Attending to the Multidimensional Nature of Spirituality and Faith: Integrating Spiritual Development and Moral Foundations Theory

Traditions Influencing Spiritual Development Theories

Roehlkepartain et al. (2006) discuss three different psychological traditions that have influenced current conceptions of spiritual development and provided structure for it. First, psychoanalytic theories have long examined religion and investigated its role in human psychology, albeit often as a pathology (e.g., Freud, 1961). Though generally still treated as delusions or the product of parental relationships, other psychoanalysts have viewed religion and spirituality more positively. Some argue that representations of God serve to comfort the individual and provide meaning as he or she transitions through different life stages (Roehlkepartain et al., 2006). Others have argued that spirituality helps individuals, particularly children, cope and provides an impetus for doing good (Roehlkepartain et al., 2006).

Second, stage theories have influenced studies of spiritual development. Perhaps most prominent among stage theories is the view articulated in Fowler’s (1995) Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. Strongly influenced by Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg (Wulff, 1991), Fowler argues that faith development can be parsed into seven stages, beginning with infancy (undifferentiated faith) and continuing well into adulthood, though some stages may not be reached by all (e.g., Stage 6, universalizing faith; Fowler, 1995). Fowler and other stage-theorists are often subject to many of the same criticisms directed toward the work of Piaget, namely a focus on representational cognition and sequential stages, though it should be noted that Fowler’s work has been particularly instrumental in increasing interest in the study of spiritual development (Roehlkepartain et al., 2006).

Third, Roehlkepartain et al. (2006) note that developmental systems theories have been increasingly influential in the study of spiritual development. Particularly important is a focus on the individual, his or her environment, and the interaction between them. Religion and spirituality are of interest to developmental systems theorists because they serve as another lens by which theorists might interpret the psychological development of the individual within his or her context (Roehlkepartain et al., 2006).

Each of these traditions emphasizes different aspects of spiritual development. Psychoanalytic theories may attend to the usefulness of spirituality for resolving inner conflict, and stage theories may attend to how the self and the sacred are reflectively understood over time. These different emphases also impact how spiritual development is defined and structured, and the following section will consider some of these definitions and frameworks.

Definitions and Frameworks of Spiritual Development

Benson, Roehlkepartain, and Rude (2003) define spiritual development as “the process of growing the intrinsic human capacity for self-transcendence, in which the self is embedded in something greater than the self, including the sacred” (p. 205). They further note that it is “the developmental ‘engine’ that propels the search for connectedness, meaning, purpose, and contribution” (p. 205). Here spiritual development emphasizes a system of meaning that incorporates something beyond the individual. Though Benson et al. (2003) note the difficulties of defining a multidimensional construct such as spirituality and aim to counter these problems, their definition does leave several questions remaining. For instance, the term “transcendence” is defined no further than “something greater than the self” (p. 205), and the term “sacred,” though connected to the transcendent, is left largely undefined. The authors note that they desire to ensure the definition is broad enough to encompass much of the field. Though the above definition may accomplish this goal, it may also leave the door open for many possible meanings without further clarification.

Hill et al. (2000) argue that spirituality must include a “search for the sacred” or “something that transcends the self” and has “perceived value independent of the self” (p. 64). They define “search” as “attempts to identify, articulate, maintain, or transform” and define “sacred” as “a divine being, divine object, Ultimate Reality, or Ultimate Truth as perceived by the individual” (p. 66). The authors argue further that society defines what is and what is not sacred, and therefore the sacred “is a socially influenced perception of either some sense of ultimate reality or truth of some divine being/object” (Hill et al., 2000, p. 67). Though still leaving room for much variability within the construct of spirituality, the definition presented by Hill et al. may helpfully narrow psychological study and the authors are careful to note how the “sacred” and an individual’s search for it might be examined.

Somewhat differently, Schnitker, Felke, Barrett, and Emmons (2014) summarize several positions to define three elements of spiritual transformation as “(1) a change in spirituality that is (2) recognized as distinctive by the individual and whereby (3) there is a reprioritization of spiritual goals” (p. 23). Whereas the previous two definitions and others (e.g., Baumeister, 1991; Hood et al., 2009; Paloutzian, 2005; Pargament, 2006) emphasize changes to a meaning-system, Schnitker et al. additionally emphasize a change in reflective thought (e.g., goals), indicating a broader consideration of spiritual change. They note further that spiritual change may occur through intensification or a change in affiliation. Notably, Schnitker et al. included measures for each of the three elements of spiritual transformation they identified, though these measures seem to have relied, at least to a degree, on participants’ definitions of spirituality and their relationship with God. The authors’ inclusion of multiple aspects of spiritual change represent an important step for research on this topic, as their research not only names the multidimensional nature of spirituality but also seeks to measure this nature accordingly.

Furthermore, and important for the argument of this article, Leffel (2011b), in an attempt to produce an even broader understanding of spiritual change, defines spiritual transformation as an “intentional movement toward a moral ideal, aimed primarily at the expansion of one’s motivation and capacity for moral sociability, as envisioned within some meaning system” (p. 42). Here Leffel seeks to incorporate multiple dimensions of change including both upper-level constructs (e.g., worldviews, reasoning, meaning-making) and also lower-level qualities (e.g., intuition, emotion). Leffel argues that though changes in conscious, reflective thoughts are important and should not be ignored, lower-level intuitions more directly influence motivation and actual behavior, in turn more directly influencing spiritual change. Leffel (2011b) goes on to note that the moral ideal, “while always a work-in-progress, nevertheless provides an organizing framework for the selection and implementation of practices of spiritual transformation that differentially target each sociomoral function and system of spiritual transformation” (p. 68). Though this moral ideal may be defined differently by individuals, Leffel’s approach to spiritual transformation may helpfully focus the field and attend to neglected facets of the individual such as moral intuitions. Indeed, further integration between psychology and theology may benefit both fields. The Christian tradition articulates goals of spiritual development, but with greater nuance that attends to different aspects of thought (i.e., both intuitive and reflective thinking) psychologists may better help Christians as they seek to grow. Theologians may in turn strengthen their knowledge of how sanctification takes place in the mind. ¹

For the purposes of the argument in this article, Leffel’s definition of spiritual transformation will be used as a framework for subsequent discussion of spiritual transformation and development. Spiritual transformation, development, and growth are terms used to refer to changes in these aspects of spirituality that are perceived as maturation or progress toward a spiritual ideal. Though Leffel’s definition and model of spiritual transformation certainly have limitations that will be discussed in subsequent sections, this definition helpfully broadens most notions of spirituality and is useful in its ability to incorporate moral intuitions, which are discussed next.

Moral Foundations Theory

One body of research that intersects with spiritual development is the field of moral psychology, and moral foundations theory in particular may bring unique utility to spiritual development frameworks. Moral foundations theory and the social intuitionist model within which this theory is situated can be held in contrast to rationalist models of morality. Rationalist models have traditionally been the focus of moral psychology (Haidt, 2001, 2012) and have largely descended from the work of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg (Haidt, 2001). These models posit that reasoning is the primary method used to discern moral knowledge and make moral judgments (Haidt, 2012). Though affect may influence moral reasoning somewhat, emotion remains secondary (Haidt, 2001). Social intuitionist models argue that intuitive moral thinking precedes and influences reasoning, analogous to an “emotional dog and its rational tail” (Haidt, 2001, p. 814). This section will review the modified nativist position as expressed in Haidt’s moral foundations theory, beginning with an examination of the social intuitionist model and how Haidt’s theory fits within it. An examination of Haidt’s five moral foundations and evidence supporting the theorized existence of these intuitions will then follow.

The Social Intuitionist Model

Haidt’s approach to morality is termed a social intuitionist model because it emphasizes the moral reasoning and enculturation that take place socially as well as the intuitional nature of moral judgment (Haidt & Bjorklund, 2008). This model stands in contrast to the rationalist models mentioned previously, which emphasize the primacy of reasoning. Individual moral reasoning, according to the social intuitionist model, largely provides post-hoc explanations of what has been approved or disapproved by the intuitions, though social reasoning may play a greater role in shaping these intuitions (Haidt & Bjorklund, 2008). Stated differently, rational thought is still important within the social intuitionist model and feedback between intuitive and rational thought certainly takes place, but a much greater emphasis is placed on the importance of intuitive thought in everyday moral decision-making.

This social intuitionist model provides a framework for moral foundations theory. Moral foundations represent what is written on the “first draft” of the mind in that cognition affecting moral behavior is theorized to be present prior to any explicit, deliberate learning, though such cognition may change according to the individual’s culture (Haidt & Joseph, 2008). Haidt’s five moral foundations will be introduced in the following section. ²

Five Moral Foundations

Moral foundations theory proposes that five foundations produce moral intuitions that shape moral decision-making. These five moral foundations are harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity (Graham et al., 2009). Each of these foundations are thought to produce intuitions that rapidly generate “flashes” of approval or disapproval. Such appraisals are made rapidly and often without conscious awareness.

The harm/care foundation was initially proposed based on findings concerning the common human desire to care for others and alleviate harm (Graham et al., 2009). Stimuli such as a child’s cry or the sight of someone in pain may activate intuitions of disapproval and a desire to care for these individuals. Such a foundation may have initially evolved for the sake of caring for children, but may now be extended to the care of animals (Haidt & Joseph, 2004). Similarly, the fairness/reciprocity foundation was also advanced based on a pan-cultural desire for some form of justice and reciprocity. Behavior such as cheating or social loafing may similarly trigger intuitions of disapproval and a desire to punish such behaviors. This foundation may have evolved to detect violators of cooperative ventures, but may now be extended to other perceived injustices such as a broken vending machine’s apparent refusal to reciprocate after being paid (Haidt & Joseph, 2004).

After additional exploration, three other foundations were proposed. The in-group/loyalty foundation is triggered by acts of treachery and facilitates group bonding. The authority/respect foundation is thought to produce intuitions concerning proper behavior for those in hierarchical relationships, further supporting group formation. Finally, the purity/sanctity foundation has been proposed to produce a sensitivity to contaminants, whether biological or social (Graham et al., 2009).

Haidt and Bjorklund (2008) argue that the development of moral foundations is characterized by two main principles: assisted externalization and virtues as constrained social constructions. Assisted externalization refers to morality as something that develops within children according to a similar developmental pattern rather than being internalized by outside forces (Haidt & Bjorklund, 2008). The American game of “cooties” exemplifies this principle. Children consistently begin to play this game at around the same age (8–10 years) as the game is passed down from other children. This consistency is thought to be the product of the developing purity/sanctity foundation (Haidt & Bjorklund, 2008).

Virtues as constrained social constructions refer to moral skills that vary across cultures. This variation is thought to be constrained by moral intuitions. Haidt and Bjorklund argue that virtues are socialized by adults resulting in the “tuning up” of the intuitions, which may result in “further building upon (or weakening of) particular foundations” (p. 25). The process by which these moral foundations are formed requires much further investigation, but the current literature argues that adults and peers are important for the socialization of the virtues built upon these foundations. If this claim is true, religious organizations containing adults and children, such as churches, stand to be influential places of such socialization. For instance, certain churches may foster strong in-group/loyalty virtues, teaching children that certain individuals are morally righteous and ought to be served and protected. Other churches may argue that all people are in-group members, producing virtues that may still be triggered by this intuition but are also much more expansive. Both sets of virtues may rely on the in-group/loyalty foundation for motivation, but the degree to which this is true may vary across traditions.

Evidence for Moral Foundations Theory

A number of studies provide support for moral foundations theory. Graham et al. (2009) examined the moral intuitions used by members of different political ideologies within the United States. Their study found that political liberals used harm/care and fairness/reciprocity intuitions more often when making moral judgments, but political conservatives used all five intuitions when making these judgments. Graham et al. argue that reliance on different intuitions may contribute to political discord, producing what Haidt (2005) terms an “invisible fence.” In a follow-up study, Graham et al. examined theologically liberal and conservative Christian denominations. They examined the words used in sermons from both traditions and found similar patterns (i.e., liberal denominations using words related to two foundations; conservative denominations using words related to all five foundations). Greene and Haidt (2002) find further support for a social intuitionist model in neuroimaging studies that demonstrate the importance of emotion in moral decision-making. Further evidence can be gathered from studies utilizing interviews to discern moral judgments (Haidt et al., 1993; Haidt & Bjorklund, 2008).

Connecting Spiritual Development Frameworks and Moral Foundations Theory

Spiritual development and moral foundations may be usefully integrated and their integration incorporates important—though often neglected—aspects of spirituality (e.g., motivation, intuition) into spiritual development frameworks. While a variety of spiritual development frameworks may certainly be connected to moral foundations theory, perhaps the best suited for this purpose is Leffel’s (Leffel, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) model of spiritual transformation. Leffel argues (2011a) that meaning-systems’ approaches fail to adequately address moral motivation and capacity, while aiming to produce a “multilevel interdisciplinary paradigm” (p. 26) that not only includes several layers of analysis, but is also not reductionist in its examination of spirituality. The following sections will outline Leffel’s framework and his connection of spiritual development to moral foundations theory.

Spiritual Transformation and Moral Sociability

Leffel (2011b) begins building his spiritual development framework by considering the focus or goal of spiritual transformation. Citing Karen Armstrong, Leffel (2011b) notes that religion and spirituality have historically been less concerned with belief and meaning and more concerned with motives, actions, and virtues. Leffel (2011b) argues that moral sociability is the goal of spiritual transformation and that moral sociability specifically targets the investment in and care of “the strengths-development of others” (p. 41). Further moral sociability is more than cooperation with others or the desire to make the individual and others happy in that it aims to work for the moral good of the other. Additionally, moral sociability focuses on more than “what to do or why to do it,” but also on how the individual should invest in others (i.e., the capacity and ability to invest in and care for other people; Leffel, 2011b).

With moral sociability as the goal of spiritual transformation, Leffel (2011b) defines spiritual transformation as follows:

Spiritual transformation encompasses intentional movement toward a moral ideal, aimed primarily at the expansion of one’s motivation and capacity for moral sociability, as envisioned within some meaning system, and whether or not that meaning system is explicitly religious. (p. 42)

Leffel’s (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) model of spiritual transformation contains three systems. First, the motivation and capacity for moral sociability are concerned with the “how-to” of moral sociability. Second, moral direction is concerned with the “know-what” of moral sociability. Third, existential life meaning is concerned with the “what-for” of moral sociability (Leffel, 2011b). ³ These three systems will be considered in relation to moral foundations theory in the following section.

Connecting Moral Foundations Theory and Spiritual Transformation

Moral foundations theory is most prominently featured in the first level of Leffel’s (2011c) model: the intuitive system, which is charged with the motivation and capacity for moral sociability (“how-to knowledge”; Leffel, 2011b). This system contains four domains, the first of which addresses ethical intuitions. These intuitions produce the sudden flashes of approval or disapproval that Haidt articulates. These thoughts precede reasoning and are instantaneous. Leffel uses the example of seeing a scared child. When this child is perceived, the harm/care intuition produces a flash of disapproval and initiates subsequent moral emotions and action (Leffel, 2011c). In order to “tune-up” these intuitions, “activation and repetition in real-world experiences” are required (Leffel, 2011c, p. 91). Efforts to produce these changes through explicit instruction are thought to be less effective than “immersion…in environments rich in virtue exemplars…and in narratives that embody the ethical intuitions valued by a culture, religious tradition, and family” (Leffel, 2011c, p. 91). Following this argument, if, for some reason, an individual’s harm/care intuitions were not activated by a crying child (an unlikely situation), the individual could tune-up this intuition by placing him or herself in environments in which people respond to such stimuli with care.

Moral intuitions may then be amplified by moral emotions (Domain 2 of Leffel’s model; Leffel, 2011c). Moral emotions serve to provide motivation or inhibition for action (Leffel, 2011c). In the case of a crying child in need of help, the harm/care intuition may flash disapproval of the situation, but the following emotions bring about action. Flat affect will likely lead to no assistance, whereas the emotion of compassion may motivate caring behavior. Moral emotions may be developed using “emotionally amplifying practices” (p. 96). Leffel (2011c) uses the example of the practice of loving kindness meditation, which involves meditating on warm emotions toward others and has been found to be successful in amplifying positive emotions that then extend to positive feelings in other contexts.

Following moral emotions are moral virtues and vices (Domains 3 and 4). Moral virtues function as instructions for how the individual is to act once an intuition has been activated and an emotion has been sufficiently amplified, whereas moral vices inhibit the action of these virtues. Improving the enactment of moral sociability thus requires the strengthening of moral virtues and weakening of moral vices. Such development may occur through the rehearsal of these virtuous skills (Leffel, 2011c).

Leffel’s (2011c) second system, the reasoning system (“know-what knowledge”; Leffel, 2011b), contains another three domains: moral values, moral reasoning, and moral will. Though the intuitive system may be primary in its influence on moral sociability, the reasoning system should certainly not be ignored and does influence the intuitive system. Moral values represent different “standards, rules, and goals” and may be developed through a process of clarification and prioritization. Leffel further notes that much religious education targets moral values. Moral reasoning represents the ability to reflectively consider these values and different available actions. Though not used as frequently as rationalist models propose, Leffel argues that this domain is important and may be developed by “sharpening” reasoning skills. Lastly, the moral will may be equated with “willpower” or self-control. This domain functions to initiate or inhibit positive or negative action and may be developed by actions that increase or build self-regulation (Leffel, 2011c).

Leffel’s (2011c) final system, the ideological narrative (“what-for knowledge”; Leffel, 2011b), contains a single domain, the moral identity as situated in a cosmic or sacred story. This system provides a meta-narrative and may assist decision-making when different intuitions or virtues conflict. This broad domain may be portrayed as a story or worldview within which the individual finds his or her place. Development of this domain involves the integration of the self into such a narrative (Leffel, 2011c).

Leffel’s (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) model provides educators, theologians, and psychologists with a framework for understanding how different aspects of spirituality may be developed and how these aspects of spirituality may not always align (e.g., intuition and reasoning). Rather than focusing singularly or primarily on a narrative or worldview, or on reflective reasoning, Leffel incorporates intuition, emotion, and habit alongside reasoning and identity. Using Leffel’s model, educators, theologians, and psychologists may develop a common language to discuss spiritual development more precisely and discern what aspects of spirituality are being developed by different spiritual practices (e.g., prayer, fasting, church attendance).

Limitations of Leffel’s Model

While Leffel’s (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) model is certainly more comprehensive than other models and considers a variety of approaches to spiritual development, some limitations must be considered. Several of these limitations spring from problems that may implicitly emerge when integrating psychology and theology. For instance, some may question the degree to which psychological studies of spiritual development can investigate the aims of sanctification. Leffel’s (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) focus on moral sociability may be overly reductionistic, and a gap between the goals of moral sociability and the goals of sanctification may require further examination. Similarly, the model utilized by Leffel (2011b) may be questioned, particularly the degree to which this model can extend to a relationship with gods or God. Leffel (2011b) argues that religion is a “means to create moral community” (p. 36), but some may wonder whether beliefs in and relationships with divine beings must also be a means to create moral community. Furthermore, some may wonder about the role of the Holy Spirit in spiritual development, and the Spirit’s involvement in the process of spiritual development may raise questions about non-Christian spiritual development.

Implications for Christian Education

Despite these limitations, Leffel’s (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) model brings utility to conversations on spiritual development because it broadens conceptions of what may grow or change in one’s spiritual life. Notions of spirituality that focus primarily on a spiritual narrative may result in development that shapes an individual’s identity, but fails to shape their instincts and emotions. By contrast, notions of spirituality that focus primarily on shaping instincts and emotions may result in formation that fails to provide a broader narrative that provides “what-for knowledge” (Leffel, 2011b) when instincts and values conflict. Even if Leffel’s (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) focus on moral sociability is considered too narrow or reductionistic, the systems and domains utilized by Leffel may still be used to broaden conceptions of spirituality. Using Leffel’s (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) model, both theologians and psychologists may better attend to the multidimensional nature of spirituality and faith.

Accordingly, Christian educators may benefit from two immediate and related applications of such work: (1) an improved ability to evaluate ministry practices, and (2) improved definitions and goals for formational ministries. First, leaders may use Leffel’s systems and domains as a rubric to consider what their ministry is forming within individuals. If a ministry is primarily characterized by preaching, teaching, reading, and memorization, that ministry may form the identity and values of the individual but fail to form other dimensions. If a ministry singularly emphasizes apologetics, it may primarily form individuals’ ability to reason. If a ministry largely focuses on the experience of worship, it may be forming emotions but missing other important qualities. It is unlikely that any ministry activity exclusively forms a single domain, but it may be the case that these activities primarily form some domains while under-developing others. Evaluating ministry activities in this manner may enable leaders to consider how their activities could be more holistic. Preaching and teaching could still be emphasized, but perhaps additional activities could be considered (e.g., times for discussion, opportunities for critical thinking and questions).

Second and related, models of spiritual transformation may help Christian educators define approaches to discipleship and give language to the goals and mission of discipleship-focused organizations. Both scholars and practitioners may broadly define discipleship as “following Christ” or “growing spiritually” but without further detail, these definitions may be too unclear to put into practice. Leffel’s model may help leaders consider how following Christ impacts each of the dimensions noted above. For instance, leaders may explicitly name ministry goals connected to forming a Christian identity and narrative (Domain 8 in Leffel’s model), the ability to think critically about one’s faith (Domain 6), and a deeper love for Christ (Domain 2). More specific discipleship or spiritual formation definitions and goals may in turn improve leaders’ ability to pursue those goals and train others to do the same.