Objective: This bibliometric study audits three key psychology of religion/spirituality (R/S) journals and draws on results to advance the psychology of R/S field broadly. Method: We identified all English-language articles published in Archive for the Psychology of Religion (APR; 1962–2022, k = 370), International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (IJPR; 1991–2022, k = 845), and Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (PRS; 2008–2022, k = 587) through March 1, 2022. For those 1,802 articles, we coded article features, citation counts, and utilized open science practices. Results: Collectively, 63% were empirical articles (37% nonempirical). The median sample size (average N-pact factor) was 263 and median citation count was 1 in PsycINFO and 11 in Google Scholar. Among the 1,509 empirical studies, 90% used a quantitative-only analytic method (6% qualitative-only, 4% mixed-methods), 76% utilized a cross-sectional design (14% experimental, 10% longitudinal or longitudinal/experimental), 43% recruited student samples (52% community-adult, 6% clinical, 9% youth-inclusive samples), and 57% were conducted solely in the United States (36% elsewhere, 7% internationally). Power analyses indicated the average psychology of R/S study was higher powered than the average study in premier social–personality, clinical psychology, and sport–exercise psychology journals. Like many journals, these psychology of R/S journals demonstrated recently accelerating utilization of most open science practices (preregistration, open data, and open materials) but not open access publishing. Conclusion: The psychology of R/S field is poised to make significant scientific and societal contributions, especially as it embraces open science practices; increased geographical, cultural, and methodological diversity; and enhanced scientific quality and rigor.

The purpose of this chapter is to synthesize and critique the research on positive psychology and psychology of religion/spirituality (R/S) that has been conducted in Europe, non-US North America (Canada and Central America), and South America. In light of the importance of considering cultural differences and similarities across religions and continents, this chapter synthesizes how cultural factors may affect research and practice on positive psychology and the psychology of R/S in these regions of the world. We start with a brief overview of the sociocultural and religious backdrop of these regions. Then we turn to review the main findings in each area, specifying how and what topics have been emphasized in the research on positive psychology and R/S. Finally, we consider practical implications for research and clinical practice, as well as some gaps in the current literature and future directions for research.

In this chapter, we review the literature on religion/spirituality (R/S) and the twin virtues of humility and gratitude. We focused on articles that were published in peer-reviewed journals and included both a measure of religion/spirituality and humility or gratitude. We focus our review by exploring two questions: (1) how is R/S associated with humility and gratitude, and (2) how might humility and gratitude work in tandem (consistent with the social oil hypothesis of humility)? We found cross-sectional evidence linking R/S and humility and gratitude. Additional work is needed to test the recent theory on how humility and gratitude may work together to promote and protect strong relationships, especially at the collective level. We suggest ways to catalyze research in this area, including the potential for future work aligning humility and gratitude. We also identify implications for practice both in clinical settings and religious communities.

In this chapter, we synthesize the content of this Handbook and call for scientists and practitioners to devote focused attention to the intersections of positive psychology, religion, and spirituality. First, we summarize key themes from the Handbook’s sections and chapters. We highlight deficiencies that are currently inhibiting progress at the intersections of positive psychology and the psychology of religion and spirituality. Finally, to address these deficiencies, we conclude the Handbook by proposing an integrated field—the positive psychology of religion and spirituality—and then offer a prospectus for guiding science and practice in this unified field.

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the role of core dimensions of theistic relational spirituality (doctrinal God representations, experiential God representations, and doctrinal–experiential congruence) in divine spiritual struggles among Christians engaging in spiritually integrated psychotherapies. In total, 189 clients completed a modified version of Johnson et al.’s (2015) A/B God Scales as well as quantitative and qualitative assessments of divine spiritual struggles. When accounting for religious commitment and depression symptoms as covariates, clients with stronger authoritarian and benevolent representations of God were more and less likely, respectively, to be experiencing spiritual struggles (assessed with Exline et al.’s 2014 Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale [RSS]). In addition, doctrinal–experiential discrepancy in benevolent God representations was associated with RSS scores as well as qualitative themes reflecting ways in which religious attachment provided comfort (e.g., stronger relationship with God, finding meaning or purpose, seeking support from God) and/or strain (e.g., disconnect or strain with God, feeling punished by God, reappraisal of divine power) in clients’ lives. Specifically, clients who endorsed greater theological or conceptual knowledge of a loving God relative to their felt experience of divine love, on average, reported more spiritual struggles and were less able to draw comfort from their religious attachment bond at the time of the study. Findings affirm the need for further research on doctrinal–experiential congruence and support the value of clinicians conducting spiritually integrated psychotherapies with Christians to adequately attend to benevolent and authoritarian God representations that might facilitate or hinder their clients’ progress in treatment.