiritual Impression Management, DG = Disappointment in God, PrayM = Meditative Prayer. *p< .05, **p < .01

Some variables automatically excluded from analysis by SPSS.

Figure 1.

Line-of-best-fit plot demonstrating interaction effect for Disappointment in God and Intrinsic Religiosity.

Meditative prayer also moderated the relationship between spiritual disappointment and religious well-being (B = .101, p = .004). The interaction plot reveals a decreasing negative association between disappointment in God and religious well-being as the frequency of meditative prayer increased (see Figure 2). At low meditative prayer, religious well-being decreases as disappointment in God increases. At moderate meditative prayer, the strength of this negative association weakens considerably. When levels of meditative prayer increased from moderate to high, the strength of the negative association between disappointment and religious well-being became slightly stronger (from R² =.01 to R² = .06), but was still considerably weaker than the association for those endorsing low levels of meditative prayer.

Figure 2.

Line-of-best-fit plot demonstrating interaction effect for Disappointment in God and Religious Well-Being

There were no significant moderation effects for either petitionary prayer or colloquial prayer. There were also no significant moderation effects for meditative prayer when assessed in connection with spiritual instability or spiritual grandiosity.

Discussion

Moderation analyses reveal several significant findings for meditative prayer, confirming the hypothesis that this style of prayer would moderate the relationship between spiritual disappointment and adaptive styles of relational spirituality. Hypotheses that petitionary and colloquial prayer would moderate the relationship between disappointment in God and relational spirituality were disconfirmed, since no significant interactions were observed for these variables. Results revealed that the quality of an individual’s perceived relationship to the sacred (i.e. relational spirituality) may depend, in part, on their frequency of prayer and the style of prayer they engage in. However, the results may also suggest that person’s frequency and style of prayer and on their experience of relational spirituality.

The interaction between disappointment in God and meditative prayer was significant in predicting both religious well-being and intrinsic religiosity. As meditative prayer increased, the negative correlation between disappointment in God and religious well-being became weaker. We have already observed that disappointment in God predicts lower levels of religious well-being. These findings suggest that meditative prayer may act as a spiritual buffer helping to minimize the loss of divine intimacy connected with spiritual disappointment. Alternatively, individuals who experience spiritual disappointment as a rupture in their relationship with the sacred may actively avoid meditative prayer, which in turn may contribute to decreases in religious well-being. Disappointment could be interpreted as an indication of relational distance. Felt distance from God may undermine prayer practice. Lack of prayer may then exacerbate felt distance. Psychological motives for this response may be both practical (i.e., “Praying doesn’t bring me any closer to God,” “Prayer doesn’t work”) and relational (i.e., “Why pray to a God I don’t feel close to?,” “I won’t put myself out there for a God who hurts me”).

It was also revealed that the negative correlation between disappointment in God and intrinsic religiosity became weaker as meditative prayer increased. Disappointment in God has predicted lower levels of intrinsic religiosity in other studies (see Hall & Edwards, 2002). Meditative prayer may protect against the potentially corrosive impact of disappointment in God on intrinsic religiosity. Alternatively, those whose intrinsic religiosity is less impacted by disappointment in God may be more likely to engage in meditative prayer as they maintain motivation to experience intimacy with God despite frustration. At any rate, the findings for intrinsic religiosity suggest that meditative prayer is a practice that may be engaged in for its own sake, without the necessity of instrumental benefits.

Petitionary prayer was not significantly associated with any of the constructs of interest in this study. This finding could indicate that petitioning the sacred is not an important factor in connection with spiritual disappointment or relational spirituality. An alternative explanation for this may be that participants in this sample endorsed relatively low frequency of petitionary prayer. Average frequency scores out of 7 for this sample were 2.48 for petitionary prayer, 4.03 for meditative prayer, and 4.35 for colloquial prayer. Since participants in this sample do not engage in petitionary prayer at the same rate as meditative and colloquial prayer, it may be unlikely that statistical analysis would reveal anything meaningful about the relationship between petitionary prayer, disappointment in God, and relational spirituality. The lack of significant findings could also indicate that petitionary prayer plays a nuanced role in the spiritual lives of individuals. The impact of petitionary prayer on persons may be influenced by several factors, including the nature of what one asks for, the likelihood that it will be granted, and/or one’s motivations for asking. This is commensurate with evidence suggesting that the role of petitionary prayer may depend on its interaction with other relational spirituality dynamics (see Paine & Sandage, 2015).

Colloquial prayer did not moderate the relationship between disappointment in God and adaptive expressions of relational spirituality. It is unclear why this effect was null. Meditative prayer and colloquial prayer are respectively associated with many of the same dependent variables. It would be reasonable to hypothesize that each form of prayer would yield similar moderation results. The results of this study suggest that there are nuances in the respective relationships between colloquial prayer, disappointment in God, and expressions of relational spirituality that might be further explored in future research. Luhrmann’s (2012) widely discussed ethnographic study of the conversational prayer practices of American Evangelicals (primarily Pentecostals) suggested such practices might be largely healthy and facilitate intimacy with God, yet Sandage (2014) raised questions about whether the impact and frequency of conversational prayer might interact with attachment security. That is, frequent conversational prayer might show a bimodal pattern of effect with one pattern reflecting secure attachment and the other pattern reflecting a preoccupied or hyper-activated attachment system. Future research might explore the relationships between these variables with different methodologies in order to garner a more robust understanding of this form of prayer.

Petitionary and colloquial forms of prayer seem to involve more explicit verbalization or verbal discourse than does meditative prayer, and it is worth considering whether the more implicit, preverbal relational stance of meditative prayer is particularly helpful for those struggling with spiritual disappointment when making spiritual requests or simple conversation with God would be difficult. From an attachment perspective, spiritual disappointment may represent some level of disruption or tension in limbic-based templates about God, and meditative prayer may be a relational spirituality practice that facilitates emotional and spiritual reconnection with divine presence without necessitating cognitive (i.e., neo-cortical) pressure to form coherent words.

Limitations and Future Research

There are a number of limitations in this study, a few of which were mentioned in the previous section on threats to validity. First, the sample for this study is spiritually and racially homogenous. Participants are affiliated with a graduate program in the helping professions at a Protestant-affiliated university. Evangelical Christians constitute an overwhelming majority of the sample and over 90% of these participants are Caucasian. Therefore, conclusions drawn from this study of prayer and relational spirituality may only apply to participants who are spiritually and racially similar to participants in this study. Future studies may explore the associations between spiritual disappointment, prayer, and relational spiritual within contexts of greater religious and cultural diversity.

Also, the cross-sectional nature of this study precludes assertions of causation. In future research, a greater effort may be made to study religious and spiritual phenomena using experimental designs and longitudinal analysis. Analysis of nonlinear effects may also be beneficial since evidence from this study and others indicates that the relationships between spiritual factors are highly nuanced. Such approaches may illuminate the causal impact of prayer, as well as the ebbs and flows of spiritual development among persons. Future research in this area might also benefit from integrating exegetical and theological studies of lament as a form of prayer in conjunction with social science methods to investigate whether aspects of lament may often be embedded in meditative prayer as a response to spiritual disappointment.

No significant interaction effects were found for either petitionary or colloquial prayer. These findings may suggest that frequency of engagement in these forms of prayer plays no role in the relationship between spiritual disappointment and the quality of one’s relationship to the sacred. However, the limitations of this study may give pause in this respect. From a statistical perspective, no significant linear relationship is evident. It may be that petitionary and colloquial prayers have a significant impact on one’s relationship to the sacred in ways not captured by these psychological measures.

The general results indicate that both meditative and colloquial prayer were associated with lower levels of spiritual disappointment and adaptive expressions of relational spirituality. From a counseling perspective, this information is especially useful when considering clients who experience spiritual struggles and relational ruptures with the sacred. It may be possible that meditative and colloquial prayers are more conducive to spiritual health and healing more than other expressions of prayer. However, practitioners may seek to better understand religious and spiritual clients’ prayer practices in order to assess the degree to which they augment and detract from positive experiences of the sacred.

Conclusion

With this study, I sought to explore whether the correlation between spiritual disappointment and relational spirituality changes depending on frequency of prayer engagement and/or style of prayer. I found that frequency of meditative prayer moderated the association between spiritual disappointment and two seemingly adaptive expressions of relational spirituality (i.e., religious well-being and intrinsic religiosity). Some may point to these results as evidence for meditative prayer as a protective buffer against the negative effects of spiritual disappointment on relational spirituality. Another explanation for the findings could be that those who relate to the sacred in adaptive ways are more inclined to engage in meditative prayer and experience fewer spiritual disappointments. Future studies may use experimental and longitudinal methods to determine causal pathways among disappointment, prayer, and relational spirituality. Researchers should also explore more diverse populations to assess whether the results of this study are consistent across cultures or are unique to a Caucasian, Evangelical Christian context. We hope these findings will serve as an impetus for clinicians to explore the richness of client spirituality with greater curiosity and appreciation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

David R. Paine

Author Biographies

David R. Paine is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Loras College in Dubuque, IA.

Steven J. Sandage is the Albert and Jessie Danielsen Professor of Psychology of Religion and Theology at Boston University and Director of Research at the Danielsen Institute. He also has a secondary appointment in the Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences.

References

A. L.

Tice

T. N.

Peterson

Huang

(2005). Prayers, spiritual support, and positive attitudes in coping with the September 11 national crisis. Journal of Personality, 73, 763–791.

Ap Siôn

Tania

(2008). Distinguishing between intention, reference and objective in an analysis of prayer requests for health and well-being: Eavesdropping from the rural vestry. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 11, 53–65.

Baesler

E. J.

(2002). Prayer and relationship with God II: Replication and extension of the relational prayer model. Review of Religious Research, 44, 58–67.

Baesler

E. J.

(2003). Theoretical explorations and empirical investigations of communication and prayer. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Batson

Daniel

(1982). Religion and the individual. New York: Oxford University Press.

Black

S. W.

Pössel

Jeppsen

B. D.

Bjerg

A. C.

Wooldridge

D. T.

(2015). Disclosure during private prayer as a mediator between prayer type and mental health in an adult Christian sample. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(2), 540–553.

Boelens

P. A.

Reeves

R. R.

Replogle

W. H.

Koenig

H. G.

(2009). A randomized trial of the effect of prayer on depression and anxiety. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 39, 377–392.

Boelens

P. A.

Reeves

R. R.

Replogle

W. H.

Koenig

H. G.

(2012). The effect of prayer on depression and anxiety: Maintenance of positive of positive influence one year after prayer intervention. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 43, 85–98.

10.

Bonelli

R. M.

Koenig

H. G.

(2013). Mental disorders, religion and spirituality 1990 to 2010: A systematic evidence-based review. Journal of Religion and Health, 52(2), 657–673.

11.

Brueggemann

(1984). The message of the Psalms: A theological commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

12.

Bufford

R. K.

Paloutzian

R. F.

Ellison

C. W.

(1991). Norms for the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19(1), 56–70.

13.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414–417.

14.

Dalmida

S. G.

Holstad

M. M.

DiIorio

Laderman

(2011). Spiritual well-being and health-related quality of life in African American women with HIV/AIDS. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6, 139–157.

15.

Davis

D. E.

Worthington

E. J.

Hook

J. N.

(2010). Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 243–252.

16.

D’Costa

(1995). Review of the spiritual well-being scale. In Conoley

(ed.), Mental Measurement Yearbook, 12th edition (pp. 983–984). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.

17.

Dein

Littlewood

(2008). The psychology of prayer and the development of the Prayer Experience Questionnaire. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 11, 39–52.

18.

Dein

Pargament

K. I.

(2012). On not praying for the return of an amputated limb: Conserving a relationship with God as the primary function of prayer. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 76, 235–259.

19.

Ellison

C. W.

(1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 330–340.

20.

Exline

J. J.

(2013). Religious and spiritual struggles. In Pargament

K. I.

Exline

J. J.

Jones

J. W.

(eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol. 1: Context, theory, and research) (pp. 459–475). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

21.

Exline

J. J.

Pargament

K. I.

Grubbs

J. B.

Yali

A. M.

(2014). The Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale: Development and initial validation. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6, 208–222.

22.

Exline

J. J.

Prince-Paul

Root

B. L.

Peereboom

K. S.

(2013). The spiritual struggle of anger toward God: A study with family members of hospice patients. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 16, 369–375.

23.

Foster

R. J.

(1992). Prayer: Finding the heart’s true home. New York: Harper Collins.

24.

Francis

L. J.

Robbins

(2009). Prayer, purpose in life, and attitudes toward substances: Astudy among 13- to 15-year-olds in England and Wales. Counselling and Spirituality. 28, 83–104.

25.

Genia

(2001). Evaluation of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale in a sample of college students. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 11(1), 25–33.

26.

Gorusch

R. L.

McPherson

S. E.

(1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348–354.

27.

Hall

T. W.

Edwards

K. E.

(2002). The Spiritual Assessment Inventory: A theistic model and measure for assessing spiritual development. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 341–357.

28.

Hall

T. W.

Reise

S. P.

Haviland

M. G.

(2007). An item response theory analysis of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17, 157–178.

29.

Hebert

R. S.

Dang

Schulz

(2006). Preparedness for the death of a loved one and mental health in bereaved caregivers of patients with dementia: Findings from the REACH study. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 9, 683–693.

30.

Hebert

R. S.

Dang

Schulz

(2007). Religious beliefs and practices are associated with better mental health in family caregivers of patients with dementia: Findings from the REACH study. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15, 292–300.

31.

Hill

P. C.

(1999). Religious Orientation Scale-revised. In Hill

P. C.

Hood

R. W.

(eds.), Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

32.

Hill

P. C.

Pargament

K. I.

(2008). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, S(1), 3–17.

33.

Horak

J. J.

(2006). I am not worthy: Shame and spirituality. In Helmeke

K. B.

Sori

C. F.

Helmeke

K. B.

Sori

C. F.

(eds.), The therapist’s notebook for integrating spirituality in counseling: Homework, handouts and activities for use in psychotherapy (pp. 167–173). New York: Haworth Press.

34.

Hui

V. K.

Coleman

P. G

. (2013). Afterlife beliefs and ego integrity as two mediators of the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and personal death anxiety among older adult British Christians. Research on Aging, 35, 144–162.

35.

James

(1963/1902). The varieties of religious experience. New York: University Books.

36.

Jankowski

P. J.

Sandage

S. J.

(2011). Meditative prayer, hope, adult attachment, and forgiveness: A proposed model. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3, 115–131.

37.

Jankowski

P. J.

Sandage

S. J.

(2014). Attachment to God and dispositional humility: Indirect effect and conditional effects model. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 70–82.

38.

Jeppsen

Pössel

Black

S. W.

Bjerg

Wooldridge

(2015). Closeness and control: Exploring the relationship between prayer and mental health. Counseling and Values, 60(2), 164–185.

39.

Jim

H. L.

Pustejovsky

J. E.

Park

C. L.

Danhauer

S. C.

Sherman

A. C.

Fitchett

Salsman

J. M.

(2015). Religion, spirituality, and physical health in cancer patients: A meta-analysis. Cancer, 121(21), 3760–3768.

40.

Jones

(2002). Terror and transformation: The ambiguity of religion in psychoanalytic perspective. New York: Routledge.

41.

Karaga

Davis

D. E.

Choe

Hook

J. N.

(2016). Hypersexuality and religion/spirituality: A qualitative review. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 23(2–3), 167–181. doi:10.1080/10720162.2016.1144116

42.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

(1989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. In Moberg

D. O.

Lynn

M. L.

(eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

43.

Koenig

H. G.

(2009). Research on religion, spirituality, and mental health: A review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(5), 283–291.

44.

Koenig

H. G.

Ford

S. M.

George

L. K.

Blazer

D. G.

Meador

K. G.

(1993). Religion and anxiety disorder: an examination and comparison of associations in young, middle-aged, and elderly. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 7, 321–342.

45.

Koenig

H. G.

McCullough

M. E.

Larson

D. B.

(2001). Handbook of religion and health. New York: Oxford University Press.

46.

Krause

Hayward

R. D.

(2015). Humility, compassion, and gratitude to God: Assessing the relationships among key religious virtues. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(3), 192.

47.

Ladd

K. L.

Spilka

(2006). Inward, outward, upward prayer: Scale reliability and validation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 233–251.

48.

Laird

S. P.

Snyder

C. R.

Rapoff

M. A.

Green

(2004). Measuring private prayer: Development, validation, and clinical application of the Multidimensional Prayer Inventory. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 251–272.

49.

Lambert

N. M.

Fincham

F. D.

Marks

L. D.

Stillman

T. F.

(2010). Invocations and intoxication: Does prayer decrease alcohol consumption? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 209–219.

50.

Luhrmann

T. A.

(2012). When God talks back: Understanding the American evangelical relationship with God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

51.

Maltby

Lewis

C. A.

Day

(2008). Prayer and subjective well-being: The application of a cognitive-behavioural framework. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 11, 119–129.

52.

Maltby

Lewis

C. A.

Freeman

Day

Cruise

S. M.

Breslin

M. J.

(2010). Religion and health: The application of a cognitive-behavioural framework. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 13, 749–759.

53.

Maselko

Gilman

S. E.

Buka

(2009). Religious service attendance and spiritual well being are differentially associated with risk of major depression. Psychological medicine, 39, 1009–1017.

54.

Milevsky

Levitt

M. J.

(2004) Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity in preadolescence and adolescence: Effect on psychological well-being. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 7, 307–321.

55.

Monroe

Jankowski

P. J.

(2016). The effectiveness of a prayer intervention in promoting change in perceived attachment to God, positive affect, and psychological distress. Spirituality In Clinical Practice, 3(4), 237–249.

56.

Moore

R. L.

(2003). Facing the dragon: Confronting personal and spiritual grandiosity. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications.

57.

Newlin

Melkus

G. D.

Peyrot

Koenig

H. G.

Allard

Chyun

(2010). Coping as a mediator in the relationships of spiritual well-being to mental health in black women with type 2 diabetes. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 40, 439–459.

58.

Paine

D. R.

Sandage

S. J.

(2015). More prayer, less hope: Empirical findings on spiritual instability. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 17(4), 223–238.

59.

Paine

D. R.

Sandage

S. J.

(2017). Religious involvement and depression: The mediating effect of relational spirituality. Journal of Religion and Health, 56, 269–283.

60.

Paloutzian

R. F.

Ellison

C. W.

(1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and quality of life. In Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: Wiley Inter-science.

61.

Pargament

K. I.

(1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. NewYork: Guilford Press.

62.

Pargament

K. I.

Koenig

H. G.

Perez

L. M.

(2000). The many methods of religious coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 519–543.

63.

Pargament

K. I.

Murray-Swank

N. A.

Magyar

G. M.

Ano

G. G.

(2005). Spiritual struggle: A phenomenon of interest to psychology and religion. In Miller

W. R.

Delaney

H. D.

Miller

W. R.

Delaney

H. D.

(eds.), Judeo-Christian perspectives on psychology: Human nature, motivation, and change (pp. 245–268). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

64.

Piper

(2006). Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian hedonist. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books.

65.

Poloma

M. M.

Pendleton

B. F.

(1989). Exploring types of prayer and quality of life: A research note. Review of Religious Research, 31, 46–53.

66.

Poloma

M. M.

Pendleton

B. F.

(1991). The effects of prayer and prayer experiences on measures of general well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 71–83.

67.

Rainville

(2017). The interrelation of prayer and worship service attendance in moderating the negative impact of life event stressors on mental well-being. Journal of Religion and Health. doi: 10.1007/s10943-017-0494-x.

68.

Religious Landscape Study (2017). Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/frequency-of-prayer/.

69.

Rizzuto

(1979) Birth of the living God: A psychoanalytic study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

70.

Robbins

Francis

L. J.

Edwards

(2008). Prayer, personality and happiness: A study among undergraduate students in Wales. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 11, 93–99.

71.

Rosik

C. H.

Soria

(2012). Spiritual well-being, dissociation, and alexithymia: Examining direct and moderating effects. Journal of Trauma Dissociation, 13, 69–87.

72.

Sandage

S. J.

(2014). Attachment theory, relational spirituality, and varieties of evangelicals. Religion, Brain, and Behavior, 4, 59–65.

73.

Sandage

S. J.

Crabtree

(2012). Spiritual pathology and religious coping as predictors of forgiveness. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15(7), 689–707.

74.

Sandage

S. J.

Harden

M. G.

(2011). Relational spirituality, differentiation of self, and virtue as predictors of intercultural development. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 14, 819–838.

75.

Sandage

S. J.

Jankowski

P. J.

Link

D. C.

(2010). Quest and spiritual development moderated by spiritual transformation. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 15–31.

76.

Sandage

S. J.

Moe

S. P.

(2011). Narcissism and spirituality. In Campbell

W. K.

Miller

(eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatment (pp. 410–420). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

77.

Sandage

S. J.

Morgan

(2014). Hope and positive religious coping as predictors of social justice commitment. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 17(6), 557–567.

78.

Sandage

S. J.

Paine

Hill

(2015). Spiritual barriers to humility: A multidimensional study. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 18(3), 207–217.

79.

Shults

F. L.

Sandage

S. J.

(2006). Transforming spirituality: Integrating theology and psychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

80.

Simpson

D. B.

Woike

E. E.

Musick

A. E.

Newman

J. L.

Fuqua

D. R.

(2009). The relationship of religious participation to relationship with God. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 28(4), 360–369.

81.

Smith

K. W.

Sasaki

M. S.

(1979). Decreasing multicollinearity: A method for models with multiplicative functions. Sociological Methods and Research, 8, 35–36.

82.

Spilka

Hood

R. W.

Hunsberger

Gorsuch

R. L.

(2003). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. New York: Guilford.

83.

Spilka

Ladd

(2012). Psychology of prayer: A scientific approach. New York: Guilford.

84.

Steffen

P. R.

Masters

K. S.

Baldwin

(2016). What mediates the relationship between religious service attendance and aspects of well-being? Journal of Religion and Health, doi:10.1007/s10943-016-0203-1.

85.

Stroppa

Moreira-Almeida

(2013). Religiosity, mood symptoms, and quality of life in bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorders, 15, 385–393.

86.

Taliaferro

L. A.

Rienzo

B. A.

Pigg

R. M.

Jr. Miller

M. D.

Dodd

V. J.

(2009). Spiritual well being and suicidal ideation among college students. Journal of American College Health, 58, 83–90.

87.

Whittington

B. L.

Scher

S. J.

(2010). Prayer and subjective well-being: An examination of six different types of prayer. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 20, 59–68.

88.

Willard

(2012). Hearing God: Developing a conversational relationship with God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

89.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Sandage

S. J.

(2016). Forgiveness and spirituality in psychotherapy: A relational approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

90.

You

Yoo

J. E.

(2016). Prayer and subjective well-being: The moderating role of religious support. Archiv für Religionspsychologie / Archive for the Psychology of Religions, 38(3), 301–315.