See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319219667

The virtue of patience, spirituality, and suffering: Integrating lessons from

positive psychology, psychology of religion, and Christian theology.

Article  in  Psychology of Religion and Spirituality · August 2017

DOI: 10.1037/rel0000099

CITATIONS READS
11 332

4 authors, including:

Sarah Schnitker Benjamin J. Houltberg

Baylor University University of Southern California
24 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nanyamka Redmond
Fuller Theological Seminary
2 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Identity, Virtue and Sports View project

Project on the Good Physician View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sarah Schnitker on 16 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3, 264 –275 1941-1022/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000099

The Virtue of Patience, Spirituality, and Suffering: Integrating Lessons

From Positive Psychology, Psychology of Religion, and Christian Theology
Sarah A. Schnitker, Benjamin Houltberg, William Dyrness, and Nanyamka Redmond
Fuller Theological Seminary

Based on insights from the psychology of religion, positive psychology, personality psychology, and
theology, a theoretical model relating the virtue of patience to religion and spirituality is proposed.
Patience is conceptualized as a hybrid personality construct related to effective emotion regulation
strategies coupled with transcendent narrative identity. An initial empirical test of the model is conducted
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

in a sample of ethnically diverse adolescents (N ⫽ 406) who are primarily Christian or nonreligious.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Religiousness and spirituality are predictors of the virtue of patience, which then predicts use of the
emotion regulation strategy of cognitive reappraisal; all these variables are then tested as direct and
indirect predictors of regulated behavior and well-being. Overall, results support our theoretical model
that spirituality and religion predict higher patience, which facilitates the employment of adaptive
emotion regulation strategies that predict better life outcomes. Implications and future research questions
stemming from the theoretical model are discussed.

Keywords: emotion regulation, patience, religion, spirituality, virtue

Since its beginning in the late 1990s, the field of positive
psychology has been criticized by detractors as contributing to
a cultural milieu in which suffering is ignored or avoided in a
Pollyanna-ish pursuit of personal happiness. Although this is
not a completely accurate representation of the field, there are
ways in which positive psychology could better integrate a
philosophy and psychology of suffering into its conceptualiza-
tion of the “good life.” In particular, the virtue of patience has
been notably absent in character strength research spurred by
the movement. Only a few psychological studies have examined
what it means to be a patient person (Schnitker, 2012; Schnitker
& Emmons, 2007), and to our knowledge, there are no empir-
ical studies on patience in the period of adolescence. The field
would be greatly enriched by more fully researching and pro-
moting this virtue so integrally related to suffering.
Given the general dearth of cultural narratives related to the
purpose of suffering, we hypothesize that positive psychologists
will find that it is essential to consider people’s spiritual and
Editor’s Note. Ralph L. Piedmont served as the action editor for this
article.—RLP
Sarah A. Schnitker, Benjamin Houltberg, and Nanyamka Redmond,
Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary; William
Dyrness, Graduate School of Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary.
This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from
the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John
Templeton Foundation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah A.
Schnitker, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary,
180 North Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101. E-mail: sschnitker@
fuller.edu
religious meaning-systems to understand real-world manifesta-
tions of the virtue of patience. MacIntyre (2007) argues that virtues
can only be enacted in the context of a community-based narrative
supporting their importance. We argue that patience, in particular,
requires a self-transcendent narrative in which suffering has mean-
ing or is explained. Religious communities are one of the primary
locales of rich meaning-systems that can promote countercultural
narratives about suffering. Building on research from the psychol-
ogy of religion and McAdams and Pals’s tripartite personality
theory (2006), we propose a model of patience in which patience
is a hybrid personality construct that emerges when characteristic
adaptations related to regulating emotions are imbued with a
particular narrative that becomes a part of one’s identity. We argue
that religion generally, and Christianity in our particular sample,
provides people with spiritual narrative identities that promote the
development of virtues like patience. This is particularly important
during adolescence, which is an active time of identity formation
(Steinberg & Morris, 2001) and spiritual development (King,
Ramos, & Clardy, 2013).
Because patience has long been neglected in Western cultural
dialogue, few theoretical resources are available to positive
psychologists who wish to better understand the virtue of pa-
tience. Thus, it is necessary to move beyond the present culture
to mine insights from other cultures or historical eras. Although
ideas may be extracted from a plethora of religious traditions to
build a theoretical understanding of patience (Schnitker &
Emmons, 2007), we focus on the Christian tradition in the
present paper as it is the predecessor of secularized Western
culture today and is the primary religious affiliation of religious
individuals in our participant sample. A major goal of the
present work, then, is to generate a theoretical model and
testable hypotheses related to the virtue of patience built upon
insights from theology in addition to the current resources in
positive psychology and psychology of religion. Finally, we

264
 PATIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY
will examine the role of patience in understanding the link
between spirituality/religiousness and positive youth outcomes
(i.e., cognitive reappraisal, daily regulatory behavior, well-
being) in a diverse sample of adolescents.
Research From Positive Psychology on Patience
and Suffering
The field of positive psychology has been controversial since its
inception. Most criticism has focused on research related to hedo-
nic well-being, maintaining that the field’s narrow focus on hap-
piness disregards the value of meaningful human experiences that
involve negative emotions (Lazarus, 2003). Although there are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
studies that focus on happiness as the primary outcome, eudai-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
monic approaches to understanding the good life that value a
diverse array of emotional experiences have long been central to
the field (Gable & Haidt, 2005; Linley, Joseph, Harrington, &
Wood, 2006). Whereas hedonic approaches focus on subjective
accounts of well-being (typically operationalized as low negative
emotionality and high life satisfaction and positive emotionality),
eudaimonic approaches tend to rely on objective indicators of a life
well lived such as psychological need fulfillment (Ryff & Singer,
1998), personal expressiveness (Waterman, 2008), and virtue de-
velopment (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
However, critics of the field do point out a bias that still needs
correction. Even eudaimonic approaches prioritize the more posi-
tive, agentic, and individual aspects of defining the good life at the
expense of the more negative, passive, and communal features.
This is especially apparent in the virtues and character strengths
literature. For instance, the most broadly studied and popularized
taxonomy of character strengths and virtues, the Values in Action
Inventory of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), includes
virtues biased toward agentic action and away from suffering. Of
24 strengths, only two or three fundamentally comprise potential
or present suffering (bravery, honesty, hope) and only one might
be considered an explicitly passive virtue (humility/modesty;
Kunz, 2002). Notably, the authors chose to exclude the virtue of
patience from the classification. They argued that patience is
merely a combination of open-mindedness, persistence, and self-
regulation. Although this may have seemed a reasonable premise
at the time, subsequent empirical findings have found only small
correlations between patience and the three strengths posited to
constitute patience (Schnitker & Emmons, 2007).
Despite the neglect of patience in positive psychology, research
on the virtue has slowly progressed in recent years. The defining
psychological features of the virtue have been examined, and the
3-Factor Patience Scale was validated as a measure for assessing
interpersonal, life hardship, and daily hassles patience (Schnitker,
2012). Patience has been defined in the previous psychological
literature as “the propensity of a person to wait calmly in the face
of frustration, adversity, or suffering” (Schnitker, 2012, p. 263).
Patience, though generally associated with waiting, may also be
deployed in situations without an explicit focus on time (e.g.,
dealing with a frustrating family member). Drawing on Aristote-
lian conceptualizations of the virtue, patience is conceived as the
mean between the two extremes, or vices, of reckless impatience
and acedia (defined as sloth or disengagement). Although corre-
lated with self-control and emotion regulation, patience demon-
265
strates discriminant validity from these constructs, indicating dis-
tinctiveness of the virtue.
At its core, patience involves a certain type of response (i.e.,
calm acceptance or tolerance) to suffering, broadly conceived. In
fact, the word patience is derived from the Latin root pati, which
means “to suffer” (Oxford University Press, n.d.-a). Furthermore,
the word suffer, defined as “to experience or be subjected to
something bad or unpleasant” or “to tolerate,” is derived from the
Latin roots sub- “from below, under” and ferre “to bear” (Oxford
University Press, n.d.-b). Thus, we conceptualize patience as a
willingness to suffer—to bear under or tolerate—what are per-
ceived as negative circumstances. The three empirically validated
factors of patience all involve a person’s response to various types
or sources of suffering. Just as interpersonal patience involves a
calm response to other people who might be experienced as
burdensome, frustrating, or unpleasant, so too life hardships pa-
tience would be a calm response and tolerance for life circum-
stances that are unpleasant or frustrating, such as a long-term
illness or financial difficulties. Likewise, daily hassles patience
involves a calm response to the hassles of daily life that are
experienced as burdensome or hardships, such as traffic jams or
long lines. Although the magnitude and severity of suffering to be
patiently endured may objectively differ across these sources, all
three types of patience involve how people respond to what is
perceived by them as a source of suffering.
Research findings have found positive life outcomes related to
patience. Patience was found to predict both hedonic and eudai-
monic well-being longitudinally and experimentally (Schnitker,
2012). Patience buffers against negative emotions as patient indi-
viduals are better able to cognitively reappraise negative circum-
stances, thus increasing hedonic well-being. One of the primary
mechanisms by which patience increases eudaimonic well-being is
by facilitating goal pursuit (Schnitker, 2012; Thomas & Schnitker,
2016). Although somewhat paradoxical, it appears that the patient
acceptance of suffering and frustration actually allows people to
better achieve their goals, in part, because they are able to exert
more effort on goals at later points in time rather than disengaging
from the goal or acting at the wrong time.
Although research in positive psychology has begun to establish
a scientific understanding of the virtue of patience, much work
remains. In particular, patience needs to be further differentiated
from related psychological constructs. Like many virtues, the
nomological network surrounding patience is insufficient to ex-
plain how, as a virtue, it is unique from other personality traits or
characteristic adaptations. Even though empirical evidence has
demonstrated that patience is related to but distinct from traits like
self-control and conscientiousness or emotion regulation strategies
like cognitive reappraisal, there is still a lack of theoretical clarity
as to how the virtue of patience is unique. If the study of virtues is
to persevere, it is essential that virtues be distinguished from other
units of personality (Noftle, Schnitker, & Robins, 2011).
A Proposal for Understanding the Distinctiveness
of Patience
One possibility for understanding the distinctiveness of virtues
in general and patience in particular builds upon a model that
conceptualizes virtues as hybrid personality constructs. The lead-
ing integrative theories of personality science (i.e., McAdams &
 266 SCHNITKER, HOULTBERG, DYRNESS, AND REDMOND
Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 2008) conceive at least three levels
or units of personality: basic tendencies or traits; contextualized
middle-level units called characteristic adaptations; and personal
identity narratives (McAdams & Pals) or self-concept (McCrae &
Costa). Although character strengths have been described as trait-
like (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), classical conceptualizations of
virtue, classically known as habitus, postulate that virtues are
habits acquired across time through intentional practices (MacIn-
tyre, 2007; Brown, Spezio, Reimer, Van Slyke, & Peterson, 2013).
This description, as well as McAdams and Pals’s (2006) own
designation, indicate that virtues would be better classified as
characteristic adaptations, which are the transactional units of
personality that describe what personality “does,” in contrast to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
traits, which describe what personality “is” or “has” (Cantor,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1990).
However, as is made clear with the case of patience, it seems
that virtues are more than just characteristic adaptations. Virtues
are not just psychological habits or adaptations devoid of moral
meaning. Instead, to be truly virtuous, these adaptations or habits
must be connected to a particular type of narrative identity or
self-concept—namely an identity that values something beyond
the self (Brown et al., 2013; Hampson, 2012). In the case of
patience, people may be highly skilled at employing emotion
regulation strategies to modify their internal states for good or ill,
but we would not call them truly patient until they employ these
abilities to achieve worthy goals that benefit the community or
society (MacIntyre, 2007). Thus, we propose that virtues are a
hybrid personality unit—a composite of characteristic adaptations
and narrative identity.
In this framework, patience would be conceptualized as char-
acteristic adaptations leading to effectual emotion regulation com-
bined with a narrative identity that conceptualizes suffering as
meaningful. A plethora of research studies have demonstrated the
characteristic adaptations that best promote adaptive emotion reg-
ulation such as employing certain emotion regulation strategies
(cognitive reappraisal) and avoiding others (suppression; Gross &
John, 2003), or parenting and parent-child relationships (Morris,
Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007) that build secure in-
ternal working models of attachment relationships (Shaver &
Mikulincer, 2007). Numerous studies have demonstrated that ad-
olescence is a key developmental period for the formation of these
characteristic adaptations due to the significant social, cognitive,
and neurological changes that impact self-regulation (Steinberg &
Morris, 2001); and the ability to successfully regulate emotions is
crucial in promoting positive outcomes among adolescents facing
adversity (Carlo, Crockett, Wolff, & Beal, 2012; Houltberg, Mor-
ris, Cui, Henry, & Criss, 2014). Much less is known about the
types of narrative identities that value suffering, how these narra-
tives are constructed, and how they relate to emotion regulation
and, ultimately, patience.
One essential feature to narratives that value suffering is their
transcendent elements, pointing the individual to something bigger
than the self and the present circumstances. Understanding how
humans conceptualize, relate to, and build narratives around the
transcendent moves beyond the sphere of positive psychology and
into the field of psychology of religion and spirituality, providing
an opportunity for cross-disciplinary fertilization.
Research From Psychology of Religion on Building the
Virtue of Patience
Building Virtues Through Transcendent Narratives
Psychologists who study psychology of religion and spirituality
have long been committed to understanding how humans construe
and interact with the transcendent. Although different religions and
other various forms of spiritual practice have idiosyncratic narra-
tives surrounding the sacred, a universal feature spanning these
instantiations is engagement with a transcendent object or purpose.
Piedmont calls this psychological phenomenon spiritual transcen-
dence, and he defines it as the “capacity of individuals to stand
outside of their immediate sense of time and place to view life
from a larger, more objective perspective” (Piedmont, 1999, p.
988).
Although spiritual transcendence can find expression in a vari-
ety of secular venues (e.g., patriotism, nationalism, secular human-
ism), religions often provide the contexts that most readily foster
spiritual transcendence with their richly developed historical nar-
ratives and orientation toward the divine or supernatural. In fact,
religious historians as well as psychology of religion researchers
drawing on evolutionary perspectives argue that religious commu-
nities are uniquely suited to stimulate moral and virtue develop-
ment (Armstrong, 2009; Graham & Haidt, 2010; Leffel, 2011).
This is, in part, because religious traditions often prescribe prac-
tices (e.g., prayer/meditation, giving/tithing) that promote connec-
tion between the transcendent narrative and actual behavior. This
connection of the transcendent narrative with habits developed
through practices is essential for virtue development. For example,
when people prayed for relationship partners or friends, they
increased in forgiveness; but when they only thought positive
thoughts about their friend or described their partner to an imag-
ined parent figure, forgiveness did not increase (Lambert, Fin-
cham, Stillman, Graham, & Beach, 2010). It seems that including
the transcendent element of prayer (i.e., activating transcendent
identity) was essential for the activity of changing thought patterns
(i.e., characteristic adaptations) to build the virtue of forgiveness.
Several recent theories of spiritual development and transfor-
mation emphasize the connection between transcendence, identity,
and prosocial or virtuous action. King, Clardy, and Ramos (2014)
propose that adolescent spirituality begins with the experience of
transcendence (i.e., relation to something/one larger than the self),
which leads to the development of fidelity (i.e., the resolute com-
mitment to values and beliefs). Fidelity solidifies identity and is
then expressed through action and a lifestyle that lives out respon-
sibility to the “other.” Similarly, Leffel (2011) argues that spiritual
development does not just function to build narrative identity and
meaning in life; instead, the primary function of spiritual devel-
opment is to promote moral social engagement. He argues that,
among other things, interacting with the transcendent, engagement
with the religious community, and practice of spiritual disciplines
will serve to strengthen virtues, weaken vices, and integrate moral
identity. Longitudinal evidence supports these models in adoles-
cents; adolescents who increase in spiritual transcendence also
demonstrate increased levels of virtues over the course of a year
(Schnitker, Felke, Barrett, & Emmons, 2014).
 PATIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY
Spiritual Transcendence and Patience
Given the general connection between spiritual transcendence,
religious practice, and virtue development, how might spiritual
transcendence and transcendent narratives specifically promote the
development of patience? Initial evidence supports a positive
relation between patience and spirituality/religiousness. Patience
was positively correlated with frequency of prayer and spiritual
transcendence, and a survey of major world religions supported the
centrality of the virtue across the narratives of various religious
traditions (Schnitker & Emmons, 2007).
No studies have yet examined the mechanisms by which spiritual
transcendence might affect patience, but research on religious coping
and meaning-making from the psychology of religion literature points
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to potential pathways. In her integrative model of meaning and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
meaning-making, Park (2010) distinguishes between global and situ-
ational meaning. Global meaning refers to people’s general orienting
systems and beliefs, whereas situational meaning refers to meaning
constructed within a particular environmental context and stressor.
Though distinct, the two types of meaning reciprocally influence each
other in the process of meaning-making, which is the attempt to
restore global meaning when its assumptions have been disrupted by
a situation. Park (2013) maintains that religion affects meaning at both
the global level (through religious beliefs, spiritual and transcendent
goals, and life purpose) and the situational level (through religious
appraisals and reappraisals).
Religious appraisals and reappraisal during meaning-making are
highly relevant to the virtue of patience. Although much of the
religious meaning-making literature examines meaning made after a
stressful life event, it seems reasonable to assume that the same
processes might be operating during the event, thus affecting patience
in the midst of suffering. As people encounter stressful life events
replete with frustration and suffering, they may draw upon their
religious global meaning systems to religiously appraise or reappraise
their current suffering. Although religious appraisals and reappraisals
can be both positive and negative, those who score high on spiritual
transcendence may be more likely to make benevolent religious
appraisals and reappraisals (e.g., that God is teaching them something
good through the suffering, or that the suffering is redemptive; Par-
gament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998). Benevolent religious apprais-
als may prevent initial arousal from the stressor, and benevolent
religious reappraisals may facilitate productive emotion regulation
while at the same time connecting the event to global meaning.
Although patience has not been specifically studied, numerous studies
have shown that people who are able to engage in religious meaning-
making after traumatic or stressful experiences tend to experience
greater stress-related growth (including virtue development; e.g.,
Laufer, Solomon, & Levine, 2010; Park, 2006; Park, Edmondson, &
Blank, 2009; Schultz, Tallman, & Altmaier, 2010). Thus, it seems
probable that religious meaning-making also facilitates the formation
of patience as people are able to more effectively reappraise negative
situations.
Theological Insights Into How Christian Narratives
Promote Patience
A major tenet of our theoretical model and empirical test in the
present study is that religious narratives encourage spiritual tran-
scendence, which promotes a narrative identity that values suffer-
267
ing. Although we argue that spiritual transcendence is a universal
feature across religions, religions have particular narratives that
construe suffering and patience in ways that may diverge. Thus, it
is important to attend to the actual narratives provided by a religion
in addition to universal factors like spiritual transcendence. A
pluralistic approach that takes seriously the “thick” and contextu-
alized meanings ascribed by a religious tradition while also exam-
ining more universal psychological variables avoids reductionism
while also reaping the benefits of clear operationalization of def-
initions (Slife, Hope, & Nebeker, 1999). Even though a survey of
how various religions converge and diverge in narratives related to
patience and suffering or a qualitative study of patience in reli-
gious narratives are beyond the scope of this paper, we are able to
highlight some of the distinct theological features of patience and
suffering narratives in the primary religion of our sample—Chris-
tianity.
New Testament Patience
Patience is a neglected virtue in modern Western culture. This is
unsurprising given the strong association of patience with suffer-
ing. For modern people, suffering is an experience to be avoided
(Harned, 1997). The Christian understanding of patience as bear-
ing up under the struggles of life offers a marked contrast to both
ancient and modern notions. In the New Testament (NT), terms for
patience transformed what was a personally cultivated and indi-
vidualistic Stoic virtue, often with a military resonance, into a
highly relational virtue by which the believer responds to the
patience of God. Makrothumia, the most common NT Greek term
for patience or longsuffering, is so deeply connected to God’s own
patience, that the human virtue is given a new meaning (Horst,
1967, p. 376). For example, in the parable of the Unforgiving
Servant in Matthew 18:23–35—which one scholar claims sums up
NT teaching (Falkenroth & Brown, 1976, p. 769)—the word for
patience (makrothumia) is used twice by two debtors who ask their
lord to have patience with them. In the first case, the lord “out of
pity” forgives the debt of his servant, and in the second that same
servant refuses to forgive a much smaller debt. The unforgiving
servant is punished and required to pay his much greater debt, to
which Christ adds the admonition: “So my heavenly Father will
also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or
sister from your heart” (v. 35 New Revised Standard Version).
A Christian’s forbearance, or forgiveness, displays a faith that
connects them to God (Hebrews 11), the hope they have in God
(Romans 5:3–5), and their love for God (I Corinthians 13:7). This
reflects God’s own longsuffering, expressed in the forgiveness
offered in Christ, which is meant to lead to repentance (Romans
2:4). So whether in the more passive experience of enduring
suffering (makrothumia), or the more active expression of remain-
ing strong and steadfast in the face of suffering (expressed in the
verb hupomone), believers are able to persevere in all circum-
stances (Ephesians. 6:18) because they are able to connect these
events with the transcendent narrative of God’s presence and
purpose in their lives.
Old Testament Patience
This NT view of patience finds its roots in the Old Testament
view of God who is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and
 268 SCHNITKER, HOULTBERG, DYRNESS, AND REDMOND
abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness . . . forgiving iniquity
and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty”
(Exodus 34:6, 7). This view is echoed throughout the biblical
writings in the call to wait upon God, who will make all things
right. Waiting for God becomes a central theme of biblical faith
(Hebrews 11), so that even creation itself is described as groaning
while waiting for the “redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:22–
24). Clearly, patience in the Christian tradition has strong redemp-
tive elements: patience is not just the acceptance of present reality,
but also includes hope for some future state where things are
redeemed.
Patience and Agency: The Importance of Humility
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and Submission
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
In the Christian tradition, patience is linked to humility and
becomes a central expression of Christian faith, hope, and love.
The opposite, impatience, is similarly linked to sin (Harned, 1997,
p. 114). For early theologian St. Augustine, the ability to bear the
trials of life is a gift of God and ultimately expressive of his love
for humanity. Here, believers follow the example of Christ: “One
has to bear with patience that which cannot be removed in a hurry”
(Augustine of Hippo, 1952, p. 243). John Calvin, a Protestant
Reformer, argued that patience makes “you more nearly aware of
your own incapacity . . . that you may transfer your trust to God”
(Calvin, 1960, III, 8, 3). In many ways, patience teaches depen-
dence upon God, which is crucial to the faith.
Modern challenges to patience, or impatience, often relate to the
inability to control or predict outcomes in life—it is a frustration of
agency. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, advances in
industry and technology have conditioned people to believe that
enduring pain and suffering are no longer necessary; indeed, in the
minds of Marx and Nietzsche, they are signs of weakness (Harned,
1997; Marx, 1996; Nietzsche, 1967). Christian teaching, however,
responds to these notions that suffering and frustration are a sign
of weakness by promoting a humility that submits to God in hope
and has been expressed in the rich ascetic practices of the faith.
In promoting this virtue, the Christian tradition consistently
links patience with Christ’s own submission of himself to God.
Christian theology maintains that Christ is one member of the
Trinity, which is composed of God the Father, Christ, and the Holy
Spirit. Although all three members of the Trinity are considered to
all be one God, they are thought to relate to each other. Specifi-
cally, Christ is thought to submit to the will of God the Father—
most notably in allowing himself to be crucified, which is the
central event of the Christian narrative. In submitting to the cross,
Christ is thought to have humbled himself by becoming an ob-
ject—a patient—to God the Father’s purposes. W. H. Vanstone
points out that Christ’s handing himself over to the will of the
Father was the unique path to his glorification (Vanstone, 1982;
Philippians 2:5–10). Similarly for Christian adherents, in practic-
ing the virtue of patience, the human self is sanctified both as
subject and as object. For followers of the Christian faith, reso-
nating with this narrative of submission, suffering, and exaltation
provides a fresh impetus to respond to life’s challenges because
their identity is rooted in a larger story. Moreover, the exercise of
this virtue reflects the necessarily communal and passive nature of
healthy reciprocity, becoming a hybrid personality unit that ben-
efits—indeed is essential to—the health of the larger community.
A New Model for Understanding Patience and
Spirituality and Initial Empirical Test
Given these insights from positive psychology, theology, per-
sonality science, and psychology of religion, we propose a new
theoretical model for conceptualizing the virtue of patience and
how religion and spirituality influence it. A pictorial representation
of the model is displayed in Figure 1. The virtue of patience is
depicted as emerging from a transcendent narrative identity and
characteristic adaptations that support adaptive emotion regulation.
Religiosity and spirituality variables are shown as predictors of the
narrative identity or characteristic adaptations that comprise pa-
tience, with spiritual transcendence predicting change at the level
of narrative identity, spiritual practices/disciplines predicting
change at the level of characteristic adaptations, and religious
meaning predicting change at both levels.
Although testing the full theoretical model is beyond the scope
of this study, we provide a pilot assessment of specific elements of
the model for empirical support. We specifically endeavor to
examine the role of patience as a hybrid personality construct
connecting spirituality and religiousness (affecting narrative iden-
tity) to cognitive reappraisal (e.g., a character adaptation) in the
prediction of positive adolescent outcomes (e.g., regulated behav-
ior, well-being). This is consistent with McAdams and Pals’s
(2006) model that conceptualizes character adaptations as a medi-
ator between personal identity narrative and daily behaviors. We
extend this model by including the virtue of patience as another
important link that falls between personal identity narratives and
characteristic adaptations. Specifically, we hypothesize that higher
levels of reported spirituality and religiousness will directly relate
to higher levels of adolescent regulatory behavior and well-being.
Furthermore, we expect that spirituality and religiousness will be
indirectly related to these adolescent outcomes through a positive
relationship with patience and cognitive reappraisal. In other
words, spirituality and religiousness will be positively related to
patience, which in turn will positively and directly relate to regu-
latory behavior and well-being as well as indirectly relate to the
adolescent outcomes via cognitive reappraisal. We did not hypoth-
esize whether the pattern of relationships would vary based on the
gender, age, or ethnicity of the adolescent because of the limited
previous research, but we included these demographic variables in
the analyses to explore possible differences.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 406 adolescents (ages 13–18 years, mean
age ⫽ 15.99 years) recruited from six high schools (2 public, 1
public charter, 3 private) in the greater Los Angeles area. After
informed consent was obtained from parents and participants, the
entire study was administered online. Study participants were
asked to complete a survey to measure religious commitment,
spirituality, patience, reappraisal ability, regulation behaviors, and
well-being. All participants were paid $14 upon completing the
survey. Some participants went on to engage in an intervention
study, but data from that study are not presented here.
Participants were 40.9% male and 58.1% female (5 participants
did not disclose), and they were from diverse ethnic backgrounds:
 PATIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 1. Theoretical model of how religion and spirituality relate to the virtue of patience.
43.6% Caucasian, 21.7% Asian/Asian American, 14.5% Hispanic/
Latino, 8.1% African/African American, and 10.3% Other. Partic-
ipant religious affiliation was mostly Protestant (n ⫽ 265). The
remaining religious affiliations were as follows: Catholic (n ⫽ 50),
Mormon (n ⫽ 1), Buddhist (n ⫽ 3), Jewish (n ⫽ 1), Agnostic (n ⫽
17), and spiritual but not religious (n ⫽ 16). There were 45
participants who stated they were religious “other,” and 8 partic-
ipants chose not to state their religious affiliation. More generally,
85% of the participants believed in some sort of higher power or
God compared to 14% who stated they did not believe in a God.
Measures
Youth reports were used on all variables of interest, and de-
scriptive statistics and internal reliabilities of measures are re-
ported in Table 1.
Religious Commitment and Spirituality
Youth spiritual transcendence. The 8-item Spiritual Tran-
scendence Index (STI; Seidlitz et al., 2002) measured the meaning
269
and quality of a participant’s spirituality using a 6-point Likert
scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 6 ⫽ strongly agree) on items such
as “Maintaining my spirituality is a priority for me.”
Youth religious commitment. The Religious Commitment
Inventory (RCI-10) by Worthington et al. (2003) is a 2-factor
10-item scale of religious allegiance and dedication. Rated on a
5-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ not at all true of me to 5 ⫽ totally true
of me), items measure both interpersonal religious commitment
(e.g., “I often read books and magazines about my faith”) and
intrapersonal religious commitment (e.g., “My religious beliefs lie
behind my whole approach to life”).
Youth Patience
The 11-item 3-Factor Patience Questionnaire (3-FPQ; Schnit-
ker, 2012) was used to assess patience in regard to the interper-
sonal domain (“My friends would say I’m a very patient friend”),
life hardships (“I find it pretty easy to be patient with a difficult life
problem or illness”), and daily hassles (“Although they’re annoy-
ing, I don’t get too upset when stuck in a traffic jam”). Items were
rated from 1 (not like me at all) to 5 (very much like me).
 270 SCHNITKER, HOULTBERG, DYRNESS, AND REDMOND

Table 1
Bivariate Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
1. Spiritual transcendence — .81 .72 .15 .05 ⫺.02 .26 .17 .19 .20 ⫺.04 .07 .10ⴱ
2. Intrapersonal religious commitment .84ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ .08 .01 .19ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .04 .04 .10
3. Interpersonal religious commitment .19ⴱⴱ .08 .02 .20ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .07 .03 .11ⴱ
4. Interpersonal patience .49ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .04 .09 .01
5. Life hardships patience .32ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ .10ⴱ .03 ⫺.05
6. Daily hassles patience .11ⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .09 .05 ⫺.11ⴱ .07 ⫺.02
7. Reappraisal .20ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 .02 .05
8. Regulatory behavior .15ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ ⫺.09 .02 ⫺.05
9. Positive affectivity .33ⴱⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.05 ⫺.05
10. Life satisfaction .03 ⫺.13ⴱⴱ
11. Youth age ⫺.11ⴱ .17ⴱⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

12. Youth gendera ⫺.13ⴱⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

13. Youth ethnicityb —

Mean 3.89 2.61 2.59 3.45 3.25 3.30 4.49 3.26 3.09 4.36 16.0 .59 .56
SD 1.42 1.05 1.07 .67 .78 .87 1.15 .58 .65 1.23 1.31 .49 .50
␣ .97 .86 .93 .73 .72 .66 .86 .72 .92 .81
a
Coded 0 ⫽ male and 1 ⫽ female. b
Coded 0 ⫽ European American and 1 ⫽ ethnic minorities.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Youth Cognitive Reappraisal
Gross and John’s (2003) Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
(ERQ) was used to measure individual differences in the emotion
regulation strategy of cognitive reappraisal (e.g., “I control my
emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in”).
Five items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Youth General Regulatory Behavior
A questionnaire based on Oaten and Cheng’s (2006) study items
measuring everyday regulatory behaviors, including cigarette
smoking, alcohol and caffeine consumption, dietary habits, self-
care habits, spending habits, emotion control, study habits, obedi-
ence of rules, energy conservation, and turning in assignments,
was used. Participants rated how often they engaged in behaviors
in the past week on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (almost always).
Youth Well-Being
Life satisfaction. This 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) was used to measure
global life satisfaction. Items such as “In most ways, my life is
close to my ideal” were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree).
Positive affectivity. The Positive and Negative Affect Sched-
ule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; 20 items) was used to assess
the extent to which participants felt positive (e.g., enthusiastic,
excited) and negative (hostile, irritable) emotions on a scale of 1
(very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Only the positive
emotions subscale was used in analyses.
Analytic Approach
First, bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics for the
study variables were computed (see Table 1). Next, structural
equation modeling (SEM) was conducted in Mplus 7.3 (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998 –2012) to empirically test the proposed model that
included latent factors of youth religion and spirituality, patience,
and well-being and observed variables of cognitive reappraisal and
regulatory behavior. The measurement model with all latent fac-
tors was tested first and then the structural pathways were in-
cluded. Specifically, regulatory behavior and the latent factor of
well-being were regressed on cognitive reappraisal and the latent
factors of patience and religion/spirituality. Cognitive reappraisal
was regressed on patience and religion/spirituality, and patience
was regressed on religion/spirituality. Nonsignificant links were
trimmed to create a more parsimonious final model (Kline, 2011;
Figure 2). Model goodness of fit was considered acceptable if it
had a nonsignificant chi-square test (␹2), a root mean square error
of approximation near .06, and a standardized root-mean-square
residual (SRMR) close to .08 (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).
Next, indirect effects of the final model were examined for
statistical significance using bootstrap methodology to calculate
standard errors and 95% biased-corrected confidence intervals of
these coefficients (MacKinnon, 2008). Finally, a multiple group
analysis was used to examine whether there were adolescent age,
gender, and ethnic differences in the pattern of effects (Kline,
2011). Specifically, we first tested for measurement invariance by
constraining the variances of the latent variables to be equal across
groups. Next, all path coefficients in the structural models were
constrained and individually relaxed based on theory and improve-
ment in model fit according to the chi-square difference (⌬␹2) test
of nested models.
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlation
The pattern of associations within and between domains was
generally consistent with expectations (see Table 1). The indica-
tors of latent factors were highly correlated as would be expected
by the proposed model. Regarding the correlations involving the
 PATIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY
Intrapersonal
Spiritual Religiosity
Interpersonal
Transcendence Religiosity
.83**
.98** .73** .15*
Religion and
Spirituality
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
.21**
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 2. The effects of religious framework on youth regulatory behavior and well-being. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01, ⴱ p ⬍ .05.
adolescent demographic variables, the results showed that older
adolescents reported significantly higher levels of life hardships
and daily hassles patience. In addition, boys were older, and there
were more girls that were European American. European Ameri-
cans reported higher levels of life satisfaction compared with
ethnic minority adolescents, but ethnic minority adolescents re-
ported higher levels of spiritual transcendence and interpersonal
religiosity.
Final Model: Model Trimming and Indirect Effects
The proposed model was tested to examine direct and indirect
(via patience and cognitive reappraisal) pathways between the
spirituality/religiousness factor and youth outcomes (i.e., regula-
tory behavior and well-being). A latent factor of spirituality/reli-
giousness was created using spiritual transcendence, intrapersonal
religious commitment, and interpersonal religious commitment as
three indicators; a patience latent factor was created using interper-
sonal, life hardships, and daily hassles as three indicators; and a
well-being latent factor was created using life-satisfaction and
positive affectivity as two indicators. Cognitive reappraisal and
regulatory behavior were observed variables in the model. The
measurement model fit the data adequately when the indicators of
interpersonal and intrapersonal religiosity were allowed to covary,
␹2(16) ⫽ 26.78, p ⫽ .04; CFI ⫽ .99; RMSEA ⫽ .04, 90% CI [.01,
.07]; SRMR ⫽ .03. Second, a structural model was examined,
which fit the data well, ␹2(26) ⫽ 38.82, p ⫽ .05; CFI ⫽ .99;
RMSEA ⫽ .04, 90% CI [.00, .06]; SRMR ⫽ .03.
The only structural path coefficient that was nonsignificant and
lacked empirical support (cognitive reappraisal to regulatory be-
havior) was trimmed in favor of a more parsimonious model
(Kline, 2011). The trimmed and final model with an additional
degree of freedom demonstrated good model fit and was retained
271
Life Hardships
Interpersonal Daily Hassles
.60**
.83** .49**
Daily Regulatory
Patience .44**
Behavior
.11*
.33**
.32**
.22**
Reappraisal .27** Well-Being
.59** .56**
Positive Life
Affectivity Satisfaction
(see Figure 2), ␹2(27) ⫽ 38.99, p ⫽ .06, CFI ⫽ .99, RMSEA ⫽ .03,
90% CI [.00, .06]; SRMR ⫽ .03. Consistent with our hypotheses,
adolescent religiousness/spirituality was positively associated with
patience, cognitive reappraisal, regulatory behavior, and well-
being. Additionally, patience was positively and significantly
linked to cognitive reappraisal, regulatory behavior, and well-
being.
Next, we used MacKinnon’s asymmetric distribution of prod-
ucts test to determine the significance of indirect effects
(MacKinnon, 2008). This approach allows for examining more
than one pathway simultaneously (e.g., Cui, Morris, Criss, Hoult-
berg, & Silk, 2014). The spirituality/religiousness latent factor was
indirectly related to youth well-being via cognitive reappraisal,
ab ⫽ .03, 95% CI [.01, .06], via patience, ab ⫽ .03, 95% CI [.00,
.06], and via patience and cognitive reappraisal, abc ⫽ .01, 95% CI
[.00, .02]. Moreover, spirituality/religiousness was indirectly re-
lated to regulatory behavior through patience, ab ⫽ .05, 95% CI
[.00, .10]. Spirituality/religiousness was also directly related to
regulatory behavior, ab ⫽ .08, 95% CI [.01, .15], and well-being,
ab ⫽ .11, 95% CI [.04, .20], after bootstrapping. Furthermore,
patience was directly related to well-being after bootstrapping,
ab ⫽ .23, 95% CI [.10, .38]. This suggests that the latent factor of
spirituality/religiousness was both directly and indirectly related to
adolescent outcomes.
Examining Adolescent Age, Gender, and Ethnicity as
Moderators
For the next research goal, we examined whether the pattern of
findings varied by youth age, gender, and ethnicity. Measurement
invariance across groups was tested first, and equality constraints
across groups were released before the multigroup structural
model was tested. There were very few differences across age,
 272 SCHNITKER, HOULTBERG, DYRNESS, AND REDMOND
gender, and ethnicity for the measurement model and no differ-
ences among pathways in the multigroup structural model. To
examine age differences, we recoded youth age to a dichotomous
variable (via median split): younger youth (n ⫽ 256; ages 13–16
years; M age ⫽ 15.15 years) and older youth (n ⫽ 149; ages 17–18
years; M age ⫽ 17.44 years). Modification indices suggested that
the intercepts of spiritual transcendence and daily hassles patience
were invariant and should be freed, which resulted in good mea-
surement model fit, ␹2(49) ⫽ 68.52, p ⫽ .04, CFI ⫽ .98, RM-
SEA ⫽ .04, 90% CI [.01, .07]; SRMR ⫽ .08. The structural model
with constraints on all pathways demonstrated good model fit,
suggesting there were no differences among pathways based on the
age of the adolescent, ␹2(79) ⫽ 100.18, p ⫽ .05, CFI ⫽ .99,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
RMSEA ⫽ .04, SRMR ⫽ .07.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Next, we explored possible differences based on gender (fe-
males: n ⫽ 236; males: n ⫽ 165). The fully constrained measure-
ment model demonstrated good model fit, ␹2(51) ⫽ 72.02, p ⫽
.03, CFI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .05, 90% CI [.02, .07]; SRMR ⫽ .06.
In the next step, constraints were placed on the structural model
which revealed no gender differences among pathways and the
model fit indices suggested adequate fit, ␹2(69) ⫽ 95.08, p ⫽ .03,
CFI ⫽ .98, RMSEA ⫽ .04, 90% CI [.02, .06]; SRMR ⫽ .06.
Finally, we analyzed whether the links in the theoretical model
were moderated by adolescent ethnicity (European Americans:
n ⫽ 177; Ethnic minorities: n ⫽ 227). Testing of measurement
invariance indicated good fit, ␹2(51) ⫽ 74.27, p ⫽ .02, CFI ⫽ .98,
RMSEA ⫽ .05, 90% CI [.02, .07]; SRMR ⫽ .06. Multigroup testing
of the structural model suggested that there was a difference in
covarying indicators of spiritual transcendence and intrapersonal
religiousness. For European American adolescents, there was a
significant association, ␤ ⫽ .58, p ⬍ .01, between spiritual tran-
scendence and intrapersonal religiousness, whereas this relation-
ship was not significant for ethnic minority adolescents. Again,
there were no differences among pathways and the model fit was
acceptable, ␹2(79) ⫽ 100.55, p ⫽ .05, CFI ⫽ .99, RMSEA ⫽ .04,
90% CI [.00, .06]; SRMR ⫽ .06. Overall, there were very few
substantial differences in our model based on the age, gender, and
ethnicity of the adolescent.
Discussion
The purpose of this article is twofold: to propose a theoretical
model for conceptualizing the virtue of patience in relation to
religion/spirituality and to provide an initial empirical test of
the model in an adolescent sample. Significant strides were
made toward both aims. Drawing on resources from positive
psychology, psychology of religion, and personality psychol-
ogy, we proposed a theoretical model that conceptualizes pa-
tience as a hybrid personality construct related to effective
emotion regulation strategies coupled with a transcendent nar-
rative identity (see Figure 1). Given the model’s emphasis on
the narrative surrounding suffering provided by religion, we
also surveyed teachings on the virtue of patience from the
Christian tradition, which was the primary religious affiliation
of participants in our sample. The model was supported in our
preliminary empirical test with a sample of adolescents. Reli-
giousness and spirituality were related to the virtue of patience
and the emotion regulation strategy of cognitive reappraisal—a
key characteristic adaptation underlying patience. Moreover,
we were able to demonstrate the utility of the model in rela-
tionship to actual real-world behavior and outcomes (regulated
behavior and well-being) in adolescents.
Our empirical model testing provides initial support for our
theoretical model. Religion and spirituality (conceptualized as
providing a transcendent narrative identity) related to the virtue
of patience, which was associated with higher use of cognitive
reappraisal as an emotion regulation strategy (a characteristic
adaptation). All three were significant correlates of adolescent
well-being, and religion/spirituality and patience were associ-
ated with regulated behavior. Although previous research has
found a relationship between reappraisal and more behavioral
indicators of regulation (e.g., substance use or externalizing
symptoms in adolescents; Hsieh, 2010; Watson, 2007), reap-
praisal was not significantly related to regulated behavior in the
present analyses. This may be because many of the actions
assessed in the regulatory behavior questionnaire were not
necessarily related to emotionally salient stimuli (e.g., turning
things in on time, regulating caffeine). It may also be that
reappraisal is not a consistent predictor of regulated behavior or
more external behaviors. For instance, one study found that
reappraisal was unrelated to externalizing problems in adoles-
cents even though it was associated with internalizing symp-
toms (Garnefski, Kraaij, & van Etten, 2005). We anticipate that
reappraisal would significantly predict behavioral indicators
more closely related to emotional expression and interpersonal
interactions where emotions play a larger role.
Clarifying the Conceptualization of Suffering in
Relation to Patience
Integral to our new theoretical model and present analyses is the
premise that patience is intricately connected to suffering. At
present, suffering is defined as any experience perceived by a
person to be bad, unpleasant, or burdensome. Although the
3-Factor Patience scale (Schnitker, 2012) separates out types of
patience based on the sources of suffering, all perceptions of
suffering are basically treated as equal. What constitutes a long-
term hardship, daily hassle, or an interpersonal difficulty is defined
by the individual, and there is no differentiation among patience
based on a more objective judgment of the severity of the suffering
stimulus.
For example, one participant may be thinking about the long-
term hardship of dealing with recurring but mild allergies whereas
another may be referencing the hardship of dealing with cystic
fibrosis when responding to the patience measure. From an out-
sider’s perspective, one of these hardships involves a much greater
magnitude of suffering than the other. However, there is no em-
pirical evidence at this point indicating the extent to which an
“objective” assessment of the suffering stimulus is related to how
patience is enacted in response to that stimulus. Recent studies
from the stress and coping literature suggest that it may actually be
people’s perceptions of stress rather than objective levels of stress
that are most important in determining behavioral and physiolog-
ical outcomes (e.g., Crum, Salovey, & Achor, 2013; Kilby &
Sherman, 2016). The same may be true of suffering and patience,
but this has not been tested. Given this gap in the research, future
research on patience should (a) assess in greater detail the sources
of suffering for stimuli eliciting patience and (b) procure both
 PATIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY
participant and objective rater judgments of the severity of the
eliciting stimuli.
Initial Empirical Test: Strengths and Limitations
Strengths. These findings are seminal in building our under-
standing of the mechanisms by which religion and spirituality
affect the virtue of patience, well-being, and behavior in adoles-
cents, an understudied population in psychology of religion. They
demonstrate that a pathway by which religion and spirituality
affect positive life outcomes is through the virtue of patience, and
patience is closely connected to the emotion regulation strategy of
reappraisal. Although previous research has demonstrated separate
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
relationships between patience and religiousness/spirituality
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Schnitker & Emmons, 2007), religiousness/spirituality and regu-
lated behavior (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009), or patience and
reappraisal (Schnitker, 2012), this study is the first to connect these
variables into a coherent pathway of direct and indirect effects that
also utilizes an ethnically diverse, adolescent sample.
Limitations. Despite the empirical contributions to the liter-
ature, these findings should be considered preliminary because of
several limitations. First, this is far from a comprehensive test of
our theoretical model. The unique components and mechanisms by
which religion and spirituality are hypothesized to affect patience
were not assessed. Future studies should independently measure
spiritual transcendence, religious meaning, and spiritual practices.
Although we had originally intended to examine the separable
effects of communal religious involvement, intrapersonal religious
commitment, and spiritual transcendence, our religion and spiritu-
ality measures were so highly intercorrelated in the sample that it
was necessary to consider them one latent variable.
Similarly, we assessed a characteristic adaptation related to
patience (cognitive reappraisal), but we did not directly measure
narrative identity or transcendent views of suffering. Such nuanced
assessment is necessary for future studies that endeavor to more
fully test the theoretical model.
In addition, the cross-sectional nature of our data limits inter-
pretation concerning the directionality of effects; longitudinal data
is needed in future studies. However, many of the relationships
hypothesized in our theoretical model are recursive; thus, more
sophisticated modeling techniques may be required to fully capture
the dynamic nature of interrelations among the variables.
The generalizability of the findings is limited by the demograph-
ics of the sample. All of our participants were adolescents, so it is
unclear whether these findings are specific to this developmental
period or if they expand to people in other age groups. Even in
terms of generalizing across the adolescent population, we are still
limited. Participants, though ethnically diverse, were recruited
from a mix of private and public schools. Even though a portion of
the sample is enrolled in a low-income public school system and
the private schools we partnered with report high rates of schol-
arship students, it is likely that many of the participants come from
economically stable or advantaged homes. Unfortunately, we did
not measure socioeconomic status, so we were unable control for
or truly assess economic privilege in analyses. Future studies
should better attend to these variables given the integral role of
adversity and suffering in the study of patience.
273
Utility of the Theoretical Model to Promote Research
on Patience
Given the complexities of the theoretical model and constructs
involved, it is unlikely that one study will be able to test all the
potential research questions generated by the model. We do sug-
gest initial tests of the mechanisms specified in the model. How-
ever, a variety of research questions and hypotheses can be derived
from the model beyond the mechanisms depicted. Though not a
comprehensive list, the following are some research questions that
might be developed from the model:
• What is the best way to assess the virtue of patience as a
hybrid construct? Do current measures and methods accu-
rately capture patience as a hybrid personality unit?
• What are the key features of transcendent narratives that
value suffering? Is it necessary for the transcendent nar-
rative to be explicit in order for the virtue of patience to
develop?
• What characteristic adaptations are most crucial for the
development of patience? How do spiritual disciplines
affect the development of these?
• How do the narratives related to suffering converge and
diverge across religious traditions?
We anticipate many fruitful lines of inquiry based on addressing
these and other questions derived from the model.
Adapting the Theoretical Model for the Study of
Other Virtues
Although the theoretical model we proposed is specific to pa-
tience, similar models could be constructed for other virtues. The
argument that patience should be a hybrid personality construct
applies to other virtues (e.g., gratitude, forgiveness, hope) just as
much as patience, so theoretical models specifying the key narra-
tive identity features and characteristic adaptations comprising
other virtues should be specified. Moreover, mapping out how key
features of religion and spirituality affect the development of other
virtues will greatly strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of
virtue research in both psychology of religion and positive psy-
chology, moving both fields beyond reporting atheoretical corre-
lations among variables toward more theory-driven analyses.
References
Armstrong, K. (2009). The case for God. New York, NY: Knopf.
Augustine of Hippo. (1952). Patience (L. Meagher, Trans.). In R. J.
Deferrari (Ed.), Treatises on various subjects (pp. 237–264). New York,
NY: Fathers of the Church.
Brown, W. S., Spezio, M. L., Reimer, K. S., Van Slyke, J. A., & Peterson,
G. R. (2013). Empirical approaches to virtue science: Observing exem-
plarity in the lab. In J. A. Van Slyke, G. R. Peterson, K. S. Reimer, M. L.
Spezio, & W. S. Brown (Eds.), Theology and the science of moral
action: Virtue ethics, exemplarity, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 11–
26). New York, NY: Routledge.
Calvin, J. (1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (F. L. Battles, Trans.,
J. T. McNeill, Ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “Having” and “doing” in the
study of personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735–750.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.6.735
Carlo, G., Crockett, L. J., Wolff, J. M., & Beal, S. J. (2012). The role of
emotional reactivity, self-regulation, and puberty in adolescents’ proso-
 274 SCHNITKER, HOULTBERG, DYRNESS, AND REDMOND
cial behaviors. Social Development, 21, 667– 685. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00660.x
Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role
of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 104, 716 –733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0031201
Cui, L., Morris, A. S., Criss, M. M., Houltberg, B. J., & Silk, J. S. (2014).
Parental psychological control and adolescent adjustment: The role of
adolescent emotion regulation. Parenting: Science and Practice, 14,
47– 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2014.880018
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–
75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Falkenroth, U., & Brown, C. (1976). makrothymia [patience, longsuffer-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ing]. In C. Brown (Ed.), The new international dictionary of New
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Testament theology (Vol. 2, pp. 768 –772). Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder-
van.
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology?
Review of General Psychology, 9, 103–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1089-2680.9.2.103
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & van Etten, M. (2005). Specificity of relations
between adolescents’ cognitive emotion regulation strategies and Inter-
nalizing and Externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Adolescence,
28, 619 – 631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.12.009
Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals
into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14,
140 –150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353415
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348 –362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Hampson, P. (2012). By knowledge and by love: The integrative role of
habitus in Christian psychology. Edification, 6, 5–18.
Harned, D. B. (1997). Patience: How we wait upon the world. Cambridge,
MA: Cowley Publications.
Horst, J. (1967). makrothymia. In G. Kittel, (Ed.), & G. W. Bromiley
(Trans. & Ed.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 4,
pp. 374 –387). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Houltberg, B. J., Morris, A. S., Cui, L., Henry, C., & Criss, M. (2014). The
role of youth anger in explaining links between parenting and early
adolescent prosocial and antisocial behavior. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 36, 297–318.
Hsieh, M. (2010). The relations among emotion regulation strategies,
self-concept, and adolescents’ problem behaviors (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Indiana University, IN. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/
34/08/3408094.html
Kilby, C. J., & Sherman, K. A. (2016). Delineating the relationship
between stress mindset and primary appraisals: Preliminary findings.
SpringerPlus, 5, 336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1937-7
King, P. E., Clardy, C. E., & Ramos, J. R. (2014). Adolescent spiritual
exemplars: Exploring adolescent spirituality among diverse youth. Jour-
nal of Adolescent Research, 29, 186 –212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0743558413502534
King, P. E., Ramos, J. S., & Clardy, C. E. (2013). Searching for the sacred:
Religious and spiritual development among adolescents. In K. I. Parga-
ment, J. Exline, & J. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion
and spirituality (pp. 513–528). Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-
eling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kunz, G. (2002). Simplicity, humility, patience. In E. E. Gantt & R. N.
Williams (Eds.), Psychology for the other: Levinas, ethics and the
practice of psychology (pp. 118 –142). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne Uni-
versity Press.
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., Stillman, T. F., Graham, S. M., & Beach,
S. R. H. (2010). Motivating change in relationships: Can prayer increase
forgiveness? Psychological Science, 21, 126 –132. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0956797609355634
Laufer, A., Solomon, Z., & Levine, S. Z. (2010). Elaboration on posttrau-
matic growth in youth exposed to terror: The role of religiosity and
political ideology. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45,
647– 653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0106-5
Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Does the positive psychology movement have legs?
Psychological Inquiry, 14, 93–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15327965PLI1402_02
Leffel, G. M. (2011). Beyond meaning: Spiritual transformation in the
paradigm of moral intuitionism. A new direction for the psychology of
spiritual transformation. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Re-
ligion, 22, 25–125.
Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., & Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive
psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 1, 3–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760500372796
MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis.
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Erlbaum.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules:
Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for
fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999).
findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320 –341. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
Marx, K. (1996). Later political writings (T. Carver, Trans. & Ed.).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511810695
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental
principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychol-
ogist, 61, 204 –217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality.
In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 159 –181). New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. (2009). Religion, self-regulation,
and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 135, 69 –93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014213
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R.
(2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion
regulation. Social Development, 16, 361–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Nietzsche, F. (1967). The will to power (W. Kaufmann & R. J. Hollingdale,
Trans.). New York, NY: Random House.
Noftle, E. E., Schnitker, S. A., & Robins, R. W. (2011). Character and
personality: Connections between positive psychology and personality
psychology. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.),
Designing the future of positive psychology: Taking stock and moving
forward (pp. 207–227). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373585.003.0014
Oaten, M., & Cheng, K. (2006). Improved self-control: The benefits of a
regular program of academic study. Basic and Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 28, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2801_1
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-a). Patience. In Oxford English Dictionary
online. Retrieved April 28, 2016, from http://www.oxforddictionaries
.com/us/definition/american_english/patience
Oxford University Press. (n.d.-b). Suffer. In Oxford English Dictionary
online. Retrieved April 28, 2016, from http://www.oxforddictionaries
.com/us/definition/american_english/suffer
 PATIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY
Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns
of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 710 –724. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/1388152
Park, C. L. (2006). Exploring relations among religiousness, meaning, and
adjustment to lifetime and current stressful encounters in later life.
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 19, 33– 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10615800600581259
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative
review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life
events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0018301
Park, C. L. (2013). Religion and meaning. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park
(Eds.), The handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ed., pp. 357–379). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Park, C. L., Edmondson, D., & Blank, T. (2009). Religious and non-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
religious pathways to stress-related growth in cancer survivors. Applied
Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1, 321–335.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and
virtues: A handbook of classification. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of
personality? Spiritual transcendence and the Five-Factor Model. Journal
of Personality, 67, 985–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494
.00080
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1998). The contours of positive human health.
Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532
7965pli0901_1
Schnitker, S. A. (2012). An examination of patience and well-being. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 263–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17439760.2012.697185
Schnitker, S. A., & Emmons, R. A. (2007). Patience as a virtue: Religious
and psychological perspectives. Research in the Social Scientific Study
of Religion, 18, 177–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004158511.i-
301.69
Schnitker, S. A., Felke, T. J., Barrett, J. L., & Emmons, R. A. (2014).
Longitudinal study of religious and spiritual transformation in adoles-
cents attending Young Life summer camp: Assessing the epistemic,
intrapsychic, and moral sociability functions of conversion. Psychology
of Religion and Spirituality, 6, 83–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0035359
Schultz, J. M., Tallman, B. A., & Altmaier, E. M. (2010). Pathways to
posttraumatic growth: The contributions of forgiveness and importance
View publication stats
275
of religion and spirituality. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2,
104 –114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018454
Seidlitz, L., Abernethy, A. D., Duberstein, P. R., Evinger, J. S., Chang,
T. H., & Lewis, B. (2002). Development of the spiritual transcendence
index. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 439 – 453. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00129
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult attachment strategies and
the regulation of emotion. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion
regulation (pp. 446 – 465). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Slife, B. D., Hope, C., & Nebeker, R. S. (1999). Examining the relationship
between religious spirituality and psychological science. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 39, 51– 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0022167899392005
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev
.psych.52.1.83
Thomas, R. M., & Schnitker, S. A. (2016). Modeling the effects of
within-person characteristic and goal-level attributes on personal project
pursuit over time. Manuscript submitted for publication. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.012
Vanstone, W. H. (1982). The stature of waiting. London, UK: Darton,
Longman and Todd.
Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s per-
spective. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 234 –252. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/17439760802303002
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Watson, E. B. (2007). Emotion regulation in affluent adolescents: Inves-
tigating the relationship between regulation and functioning. (Doctoral
dissertation). Columbia University, NY. Retrieved from http://
gradworks.umi.com/32/85/3285193.html
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Haidt, T. L., Ripley, J. S., Mc-
Cullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., . . . O’Connor, L. (2003). The Religious
Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of
a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 50, 84 –96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.84
Received January 30, 2016
Revision received May 12, 2016
Accepted June 7, 2016 䡲