This article presents the Religious Schema Scale (RSS). Its conceptual background is the model of religious styles. After a conceptual discussion of the relation between religious styles and religious schemata, the steps of scale construction are reported. Based on 822 responses from research participants in the United States and Germany to a preliminary 78-item version, we used construct-oriented iterative and factor-analytic procedures for reducing the RSS to a 15-item version that consists of three 5-item subscales with acceptable reliabilities. Confirmatory factor analysis indicates that the RSS has a robust 3-factor structure, which is cross-culturally valid in both the United States and Germany. We report correlations of the RSS with the Big Five, Psychological Well-Being, Religious Fundamentalism, and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. We also present predictive characteristics of the RSS in regard to Fowler's stages of faith. Finally, we report results on the incremental validity of the RSS.Correspondence should be sent to

Abstract:There is a multitude of instruments for measuring religiosity/spirituality. Many of these questionnaires are used or even were developed in the context of studies about the connection between religiosity/spirituality and health. Thus, it seems crucial to note that measures can focus on quite different components along a hypothetical path between stressors and health. We present an instructive model which helps to identify these different components and allows the categorization of instruments of religiosity/spirituality according to their primary measurement intention: intensity/centrality, resources, needs, coping, and quality of life/well-being. Furthermore, we point out possibilities as to how religiosity and spirituality can be differentiated. We argue that the distinction between religiosity and spirituality is important in countries with a more secular background where a growing number of people identify themselves as "spiritual, but not religious".

The most widely accepted definition of atheism is substantive in nature: Atheism is characterized by the denial of the existence of God, whereas agnosticism is characterized by skepticism about, or bracketing of, the existence of God, the construction of worldview and identity without any assumption that there is

SummaryCulturally different connotations of basic concepts challenge the comparative study of religion. Do persons in Germany or in the United States refer to the same concepts when talking about 'spirituality' and 'religion'? Does it make a difference how they identify themselves? The Bielefeld-Chattanooga Cross-Cultural Study on 'Spirituality' includes a semantic differential approach for the comparison of self-identified "neither religious nor spiritual", "religious", and "spiritual" persons regarding semantic attributes attached to the concepts 'religion' and 'spirituality' in each research context. Results show that 'spirituality' is used as a broader concept than 'religion'. Regarding religion, semantics attributed by self-identified religious persons differ significantly from those of the spiritual persons. The 'spiritual' and the 'religious' groups agree on semantics attributed to spirituality but differ from the 'neither spiritual nor religious' group. Qualifications of differences and agreements become visible from the comparison between the United States and Germany. It is argued for the semantically sensitive study of culturally situated 'spiritualities'.

No abstract

No abstract

An attitude of openness and consideration, knowledge about the relations between religion and mental health, and ideological competence allow a sensible exploration of patients' religious beliefs, a cautious integration of religious issues and, if possible, the use of the beliefs as a resource for treatment. Thereby, medical caregivers should be aware of the limitations of their treatment.

No abstract