This article focused on how perceptions of intellectual humility (IH)-humility regarding one's knowledge or influence over ideas-affect relationships with religious leaders. We developed an informant report measure of IH perceptions using exploratory (Study 1; N = 213) and confirmatory (Study 2; N = 213) factor analyses, as well as a basic manipulation of IH (Study 3; N = 139). Then in Study 4 (N = 105), we examined IH in the context of a major betrayal by a religious leader (i.e., aligning with several factors theorized to strain the practice of IH). The results provide preliminary evidence for the psychometric soundness of the scale, including reliability and content validity of the scores. The scale was able to distinguish between IH and other constructs. Furthermore, the results provide initial evidence that IH is related to social bonds, as perceptions of IH were related to trust and higher forgiveness toward the religious leader, and positive attitudes towards the Sacred.

No abstract

Moral foundations theory (Graham & Haidt, 2010) has been the dominant theory of morality within social psychology for the last decade, and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham, Nosek, Haidt, Iyer, Koleva, & Ditto, 2011) is currently the only multi-item measure to study moral foundations theory. Although previous studies have suggested that the MFQ subscales are associated with religiosity, basic research has not yet established whether the measure is understood in the same way by believing and nonbelieving individuals. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine whether the MFQ (and specifically the purity/sanctity subscale) is understood in the same way by these 2 groups. We predicted that the purity/sanctity subscale would not demonstrate strong (i.e., scalar) invariance. Across 2 samples, we found support for configural and metric invariance and problems with scalar invariance. These results suggest that between-groups differences observed in previous studies may be due to measurement artifacts.

In this article, we develop and validate a measure of spiritual fortitude (SF). SF is defined as a character trait enabling people to endure and make redemptive meaning from adversity through their sacred connections with God, others, and themselves. Method: First, we summarize its conceptual distinctions from related constructs such as grit, hardiness, and resilience. Then, in three independent studies (N ϭ 1,104), we provide evidence for a three-factor SF Scale (SFS-9), consisting of subscales labeled Spiritual Endurance, Spiritual Enterprise, and Redemptive Purpose. Results: In Study 1 (N ϭ 410), an exploratory factor analysis revealed three SFS-9 subscales, each of which demonstrated evidence of internal consistency. Study 2 (N ϭ 393) confirmed this factor structure on a separate sample and provided additional evidence for internal consistency. In Study 3 (N ϭ 301), we present evidence of its discriminant, convergent, and incremental validity. SFS-9 scores predicted variance in meaning in life, spiritual well-being, religious coping, and adversity-related anxiety, above and beyond the contribution of grit and resilience. Conclusions: Spiritual fortitude appears to be a useful construct in understanding the process of adjusting to, and thriving, in the midst of adversity, suffering, and trauma. Future hypotheses and research directions are provided to catalyze work in this new area of inquiry. Clinical Impact StatementUnderstanding the role of spiritual fortitude in responding to adversity should help clinicians work with clients who have endured trauma or distress draw from their spiritual resources and potentially find meaning in the wake of suffering.

No abstract