Psychological Reports: Mental & Physical Health 2013, 112, 3, 706-715. © Psychological Reports 2013
SPIRITUALITY AND PERSONALITY: UNDERSTANDING THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO HEALTH RESILIENCE1 MELISSA N. WOMBLE, ELISE E. LABBÉ, AND C. RYAN COCHRAN University of South Alabama
Summary.—A growing body of research suggests there are important relationships among spirituality, certain personality traits, and health (organismic) resilience. In the present study, 83 college students from two southeastern universities completed a demographic questionnaire, the NEO Five Factor Inventory, and the Resilience Questionnaire. The Organismic resilience and Relationship with something greater subscales of the Resilience Questionnaire were used for analyses. Health resilience was associated with four of the Big Five personality variables and the spirituality score. Health resilience was positively correlated with ratings of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and spirituality and negatively correlated with neuroticism. Forty-three percent of the variance of the health resilience score was accounted for by two of the predictor variables: spirituality and neuroticism. These findings are consistent with the literature and provide further support for the idea that spirituality and health protective personality characteristics are related to and may promote better health resilience.
The Big Five personality traits include neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to new experience (Costa & McRae, 1992). An extensive research of the literature suggests that these personality traits may serve as important risk or protective factors for health and illness (Labbé & Fobes, 2009). Because of the extensive nature of the research in this area, we will provide a brief summary of the findings in regards to personality characteristics and health and illness. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to new experience tend to be related to better health, better response to treatment, and lower illness and mortality rates (Taylor, 2008; Labbé, & Fobes, 2009). Neuroticism, on the other hand, tends to be associated with poorer health, response to treatment, and higher illness and mortality rates. Therefore, research has suggested that agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to new experience might be considered health-protective personality traits (Ong, Bergeman, & Boker; 2009; Labbé, Womble, Shenesey, 2011). These traits could serve as important protective factors for health and illness, whereas neuroticism might be considered a health risk (Simpson, Newman, & Fuqua, 2007). Address correspondence to Elise E. Labbé, Department of Psychology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688 or e-mail ([email protected]). 1
DOI 10.2466/02.07.PR0.112.3.706-715
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 706
ISSN 0033-2941
21/08/13 5:20 PM
SPIRITUALITY, PERSONALITY, AND RESILIENCE
707
A review of the research on health and spirituality suggests that people who rate themselves higher on spirituality also tend to have better health, less illness, better treatment response, and lower mortality rates than people who rate themselves lower on spirituality (Sherman & Plante, 2001; Oman, Hedberg, & Thoresen, 2006). Labbé and Fobbes (2009) found statistically significant differences between self-reported low, average, and high spirituality and the personality traits of neuroticism (p < .001), extraversion (p = .007), agreeableness (p = .001), and conscientiousness (p = .001). A metaanalytic study reported positive correlations with ratings of spirituality and the personality traits of extraversion (0.15), agreeableness (0.15), conscientiousness (.14), and openness (0.22) and a negative correlation with ratings of neuroticism (–0.09; Saroglou, 2001). Although many researchers have examined the relation between spirituality and health, it is common for spirituality and religiosity to be viewed as interchangeable; so it is difficult to determine what is being measured in these studies (Pargament, 1999; Richards & Bergin, 2005). The focus here was spirituality, not religiosity. Although researchers have struggled to differentiate the concepts of spirituality and religiosity, some researchers have found support for two independent concepts. For example, Saucier and Skrzypinska (2006) found that spirituality and religiosity are independent constructs associated with different personality traits. For the purposes of this study, spirituality was operationally defined as the feeling of being connected to something greater than one’s self. Religiosity was defined as devotion to a particular set of religious beliefs or identification with a particular religious orientation. In accord with this definition of spirituality, Wink, Ciciolla, Dillon, and Tracy (2007) suggested that spirituality represents a “… cultural shift in America toward a more individualized understanding of religion and religious authority – the freedom to define oneself as spiritual but not religious and to negotiate a spiritual identity using non-church centered practices” (p. 1055). Consistent with the present definition of religiosity, Zinnbauer, Pargament, Cole, Rye, Butter, Belavich, et al. (2001) suggested that religiosity is “…formally structured and [involves being] identified with religious institutions and prescribed theology and rituals” (p. 551). Even though spirituality and religiosity have been found to be two independent concepts, people often report themselves to be spiritual and religious, which illustrates the difficulty of differentiating them (Pargament, 1999). Research shows that spirituality is positively related to agreeableness and conscientiousness and negatively with neuroticism (Saroglou, 2001; Wink, et al., 2007). When considering the above definition of spirituality as a feeling of being connected to something greater than one’s self, those who tend to be spiritual may also be more agreeable because they believe that something greater is guiding their way through life (Piedmont,
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 707
21/08/13 5:20 PM
708
M. N. WOMBLE, ET AL.
1999). Therefore, they are more resilient and willing to accept the possibility of other solutions, alternatives, methods, etc. when confronting problems. Similarly, human beings scoring high on spirituality also tend to be more conscientious, perhaps because these people feel that they are living to please or impress something greater and to fulfill the expectations of a higher calling. To accomplish these expectations, they perform daily routines and obligations in a conscientious manner. On the other hand, spirituality is negatively correlated with neuroticism. People who rate themselves high on neuroticism tend to experience negative emotional states - such as anxiety, depression, and anger. Therefore the traits and perceptions associated with being spiritual might be related to underlying variables, including agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, which affect health. As mentioned previously, spirituality has also been found to predict health outcome. It is thought that beliefs about spirituality can help human beings find meaning and greater understanding of what their purpose is, essentially encouraging better mental and physical health (Saucier & Skrzypinska, 2006). These authors suggest that spiritual ideas “…may provide a buffer against mortality-based anxiety, enhancing a sense of safety and security, and they may satisfy needs for a purpose in life, anchoring a sense of what is right and wrong” (p. 1258). Essentially, spiritual beliefs may protect people from engaging in dangerous, attention-seeking activities such as abusing drugs and alcohol (Hill, Pargament, Hood, McCullough, Syers, Larson, et al., 2000) to please something greater than themselves and fulfill their purpose in life. Spiritual beliefs may also prevent people from feeling insecure or lonely, which could result in depression, anxiety, obesity, etc.; again, because spiritual human beings find meaning for their lives and feel more connected with others than those who report being less spiritual. For example, Tloczynzki, Knoll, and Fitch (1997) found that undergraduate students who rated themselves higher on spirituality were more able to manage negative feelings like rage, anxiety, or depression than those who rated themselves lower on spirituality. Overall, the feeling of connectedness seems to allow people to feel worthy and needed, leading them to live a healthier lifestyle as a result of possessing more underlying health-protective personality traits (i.e., agreeableness and conscientiousness) that affect health. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the association between personality, spirituality, and health (organismic) resilience within one population at the same time. Most researchers to date have examined spirituality and health outcomes or spirituality and personality, but not all three within the same sample. Hypothesis 1. Health resilience would be positively correlated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, and spirituality scores and would demonstrate a medium to large effect size.
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 708
21/08/13 5:20 PM
SPIRITUALITY, PERSONALITY, AND RESILIENCE
709
Hypothesis 2. Health resilience would be negatively correlated with neuroticism and would demonstrate a medium effect size. Hypothesis 3. Spirituality would be the best positive predictor of health resilience and would demonstrate a large effect size. Hypothesis 4. Neuroticism would be the best negative predictor of health resilience and would demonstrate a large effect size. METHOD Participants Participants were 83 undergraduate and graduate students recruited from the University of South Alabama (81.9% of participants) and Southeastern Louisiana University (18.1% of participants). All participants volunteered to participate on their own time. However, 44 (53.0%) did not receive course credit for their participation, whereas 39 (47.0%) received course credit for their participation in the study. No statistically significant demographic differences were found between those participants who received or did not receive credit for their participation and the data were combined for the current study. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 42 years with a mean age of 21.7 yr. (SD = 3.6). The sample was composed of 63.9% (53) women and 36.1% (30) men. Results showed that 33.7% of the participants were Euro-American, 31.3% were African-American, 12.0% were Asian, 2.4% were Hispanic, 2.4% were Native American, and 18.1% (15) indicated Other. Year in school data was as follows: 32.5% were freshmen, 19.3% were sophomores, 21.7% were juniors, 15.7% were seniors, and 10.8% were first year graduate students. The Institutional Review Board of the authors’ university approved the study and the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association were followed in conducting the study. Materials and Procedure Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised, and the Resilience Questionnaire (RQ). Demographic questionnaire.—The demographic questionnaire, designed by the principal author, was used to collect personal information. All participants were asked to report their age, sex, race, school, academic year, marital status, employment information, and how many hours and days a week they typically exercise. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI). Form S.—Constructed by Costa and McCrae (1992), the NEO is a measure of the Big Five personality factors. This form is as a shorter version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI). The NEO–FFI is a 60-item self-report survey in which 12 items are used to assess each domain. The items are statements to
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 709
21/08/13 5:20 PM
710
M. N. WOMBLE, ET AL.
which response is made on a 5-point Likert-type scale using anchors of 1: Strongly Disagree and 5: Strongly Agree. The participants’ ratings on the 12 items were then summed by domain. These total ratings were subjected to analyses. Correlations for the NEO–FFI were lower than those for the NEO-PI–R, but are considered internally consistent and valid. Coefficients for three-month retest reliability were .79, .79, .80, .75, and .83 for Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscienciousness, respectively, in a college sample (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Resilience Questionnaire.—Constructed by Sideroff (2004) to assess nine components of resilience, namely physiological, emotional, cognitive, relationship with self, relationship with others, relationships with something greater, presence, flexibility, and power. The Resilience Questionnaire Part 1 has 40 self-report items for the nine components of resilience. Each item was rated on a four-point Likert-type scale with anchors of 0: Not at all true and 3: Very true. Summary ratings by subscale formed a total score for that category. These scores are then grouped into three different main resilience categories of organismic, relational, and process. The organismic category includes the subcategories of physiological, emotional, and cognitive balance. The organismic rating was the measure of health resilience for this study. The relational category includes subcategories of relationship with self, with others, and with something greater. The process category includes the subcategories of presence, flexibility, and power. Main category scores were obtained by adding together the subcategory total scores. The overall resilience score is the sum of three main category scores. For the purposes of this study the Relationship with something greater subcategory was utilized as the measure of spirituality. Relationship with Something Greater scale.—The ‘relationship with something greater’ subcategory of the Resilience Questionnaire, created by Sideroff (2004), was used as a measure of spirituality. This scale has two dimensions: perspective and connection. Items are rated on a scale anchored by 0: Not at all true and 3: Very true. Questions from this scale include: “I find purpose in my life,” “I am committed to giving service,” “I have a hard time sticking to my commitments”, and “I have a basic enjoyment and love of life.” Procedure A male and female psychology undergraduate student administered the demographic questionnaire, the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO– FFI), and the Resilience Questionnaire (RQ) to the two samples of participants. For those participants who received course credit for participating, data collection was conducted in groups in a classroom setting. For those who did not receive credit for participation, data were collected conducted in groups in an outdoor setting, free of distractions. On arrival participants
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 710
21/08/13 5:20 PM
SPIRITUALITY, PERSONALITY, AND RESILIENCE
711
were provided with informed consent. After completing informed consent and electing to participate they received brief instructions and were given a packet of tests. They took approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete the surveys. The primary student-investigator and the co-investigator scored the surveys. Data were then entered into PASW Statistics 18 for further analysis. RESULTS Pearson product-moment correlations were computed for the five personality variables with the health (organismic) resilience and spirituality scores. In Table 1 are descriptive statistics and correlations among scores on the spirituality, personality, and health resilience measures. Applying a Bonferroni adjustment (p = .05/21 = .002) was required for statistical significance. Of the 21 correlations, nine were statistically significant at p = .002, ranging from .34 to .57. Health resilience was statistically significantly correlated with ratings on four of the Big Five personality domains. Values were positively correlated with health resilience for Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and negatively correlated for Neuroticism. A statistically significant correlation was found for health resilience and spirituality. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well the NEO personality variables and spirituality score predicted the health resilience score. The predictors were the five personality variables and the spirituality score, while the criterion variable was the health resilience score. The linear combination of personality variables and spirituality score was statistically significantly related to the health resilience score (F6,76 = 12.23, p < .001). The multiple correlation coefficient was .70, indicating that approximately 45.0% of the variance of the health resilience score in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of ratings for personality variables and spirituality. In Table 2, indices portraying the strength of the individual predictors are presented. Spirituality and neuroticism were statistically significant. To identify which predictor variables should be included in the model, a second multiple regression analysis utilizing the stepwise method was conducted. With the stepwise method, a statistically significant model emerged (F2,80 = 32.37, p < .001). The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .67, indicating that approximately 43.0% of the variance of the health resilience score can be accounted for by predictor variables of spirituality and neuroticism. Model 1, which only included neuroticism, accounted for 31.3% of the variance. The inclusion of spirituality into Model 2 resulted in an additional 12.6% of the variance being explained. Table 3 provides information on predictor variables included in the model and excluding
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 711
21/08/13 5:20 PM
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 712
24.51
5. Conscientiousness
6. Organismic resilience
9.60
49.69
4. Agreeableness
7. Spirituality score *p ≤ .002.
49.29
47.25
3. Openness
56.24
2. Extraversion
M
50.04
1. Neuroticism
Measure
2.22
6.43
9.78
11.38
9.12
9.39
11.57
SD
9
30
47
49
49
39
45
Range
3
8
24
23
25
34
30
Min.
12
38
71
72
74
73
75
Max.
.66
.77
.75
.68
.55
.64
.84
α –.30
2 .16
–.21
3
.08
.31
–.29
4
.34*
–.12
.23
–.40*
5
.49*
.34*
.16
.36*
–.57*
6
TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND PEARSON INTERCORRELATIONS FOR RATINGS ON PERSONALITY, SPIRITUALITY, AND HEALTH RESILIENCE MEASURES 7
.54*
.51*
.31
.12
.31
–.37*
712 M. N. WOMBLE, ET AL.
21/08/13 5:20 PM
713
SPIRITUALITY, PERSONALITY, AND RESILIENCE TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF REGRESSION OF PERSONALITY AND SPIRITUALITY MEASURES PREDICTING HEALTH RESILIENCE Variable B Spirituality .77 Neuroticism* –.19 Extraversion .07 Openness to new experiences .04 Agreeableness .05 Conscientiousness .11 Note.—R2 = .49 (N = 83, p < .001). *p ≤ .001.
β .27 –.34 .11 .05 .09 .16
SE B .29 .05 .06 .06 .05 .07
t 2.63 –3.50 1.21 0.57 0.92 1.48
p .01 .001 .23 .57 .36 .14
TABLE 3 STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR INCLUDED VARIABLES PREDICTING HEALTH RESILIENCE Variable B SE B Neuroticism* –0.24 0.05 Spirituality* 1.11 0.26 Note.—R2 = .45 (N = 83, p < .001). *p ≤ .001.
β –0.42 0.38
t –4.73 4.27
p
SPIRITUALITY AND PERSONALITY: UNDERSTANDING THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO HEALTH RESILIENCE1 MELISSA N. WOMBLE, ELISE E. LABBÉ, AND C. RYAN COCHRAN University of South Alabama
Summary.—A growing body of research suggests there are important relationships among spirituality, certain personality traits, and health (organismic) resilience. In the present study, 83 college students from two southeastern universities completed a demographic questionnaire, the NEO Five Factor Inventory, and the Resilience Questionnaire. The Organismic resilience and Relationship with something greater subscales of the Resilience Questionnaire were used for analyses. Health resilience was associated with four of the Big Five personality variables and the spirituality score. Health resilience was positively correlated with ratings of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and spirituality and negatively correlated with neuroticism. Forty-three percent of the variance of the health resilience score was accounted for by two of the predictor variables: spirituality and neuroticism. These findings are consistent with the literature and provide further support for the idea that spirituality and health protective personality characteristics are related to and may promote better health resilience.
The Big Five personality traits include neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to new experience (Costa & McRae, 1992). An extensive research of the literature suggests that these personality traits may serve as important risk or protective factors for health and illness (Labbé & Fobes, 2009). Because of the extensive nature of the research in this area, we will provide a brief summary of the findings in regards to personality characteristics and health and illness. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to new experience tend to be related to better health, better response to treatment, and lower illness and mortality rates (Taylor, 2008; Labbé, & Fobes, 2009). Neuroticism, on the other hand, tends to be associated with poorer health, response to treatment, and higher illness and mortality rates. Therefore, research has suggested that agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to new experience might be considered health-protective personality traits (Ong, Bergeman, & Boker; 2009; Labbé, Womble, Shenesey, 2011). These traits could serve as important protective factors for health and illness, whereas neuroticism might be considered a health risk (Simpson, Newman, & Fuqua, 2007). Address correspondence to Elise E. Labbé, Department of Psychology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688 or e-mail ([email protected]). 1
DOI 10.2466/02.07.PR0.112.3.706-715
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 706
ISSN 0033-2941
21/08/13 5:20 PM
SPIRITUALITY, PERSONALITY, AND RESILIENCE
707
A review of the research on health and spirituality suggests that people who rate themselves higher on spirituality also tend to have better health, less illness, better treatment response, and lower mortality rates than people who rate themselves lower on spirituality (Sherman & Plante, 2001; Oman, Hedberg, & Thoresen, 2006). Labbé and Fobbes (2009) found statistically significant differences between self-reported low, average, and high spirituality and the personality traits of neuroticism (p < .001), extraversion (p = .007), agreeableness (p = .001), and conscientiousness (p = .001). A metaanalytic study reported positive correlations with ratings of spirituality and the personality traits of extraversion (0.15), agreeableness (0.15), conscientiousness (.14), and openness (0.22) and a negative correlation with ratings of neuroticism (–0.09; Saroglou, 2001). Although many researchers have examined the relation between spirituality and health, it is common for spirituality and religiosity to be viewed as interchangeable; so it is difficult to determine what is being measured in these studies (Pargament, 1999; Richards & Bergin, 2005). The focus here was spirituality, not religiosity. Although researchers have struggled to differentiate the concepts of spirituality and religiosity, some researchers have found support for two independent concepts. For example, Saucier and Skrzypinska (2006) found that spirituality and religiosity are independent constructs associated with different personality traits. For the purposes of this study, spirituality was operationally defined as the feeling of being connected to something greater than one’s self. Religiosity was defined as devotion to a particular set of religious beliefs or identification with a particular religious orientation. In accord with this definition of spirituality, Wink, Ciciolla, Dillon, and Tracy (2007) suggested that spirituality represents a “… cultural shift in America toward a more individualized understanding of religion and religious authority – the freedom to define oneself as spiritual but not religious and to negotiate a spiritual identity using non-church centered practices” (p. 1055). Consistent with the present definition of religiosity, Zinnbauer, Pargament, Cole, Rye, Butter, Belavich, et al. (2001) suggested that religiosity is “…formally structured and [involves being] identified with religious institutions and prescribed theology and rituals” (p. 551). Even though spirituality and religiosity have been found to be two independent concepts, people often report themselves to be spiritual and religious, which illustrates the difficulty of differentiating them (Pargament, 1999). Research shows that spirituality is positively related to agreeableness and conscientiousness and negatively with neuroticism (Saroglou, 2001; Wink, et al., 2007). When considering the above definition of spirituality as a feeling of being connected to something greater than one’s self, those who tend to be spiritual may also be more agreeable because they believe that something greater is guiding their way through life (Piedmont,
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 707
21/08/13 5:20 PM
708
M. N. WOMBLE, ET AL.
1999). Therefore, they are more resilient and willing to accept the possibility of other solutions, alternatives, methods, etc. when confronting problems. Similarly, human beings scoring high on spirituality also tend to be more conscientious, perhaps because these people feel that they are living to please or impress something greater and to fulfill the expectations of a higher calling. To accomplish these expectations, they perform daily routines and obligations in a conscientious manner. On the other hand, spirituality is negatively correlated with neuroticism. People who rate themselves high on neuroticism tend to experience negative emotional states - such as anxiety, depression, and anger. Therefore the traits and perceptions associated with being spiritual might be related to underlying variables, including agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, which affect health. As mentioned previously, spirituality has also been found to predict health outcome. It is thought that beliefs about spirituality can help human beings find meaning and greater understanding of what their purpose is, essentially encouraging better mental and physical health (Saucier & Skrzypinska, 2006). These authors suggest that spiritual ideas “…may provide a buffer against mortality-based anxiety, enhancing a sense of safety and security, and they may satisfy needs for a purpose in life, anchoring a sense of what is right and wrong” (p. 1258). Essentially, spiritual beliefs may protect people from engaging in dangerous, attention-seeking activities such as abusing drugs and alcohol (Hill, Pargament, Hood, McCullough, Syers, Larson, et al., 2000) to please something greater than themselves and fulfill their purpose in life. Spiritual beliefs may also prevent people from feeling insecure or lonely, which could result in depression, anxiety, obesity, etc.; again, because spiritual human beings find meaning for their lives and feel more connected with others than those who report being less spiritual. For example, Tloczynzki, Knoll, and Fitch (1997) found that undergraduate students who rated themselves higher on spirituality were more able to manage negative feelings like rage, anxiety, or depression than those who rated themselves lower on spirituality. Overall, the feeling of connectedness seems to allow people to feel worthy and needed, leading them to live a healthier lifestyle as a result of possessing more underlying health-protective personality traits (i.e., agreeableness and conscientiousness) that affect health. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the association between personality, spirituality, and health (organismic) resilience within one population at the same time. Most researchers to date have examined spirituality and health outcomes or spirituality and personality, but not all three within the same sample. Hypothesis 1. Health resilience would be positively correlated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, and spirituality scores and would demonstrate a medium to large effect size.
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 708
21/08/13 5:20 PM
SPIRITUALITY, PERSONALITY, AND RESILIENCE
709
Hypothesis 2. Health resilience would be negatively correlated with neuroticism and would demonstrate a medium effect size. Hypothesis 3. Spirituality would be the best positive predictor of health resilience and would demonstrate a large effect size. Hypothesis 4. Neuroticism would be the best negative predictor of health resilience and would demonstrate a large effect size. METHOD Participants Participants were 83 undergraduate and graduate students recruited from the University of South Alabama (81.9% of participants) and Southeastern Louisiana University (18.1% of participants). All participants volunteered to participate on their own time. However, 44 (53.0%) did not receive course credit for their participation, whereas 39 (47.0%) received course credit for their participation in the study. No statistically significant demographic differences were found between those participants who received or did not receive credit for their participation and the data were combined for the current study. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 42 years with a mean age of 21.7 yr. (SD = 3.6). The sample was composed of 63.9% (53) women and 36.1% (30) men. Results showed that 33.7% of the participants were Euro-American, 31.3% were African-American, 12.0% were Asian, 2.4% were Hispanic, 2.4% were Native American, and 18.1% (15) indicated Other. Year in school data was as follows: 32.5% were freshmen, 19.3% were sophomores, 21.7% were juniors, 15.7% were seniors, and 10.8% were first year graduate students. The Institutional Review Board of the authors’ university approved the study and the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association were followed in conducting the study. Materials and Procedure Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised, and the Resilience Questionnaire (RQ). Demographic questionnaire.—The demographic questionnaire, designed by the principal author, was used to collect personal information. All participants were asked to report their age, sex, race, school, academic year, marital status, employment information, and how many hours and days a week they typically exercise. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI). Form S.—Constructed by Costa and McCrae (1992), the NEO is a measure of the Big Five personality factors. This form is as a shorter version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI). The NEO–FFI is a 60-item self-report survey in which 12 items are used to assess each domain. The items are statements to
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 709
21/08/13 5:20 PM
710
M. N. WOMBLE, ET AL.
which response is made on a 5-point Likert-type scale using anchors of 1: Strongly Disagree and 5: Strongly Agree. The participants’ ratings on the 12 items were then summed by domain. These total ratings were subjected to analyses. Correlations for the NEO–FFI were lower than those for the NEO-PI–R, but are considered internally consistent and valid. Coefficients for three-month retest reliability were .79, .79, .80, .75, and .83 for Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscienciousness, respectively, in a college sample (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Resilience Questionnaire.—Constructed by Sideroff (2004) to assess nine components of resilience, namely physiological, emotional, cognitive, relationship with self, relationship with others, relationships with something greater, presence, flexibility, and power. The Resilience Questionnaire Part 1 has 40 self-report items for the nine components of resilience. Each item was rated on a four-point Likert-type scale with anchors of 0: Not at all true and 3: Very true. Summary ratings by subscale formed a total score for that category. These scores are then grouped into three different main resilience categories of organismic, relational, and process. The organismic category includes the subcategories of physiological, emotional, and cognitive balance. The organismic rating was the measure of health resilience for this study. The relational category includes subcategories of relationship with self, with others, and with something greater. The process category includes the subcategories of presence, flexibility, and power. Main category scores were obtained by adding together the subcategory total scores. The overall resilience score is the sum of three main category scores. For the purposes of this study the Relationship with something greater subcategory was utilized as the measure of spirituality. Relationship with Something Greater scale.—The ‘relationship with something greater’ subcategory of the Resilience Questionnaire, created by Sideroff (2004), was used as a measure of spirituality. This scale has two dimensions: perspective and connection. Items are rated on a scale anchored by 0: Not at all true and 3: Very true. Questions from this scale include: “I find purpose in my life,” “I am committed to giving service,” “I have a hard time sticking to my commitments”, and “I have a basic enjoyment and love of life.” Procedure A male and female psychology undergraduate student administered the demographic questionnaire, the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO– FFI), and the Resilience Questionnaire (RQ) to the two samples of participants. For those participants who received course credit for participating, data collection was conducted in groups in a classroom setting. For those who did not receive credit for participation, data were collected conducted in groups in an outdoor setting, free of distractions. On arrival participants
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 710
21/08/13 5:20 PM
SPIRITUALITY, PERSONALITY, AND RESILIENCE
711
were provided with informed consent. After completing informed consent and electing to participate they received brief instructions and were given a packet of tests. They took approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete the surveys. The primary student-investigator and the co-investigator scored the surveys. Data were then entered into PASW Statistics 18 for further analysis. RESULTS Pearson product-moment correlations were computed for the five personality variables with the health (organismic) resilience and spirituality scores. In Table 1 are descriptive statistics and correlations among scores on the spirituality, personality, and health resilience measures. Applying a Bonferroni adjustment (p = .05/21 = .002) was required for statistical significance. Of the 21 correlations, nine were statistically significant at p = .002, ranging from .34 to .57. Health resilience was statistically significantly correlated with ratings on four of the Big Five personality domains. Values were positively correlated with health resilience for Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and negatively correlated for Neuroticism. A statistically significant correlation was found for health resilience and spirituality. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well the NEO personality variables and spirituality score predicted the health resilience score. The predictors were the five personality variables and the spirituality score, while the criterion variable was the health resilience score. The linear combination of personality variables and spirituality score was statistically significantly related to the health resilience score (F6,76 = 12.23, p < .001). The multiple correlation coefficient was .70, indicating that approximately 45.0% of the variance of the health resilience score in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of ratings for personality variables and spirituality. In Table 2, indices portraying the strength of the individual predictors are presented. Spirituality and neuroticism were statistically significant. To identify which predictor variables should be included in the model, a second multiple regression analysis utilizing the stepwise method was conducted. With the stepwise method, a statistically significant model emerged (F2,80 = 32.37, p < .001). The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .67, indicating that approximately 43.0% of the variance of the health resilience score can be accounted for by predictor variables of spirituality and neuroticism. Model 1, which only included neuroticism, accounted for 31.3% of the variance. The inclusion of spirituality into Model 2 resulted in an additional 12.6% of the variance being explained. Table 3 provides information on predictor variables included in the model and excluding
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 711
21/08/13 5:20 PM
03_PR_Womble FMS 041913_130004.indd 712
24.51
5. Conscientiousness
6. Organismic resilience
9.60
49.69
4. Agreeableness
7. Spirituality score *p ≤ .002.
49.29
47.25
3. Openness
56.24
2. Extraversion
M
50.04
1. Neuroticism
Measure
2.22
6.43
9.78
11.38
9.12
9.39
11.57
SD
9
30
47
49
49
39
45
Range
3
8
24
23
25
34
30
Min.
12
38
71
72
74
73
75
Max.
.66
.77
.75
.68
.55
.64
.84
α –.30
2 .16
–.21
3
.08
.31
–.29
4
.34*
–.12
.23
–.40*
5
.49*
.34*
.16
.36*
–.57*
6
TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND PEARSON INTERCORRELATIONS FOR RATINGS ON PERSONALITY, SPIRITUALITY, AND HEALTH RESILIENCE MEASURES 7
.54*
.51*
.31
.12
.31
–.37*
712 M. N. WOMBLE, ET AL.
21/08/13 5:20 PM
713
SPIRITUALITY, PERSONALITY, AND RESILIENCE TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF REGRESSION OF PERSONALITY AND SPIRITUALITY MEASURES PREDICTING HEALTH RESILIENCE Variable B Spirituality .77 Neuroticism* –.19 Extraversion .07 Openness to new experiences .04 Agreeableness .05 Conscientiousness .11 Note.—R2 = .49 (N = 83, p < .001). *p ≤ .001.
β .27 –.34 .11 .05 .09 .16
SE B .29 .05 .06 .06 .05 .07
t 2.63 –3.50 1.21 0.57 0.92 1.48
p .01 .001 .23 .57 .36 .14
TABLE 3 STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR INCLUDED VARIABLES PREDICTING HEALTH RESILIENCE Variable B SE B Neuroticism* –0.24 0.05 Spirituality* 1.11 0.26 Note.—R2 = .45 (N = 83, p < .001). *p ≤ .001.
β –0.42 0.38
t –4.73 4.27
p
