Abstract:The Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale (RSS) measures important psychological constructs in an underemphasized section of the overlap between religion and well-being. Are religious/spiritual struggles distinct from religiousness, distress, and each other? To test the RSS' internal discriminant validity, we replicated the original six-factor measurement model across five large samples (N = 5705) and tested the fit of a restricted bifactor model, which supported the mutual viability of multidimensional and unidimensional scoring systems for the RSS. Additionally, we explored a bifactor model with correlated group factors that exhibited optimal fit statistics. This model maintained the correlations among the original factors while extracting a general factor from the RSS. This general factor's strong correlations with religious participation and belief salience suggested that this factor resembles religiousness itself. Estimating this general factor seemed to improve Demonic and Moral struggles' independence from religiousness, but did not change any factor's correlations with neuroticism, depression, anxiety, and stress. These distress factors correlated with most of the independent group factors corresponding to the original dimensions of the RSS, especially Ultimate Meaning and Divine struggles. These analyses demonstrate the discriminant validity of religious/spiritual struggles and the complexity of their relationships with religiousness and distress.

Religious and spiritual struggles (R/S struggles)-tension or conflicts regarding religious or spiritual matters-have been robustly linked to greater psychological distress and lower well-being. Most research in this area has relied on samples consisting predominantly of participants who believe in god(s). Limited research has examined R/S struggles among atheists, generally conflating them with agnostics and other nontheists. This study investigated the prevalence of R/S struggles among atheists and compared atheists to theists in two samples (3978 undergraduates, 1048 Internet workers).Results of a multilevel model showed that atheists experience less demonic, doubt, divine, moral, and overall R/S struggles than theists, but similar levels of interpersonal and ultimate meaning struggles. Correlation and regression analyses among atheists demonstrated links between moral, ultimate meaning, and overall R/S struggles and greater distress (depression and anxiety symptoms) as well as lower well-being (life satisfaction and meaning in life). Even after controlling neuroticism, ultimate meaning struggles continued to predict lower well-being and higher distress across samples; moral struggles also predicted distress independently. This study demonstrates the relevance of R/S struggles to atheists and reinforces the applicability of previous results to atheist samples, but also highlights substantial differences between atheists and theists in certain R/S struggles.

Research exploring nonbelievers' reasons for not believing in the existence of god(s) has focused on theory development. Such efforts are valuable, but may not capture the lived experiences of nonbelievers. The current two studies quantitatively examined nonbelievers' self-reported reasons for nonbelief through developing the Reasons of Atheists and Agnostics for Nonbelief in God's Existence Scale (RANGES). We developed an initial pool of 64 items using prior published research, revised by a panel of experts including researchers and thought leaders in nonbelief communities. Both studies included participants from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (Study 1 & 2 Ns ϭ 520 & 369), all of whom reported not believing in god(s). In Study 1, our exploratory factor analysis suggested nine factors across 35 items. In Study 2, we confirmed the nine-factor structure using 38 items (35 from Study 1 plus three new items for better coverage of factors with few items) with adequate fit. Across both studies, the RANGES subscales showed good reliability, convergent validity (e.g., positive correlations with previous lists of reasons for religious doubt), predictive validity (e.g., positive and negative feelings toward God and religion), and discriminant validity (e.g., subscales were not unexpectedly associated with other measures). Our 1-year follow-up with a subset of Study 2 participants (N ϭ 132) found different levels of stability among the RANGES subscales. This measure can promote further understanding the motivations, identities, and experiences of nonbelievers across cultures.

Can people who do not believe in a god or gods still be influenced by past or present emotional reactions to the concept of a deity? We asked self-labeled atheists (Study 1) and individuals holding atheistic and agnostic views (Study 2) to rate the extent to which their nonbelief was based on negative past relational experiences or negative current views regarding the character of a hypothetical god or gods. Among nonbelievers who reported some history of relational emotion toward or from a god or gods (76% in Study 1, N ϭ 171; 89% in Study 2, N ϭ 429), relational reasons for nonbelief were endorsed by more than half of participants (54% in Study 1 and 72% in Study 2). Among participants with a history of emotion surrounding a god or gods, self-reported importance of relational reasons for nonbelief correlated with other indicators of negative, but not positive, attitudes and past experiences regarding a god or gods. Importance of relational reasons for nonbelief also correlated with other personality factors that tend to interfere with relationship quality, including insecure adult attachment styles, entitlement, and trait anger. Nonbelievers reported that relational reasons for nonbelief were far less important than intellectual reasons for nonbelief. However, these findings suggest that, for some nonbelievers, negative relational experiences with or conceptions of gods are seen as a somewhat important reason for not believing in gods.

, D. F. (2018). Examining links between post-traumatic stress and gambling motives: The role of positive gambling expectancies.