Daily Spiritual Experiences

Soc Indic Res (2008) 88:247–271
DOI 10.1007/s11205-007-9187-2
Daily Spiritual Experiences and Psychological Well-being

Among US Adults
Christopher G. Ellison Æ Daisy Fan
Accepted: 3 September 2007 / Published online: 10 October 2007

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract This study focuses on one of the most significant recent innovations in the
conceptualization and measurement of religiousness and spirituality, the Daily Spiritual
Experience scale (DSES; Underwood (2006) Archive for the Psychology of Religion/
Archiv fur Religion Psychologie, 28, 181–218). Using data from 1998 and 2004 NORC
General Social Surveys, we address a number of questions regarding the social patterning
of daily spiritual experiences, and the relationships between spiritual experiences and
multiple dimensions of psychological well-being. Our results suggest a robust positive
association between DSES and psychological well-being. By contrast, DSES appears to
have little bearing on negative affect. We also found that DSES does not account for the
association between religious practices and psychological variables. That is, DSES appears
to tap another aspect of spirituality that is relevant for well-being, above and beyond the
influence of religious practices. Various implications of the findings, as well as study
limitations and future research direction are discussed.
Keywords Daily spiritual experiences Mental health Psychological well-being

Spirituality Religion
1 Introduction
A large and growing research literature over the past two decades has focused on the
connections between religion, spirituality, and health, broadly defined. In their magisterial
Handbook of Religion and Health, Koenig et al. (2001) identified over 1,200 studies in this
area, and numerous others have appeared in print during the period since publication of
that work. To date, findings have linked various aspects of religiousness and spirituality
C. G. Ellison (&) D. Fan

Department of Sociology, The University of Texas, 1 University Station – A1700, Austin,
TX 78712-0118, USA
e-mail: cellison@prc.utexas.edu
D. Fan
e-mail: daisy@mail.la.utexas.edu
123
248 C. G. Ellison, D. Fan
with a broad array of health outcomes, including mental health, physical health, and
mortality risk. However, perhaps the largest single body of studies has centered on aspects
of psychological well-being, ranging from depression and anxiety to non-specific distress,
to indicators of positive mental health such as morale, happiness, and life satisfaction
(Hackney and Sanders 2003; Smith et al. 2003; Sawatzky et al. 2005; Zullig et al. 2006).
Although these studies have varied widely in their conceptualization and measurement
of religiousness and spirituality, significant numbers of studies have relied upon behavioral
indicators of organizational religious involvement, e.g., frequency of attendance at services
or similar indicators, and non-organizational (private) practices, e.g., frequency of prayer
or other devotional pursuits. There is evidence that both organizational and non-organi-
zational dimensions may have implications for mental health, although at least one meta-
analysis has concluded that the latter may be more somewhat more important (Hackney
and Sanders 2003).
In recent years, investigators have pressed ahead with the development of additional
measures, for at least three reasons: (1) Mounting evidence reveals potential response bias
and other measurement problems with items tapping religious behaviors, particularly
religious attendance (e.g., Hadaway, Marler, and Chaves 1993). (2) Theoretical advances
have specified numerous mechanisms or pathways linking religion and spirituality with
mental health that are not well captured by the limited set of behavioral measures
(Pargament 1997; Ellison and Levin 1998; Idler et al. 2003). (3) The most common
indicators are tilted heavily in the direction of conventional—and particularly Judeo-
Christian—practices, at a time when the religious and spiritual landscapes of the US and
other Western societies are characterized by increasing levels of privatism and diversity
(Roof 1993, 2000). For all of these reasons, many observers believe that the standard
behavioral measures are probably missing important aspects of the links between religion,
spirituality, and mental health.
Our study contributes to this literature by focusing on one of the most significant recent
innovations in the conceptualization and measurement of religiousness and spirituality for
health-related research, the focus on ordinary spiritual experiences via the Daily Spiritual
Experiences scale (DSES; Underwood 2006; Underwood and Teresi 2002). Specifically,
we analyze data on two large, nationally representative samples of US adults on which
short forms of the DSES have been included, the 1998 and 2004 NORC General Social
Surveys. Using these data, we address a number of questions regarding the social distri-
bution of spiritual experiences, the relationships between spiritual experiences and multiple
dimensions of psychological well-being, and subgroup variations and other contingencies
in these relationships. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of further
work on daily spiritual experiences, as well as future work on religion, spirituality, and
health more generally.
2 Background
As we noted earlier, much of the literature on religion, spirituality, and well-being has
linked behavioral indicators of religiousness and spirituality, such as the frequency of
attendance at worship services and the frequency of personal prayer, with desirable psy-
chological outcomes (Koenig et al. 2001; Hackney and Sanders 2003; Hill and Pargament
2003). Amid calls for new conceptual and measurement strategies, researchers have
increasingly focused on the functions of religiousness or spirituality, such as coping and
support (Ellison and Levin 1998). For example, the dynamic program of Pargament and his
123
Daily Spiritual Experiences and Psychological Well-being 249
colleagues has identified a rich repertoire of religious coping practices and styles, with
diverse implications for psychological well-being (Pargament 1997; Pargament et al. 1998,
2000). Further, the work of Krause (2002, 2006a) and others has called attention to various
facets of congregational support networks and practices, and has begun to document their
links with health and well-being. Other work examines the role of religion as a source of
meaning and purpose (e.g., Krause 2003), as well as various other potential functions that
may enhance well-being.
Along with these behavioral and functional measures, there is new interest in other
content-based approaches, including studies that examine specific beliefs, such as those
concerning the afterlife (Flannelly et al. 2006), forgiveness (Krause and Ellison 2003),
gratitude (Kendler et al. 2003; Krause 2006b), unvengefulness (Kendler et al. 2003),
divine control (Schieman et al. 2005) and other beliefs (Holland et al. 1998; Ironson et al.
2002). Others have sought to integrate spiritual dimensions into measures of well-being or
quality of life (e.g., Peterman et al. 2002).
Still other approaches focus squarely on the nature and content of spiritual experiences.
Of particular note in this regard has been the work of Underwood (2006; Underwood and
Teresi 2002), who has explored the possible role of routine spiritual experiences for health
and well-being. Briefly, this line of inquiry aims to tap feelings and awareness of the
transcendent in daily life. Such ‘‘ordinary’’ spiritual experience is carefully distinguished
from the types of miraculous, life-transforming ‘‘mystical’’ experiences that have long
been studied by theologians and psychologists (e.g., Otto [1923]1958; Underhill
[1911]1961; Hood 1997). This relatively recent focus on daily spiritual experiences—
direct individual encounters with the transcendent—is different from other strands of work
on religiousness, spirituality, and health in at least three other ways. First, is not rooted in
any institutional or organizational religious activity whatsoever. Second, in contrast to the
heavy Judeo-Christian tenor of many other religious and spiritual measures, Underwood
and her colleagues have developed an instrument—the DSES—that self-consciously
incorporates themes and insights from a broad range of major world religious and spiritual
traditions (Underwood 2006; Underwood and Teresi 2002). Third, this approach encom-
passes both (a) experiences that involve personal intimacy with the transcendent (i.e.,
theistic experiences, such as feeling God’s presence) and (b) those that involve more a
general sense of unity (i.e., non-theistic experiences, such as feeling a connection to all of
life) (Underwood and Teresi 2002).
How and why might such daily spiritual experiences be related to health and in par-
ticular, to mental health? Underwood and Teresi (2002) identify several promising
theoretical connections. First, they suggest that certain feelings tapped by their DSES scale,
such as experiences of God’s presence and guidance, may reduce feelings of psychological
stress, thereby moderating the link between social stressors and health and well-being. In
addition, they note that experiences of comfort, love, and spiritual peace may reduce
feelings of anxiety and depression, and may elevate mood and promote optimism and self-
esteem. And a sense of spiritual peace and connectedness, gauged by the DSES, may also
enhance personal morale and promote positive psychological outcomes.
Relationships between the measures of daily spiritual experiences—the full 16-item
DSES, as well as shorter versions—and physical and mental health have begun to surface
in the research literature. For example, in a cross-sectional survey of more than 800
consecutively admitted patients at Duke University Medical Center, Koenig and colleagues
found significant positive associations between the DSES and social support and levels of
cooperativeness, and inverse associations between the DSES and depressive symptoms and
number of days of long-term care required (Koenig et al. 2004a, b). Underwood and Teresi
123
(2002) report findings from several samples, including: (a) a small subsample (N = 233) of
respondents from the Chicago site of the Study of Women Across the Nation (SWAN), a
study of midlife women; and (b) a small sample (N = 122) of Chicago-area individuals
surveyed by Loyola University researchers. Analyses of data from the Chicago SWAN
study yielded significant correlations between the DSES and a host of relevant outcomes,
such as quality of life, anxiety, depression, anger and hostility, optimism, and perceived
social support. In the Loyola study, the DSES was associated with higher levels of positive
affect, but interestingly, spiritual experiences were uncorrelated with negative affect (see
Underwood and Teresi 2002).
Researchers have also linked measures of daily spiritual experiences—particularly
using shorter forms of the DSES—with desirable outcomes in studies of epilepsy, inner
city elders, adolescents, substance abuse, caregiver burnout, and coping with arthritis pain
(Keefe et al. 2001; Hayton 2002; Pearce et al. 2003; Dunn et al. 2004; Fowler and Hill
2004; Holland and Niemeyer 2006). Studies have also established relationships between
daily spiritual experiences and favorable mental health outcomes in samples of college
students (Ciarrocchi and Deneke 2004) and rural elders (Parker et al. 2003).
To date, however, research on the patterns, correlates, and sequelae of daily spiritual
experiences has been conducted mainly among small, non-representative samples,
including a number of clinical samples. Although there is much to be learned from such
studies, especially regarding the role of spirituality in coping with health problems, these
findings cannot be generalized to the overall community-dwelling population of US adults.
The design, goals, and sample sizes of these previous studies have also precluded any
sustained interest in possible subgroup differences in the links between spiritual experi-
ences and health or well-being. This is an important gap in the literature, because mounting
evidence suggests that the roles of religious practice, support, meaning, and other
important facets of religion and spirituality may be contingent on aspects of social location,
culture, and circumstance. For example, several studies over the years have reported that
religiousness may be more closely linked with psychological well-being (a) among women
as compared with men (e.g., Idler 1987; Mirola 1999), (b) among African Americans as
compared with whites (e.g., St. George and McNamara 1984; Thomas and Holmes 1992;
Krause 2003), (c) among older adults as compared with younger persons (e.g., Ellison
1991), and (d) among lower SES individuals—especially those with lower levels of edu-
cation—as compared with others (e.g., Pollner 1989; Ellison 1991; Krause 2006c). Given
such findings, there is a clear rationale for investigating the extent to which the associations
between ordinary or daily spiritual experiences and well-being may differ across various
sociodemographic subgroups within the US population.
In addition, a long tradition of theory and research suggests that aspects of religiousness
and spirituality may be particularly helpful for individuals who are dealing with stressful
events and conditions. Studies in this tradition have focused on the role of religion in
coping with specific stressors (e.g., bereavement, health problems, family conflicts) as well
as the number or volume of personal difficulties confronted by any individual (e.g., Cook
and Wimberley 1983; Ellison 1991; Ellison et al. 2001; Strawbridge et al. 1998; Krause,
2006a). Moreover, as noted earlier, some researchers have identified specific styles or
modes of religious coping—i.e., the content of the ways in which individuals draw upon or
experience religion or spirituality in times of trouble—that appear to yield salutary effects
on psychosocial outcomes (Pargament 1997; Pargament et al. 1998, 2000). In light of this
work, as well as the theoretical discussions concerning the DSES (e.g., Underwood and
Teresi 2002), it will be useful to examine the extent to which the DSES may moderate, or
123
buffer, the otherwise deleterious effects of stressful events and conditions on aspects of
personal well-being.
With this background in mind, the current study addresses the following specific
research questions:
1. Are ordinary (or daily) spiritual experiences, as gauged by the DSES, associated with
psychological well-being in the general (US) adult population?
2. Do the estimated net effects of daily spiritual experiences differ across positive versus
negative psychosocial outcomes, as suggested by some of the findings from the Loyola
pilot study (as reported in Underwood and Teresi 2002)?
3. Do daily spiritual experiences mediate (or help to ‘‘explain’’) the observed salutary
associations between religious practices (organizational and/or non-organizational)
and well-being?
4. Do these estimated net effects differ for theistic versus non-theistic, or self-
transcendent, types of ordinary spiritual experiences, a distinction that has been made
in at least one previous study (Zemore and Kaskutus 2004; Underwood 2006)?
5. Do the relationships between the DSES and well-being differ by gender, age, race, or
socioeconomic status (SES)?
6. Finally, under what, if any, circumstances do spiritual experiences moderate (or
‘‘buffer’’) the links between social stressors and well-being?
3 Data
Data for this study come from the 1998 and 2004 editions of the General Social Survey
(GSS). Briefly, the GSS is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of US adults
residing in the 48 contiguous states, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center
beginning in 1972 (Davis et al. 2004). Between 1972 and 1993 (except for 1979, 1981, and
1992), the GSS surveyed approximately 1,500 US adults annually. Since 1994, the GSS
conducts surveys roughly 3,000 US adults in even-numbered years. We focus on the 1998
and 2004 surveys because in those years the GSS included special modules on religion and
spirituality; the 1998 GSS contained a short (6-item) form of the DSES scale, while the
2004 GSS included the full (16-item) DSES. Both editions of the GSS also contained data
on facets of well-being (e.g., happiness, excitement with life, psychological distress, self-
esteem, optimism, etc.). Although the precise measures vary somewhat across the two
surveys, in each of these years the GSS allows for an investigation of associations between
the DSES and various aspects of well-being, including controls for an array of relevant
sociodemographic and other potentially confounding variables.
Since 1987, the GSS has employed a split-ballot design, in which (a) a core set of items
is asked of all GSS respondents, and (b) other items are included on only a randomly
selected subset of the interview schedules. In each year of our study (1998 and 2004), both
the DSES and well-being items were included on split ballots; consequently, the effective
Ns for our study are lower than the total Ns for these years, ranging from 920 to 1,371 in
1998, and from 854 to 1,318 in 2004. In addition, unlike the 1998 data, the 2004 GSS
includes a weight variable, designed to adjust for non-response as well as the number of
adults within the household, which affects the probability that any given individual will be
selected as a GSS respondent.
123
4 Measures
4.1 Dependent Variables: Psychological Distress and Psychological Well-Being
Our dependent variables include five dimensions of psychological outcomes (psycholog-

ical distress, happiness, excitement with life, satisfaction with self and optimism about the
future) in 2004 and three dimensions of mental health outcomes (psychological distress,
happiness and excitement to the future) in 1998. The measures of happiness and excitement
to the future are identical across 2 years. Variables of ‘‘Satisfaction with self’’ and
‘‘optimistic about the future’’ are only available in 2004 data, and therefore, they are not
included in the 1998 analysis.
4.1.1 Psychological Distress (1998)
To tap psychological distress, the respondents were asked to indicate how often, in the past
30 days, they felt the following six symptoms: (a) ‘‘So sad nothing could cheer you up,’’
(b) ‘‘Nervous,’’ (c) ‘‘Restless or fidgety,’’ (d) ‘‘Hopeless,’’ (e) ‘‘Everything was an effort,’’
and (f) ‘‘Worthless.’’ Response categories range from ‘‘none’’ (coded 1) to ‘‘all time’’
(coded 5). Responses are averaged across non-missing items, and a higher score represents
greater level of psychological distress (a = .84).
4.1.2 Psychological Distress (2004)
The 2004 Psychological distress scale is measured by one single item: ‘‘How many days
during past 30 days was your mental health not good?’’ Responses range from
‘‘none,’’(coded 0) to ‘‘30 days’’ (coded 30). A higher numerical score indicates greater
level of psychological distress.
4.1.3 Happiness (1998 and 2004)
The happiness measure assesses respondent’s level of happiness via the following ques-
tion: ‘‘Taken together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you
are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?’’ Responses range from ‘‘not too happy’’
(coded 1) to ‘‘very happy’’ (coded 3). A higher score indicates greater level of happiness.
4.1.4 Excitement with Life (1998 and 2004)
Excitement with life is measured by the following single item: ‘‘ In general, do you find life
exciting, pretty routine or dull?’’ Responses range from ‘‘exciting’’ (coded 3), ‘‘pretty
routine’’ (coded 2) or ‘‘dull’’ (coded 1). A higher number indicates greater level of
excitement with life.
4.1.5 Satisfaction with Self (2004)
This variable is assessed by respondent’s level of agreement to the following question: ‘‘On
the whole, I am satisfied with myself.’’ Responses range from ‘‘strongly disagree,’’ (coded
123
1) to strongly agree (coded 4). A higher score represents greater level of satisfaction with
self.
4.1.6 Optimistic About the Future (2004)
This variable is based on respondent’s level of agreement to the following question: ‘‘I am
always optimistic to the future.’’ Responses range from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (coded 1) to
‘‘strongly agree’’ (coded 4). A higher score signifies greater level of optimism about the
future.
4.2 Independent Variables
4.2.1 1998 DSES
The DSES, originally developed by Underwood and Teresi (2002), is a multi-item self-
report measure designed to capture how religiousness/spirituality is expressed in daily life
(Underwood 2006). The 1998 DSES (short form) index is measured by an unweighted six-
item index presented in the left-hand portion of Table 1. Respondents were asked to
Table 1 Factor Loadings from principal components analysis of daily spiritual experiences
1998 2004
Daily spiritual Loading Loading

experiences
Theistic Feel God’s presence .89 Feel God’s presence .87

Desire to be closer to God .91 Desire to be closer to God .86
Feel God’s love directly or .91 Feel God’s love directly .92
through others
Feel God’s love through others .84
Ask for God’s help .88
Feel guided by god .92
Connection to god lifts daily concern .86
The degree of closeness to god .74
Non-theistic Find strength and comfort in .86 Find strength in religion and .86
religion spirituality
Find comfort in religion and .86
spirituality
Spiritually touched by beauty .81 Spiritually touched by beauty .81
creation creation
Feel deep inner peace or .87 Feel deep inner peace or harmony .81
harmony
Experience a connection to all of life .69
Feel thankful for blessings .77
Feel selfless caring for others .70
Accept others even when they do .58
things wrong
Total Feel God’s presence .85 Feel God’s presence .85
123
Table 1 continued
1998 2004
Daily spiritual Loading Loading

experiences
Desire to be closer to God .87 Desire to be closer to God .84

Feel God’s love directly or .89 Feel God’s love directly .90
through others
Find strength and comfort in .88 Feel God’s love through others .83
religion
Spiritually touched by beauty .73 Ask for God’s help .84
creation
Feel deep inner peace or .79 Feel guided by God .90
harmony
Connection to God lifts daily .85
concern
The degree of closeness to God .70
Find strength in religion and .88
spirituality
Find comfort in religion and .87
spirituality
Spiritually touched by beauty .76
creation
Feel deep inner peace or harmony .77
Experience a connection to all of life .64
Feel thankful for blessings .73
Feel selfless caring for others .62
Accept others even when they do .50
things wrong
indicate how often, in their daily life, they have those spiritual experiences. The responses
range from never (coded 1) to many a day (coded 6). Items are all coded in the direction
that higher score reflects greater level of daily spiritual experiences (a = .91). Scores are
summed for each respondent and then average across the six items. In addition, we further
divide the scale into ‘‘theistic’’ and ‘‘non-theistic (self-transcendent)’’ subscales (see
Table 1) with alpha reliabilities of .88 and .80, respectively.
4.2.2 2004 DSES
The 2004 DSES (long form) is measured by a 16-item index presented in the right-hand
portion of Table 1. Respondent were asked to indicate how often, in their daily life, they
have those spiritual experiences. The responses range from never (coded 1) to many a day
(coded 6). Items were all coded in the direction that higher score reflects greater level of
daily spiritual experiences (a = .96). Scores are summed for each respondent and then
averaged across the 16 items. Notably, one of these items (‘‘In general, how close do you
feel to God?’’) is reverse scored in a 4-point metric (not at all, somewhat close, very close,
as close as possible) rather than a 6-point Likert scale. To be consistent with the
123
directionality, in accordance with Underwood’s suggestion (Underwood 2006), the raw

score of this item is reversed coded and the 4-point scale is adjusted to fit the 6-point
spectrum. We then average the adjusted score for this item into the total for the resulting
mean score. In addition, we further divide the scale into ‘‘theistic’’ and ‘‘non-theistic (self-
transcendent)’’ subscales (see Table 1) with alpha reliabilities of .95 and .90, respectively.
4.2.3 Religious Practices
Our analysis also takes into account conventional measures of organizational and nonor-
ganizational religious practices: religious attendance and prayer. Religious attendance is
measured via answers to the following question:’’ How often do you usually attend reli-
gious services?’’ Response options range from never (coded 0) to several a week (coded 8).
Higher score suggests greater level of religious attendance. Prayer is measured by a single
item: ‘‘About how often do you pray?’’ Responses range from never (coded 1) to daily
(coded 6). A higher numerical score indicates greater frequency of prayer.
4.3 Sociodemographic Characteristics
We further adjust for respondent’s sociodemographic characteristics as possible con-

founders for distress and well-being. Our analyses include control for the following:
gender, age, education, race, marital status and income.
4.3.1 Gender
Gender is a dichotomized into 1 = female, 0 = male.
4.3.2 Age
To capture the effect of DSES on psychological well-being in different age groups, we

divide respondents into three age groups and create two sets of dummy variables com-
paring young adults (18–39) and middle-aged (40–59) to older adults (60+, reference
group).
4.3.3 Education
Education is originally measured by highest educational degree earned by respondent

ranging from less than high school to graduate school. We further break down degree
completed into three levels—‘‘high education’’ (Junior college or more), ‘‘middle educa-
tion’’ (high school) and ‘‘low education’’ (less than high school). Two dummy variables are
created to compare respondents with ‘‘high education’’ and ‘‘low education’’ to ‘‘middle
education’’ (reference group).
4.3.4 Race
This variable is dichotomized into two categories with 1 = black and 0 = others.
123
4.3.5 Marital Status
Marital status is a binary variable with 1 = married and 0 = others.
4.3.6 Income
Income is a 23-point summary measure. Two dummy variables are created to contrast
respondents in low income (under $1K and $1–24.9 K) and high income ($60K or above) to
middle income (25–59.9 K, reference group), respectively. For most of the variables, missing
cases are few, and are generally handled via listwise deletion. However, family income has
approximately 11–13% missing cases across two waves. To avoid possible bias, missing
values were imputed and a dummy variable is created to identify those missing cases.
4.4 Life Stressors
Our analysis utilizes six different measures of stress: bereavement, health stressors, work
problems, financial problems, family stressors, and legal problems. Note that these stressor
items are only available in 2004 data.
4.4.1 Bereavement
Bereavement is measured by whether the respondent experienced the death of (a) ‘‘a close
friend,’’ (b) ‘‘a spouse,’’ (c) ‘‘a parent,’’ and (d) ‘‘a child’’ in the past year? A dummy
variable is created to contrast those who experienced at least one death (coded 1) to those
who experienced no death in the past year (coded 0).
4.4.2 Health Stressors
Health stressors are measured by whether the respondent experienced the following health
related matters in the past year? (a) ‘‘ill enough to go to a doctor,’’ (b) ‘‘a spouse/partner
was a patient in the hospital, sanatorium, convalescent, or nursing home,’’ (c) ‘‘a child was
a patient in the hospital, sanatorium, convalescent, or nursing home,’’ and (d) ‘‘the
respondent himself(herself) was a patient in the hospital, sanatorium, convalescent or
nursing home.’’ A dummy variable is created to compare respondents who had at least one
of the above health stressors (coded 1) to those who had none of the above health stressors
(coded 0).
4.4.3 Work Problems
Work problems are measured by whether the respondent experienced the following work-
related matters in the past year: (a) ‘‘Fired or permanently laid off,’’ (b) ‘‘Demoted or
switched to a less favorable position,’’ (c) ‘‘A cut in pay (including reduced hours),’’ (d)
‘‘Passed over for promotion,’’ (e) ‘‘Serious trouble with boss,’’ (f) ‘‘Respondent’s own
business (farm or professional office) lost money or failed,’’ (g) ‘‘Respondent’s spouse or
123
partner was fired or permanently laid off,’’ (h) ‘‘Respondent’s spouse or partner had a cut in
pay (including reduced hours),’’ (i) ‘‘Respondent’s spouse or partner was unemployed and
looking for a work as long as a month,’’ and (j) ‘‘Respondent himself(herself) was
unemployed and looking for work for as long as a month.’’ A dummy variable is created to
contrast respondents reported to have at least one of the work related problems (coded 1)
with those reported to have none of the work related problems (coded 0).
4.4.4 Financial Problems
Financial problems are measured by whether any of the following difficulties happened to
the respondent in the past year: (a) ‘‘Went bankrupt (declared personal bankruptcy),’’ (b)
‘‘Car, household appliances, or furniture repossessed,’’ (c) ‘‘Pawned or sold-off valuables
to make ends meet,’’ (d) ‘‘Pressured to pay bills by stores, creditors, or bill collectors,’’ and
(e) ‘‘Major worsening of respondent’s financial condition.’’ We develop a dummy variable
comparing respondents who had experienced at least one of the above financial problems
(coded 1) to those who had experienced none of the financial difficulties mentioned above
(coded 0).
4.4.5 Family Stressors
Family stressors are measured via whether the respondent had the following family
problems in the past year: (a) ‘‘Have serious trouble with spouse/partner,’’ (b) ‘‘Separate
from spouse/partner,’’ (c) ‘‘Break up with a steady girlfriend/boyfriend or fiancé,’’ (d)
‘‘Have a serious trouble with a child,’’ (e) ‘‘Have serious trouble with a close friend,’’ and
(f) ‘‘Obtain a divorce or separation.’’ A dummy variable is identified comparing respon-
dents who had experienced at least one of the above family stressors (coded 1) to those
who had experienced none of the family stressor mentioned above (coded 0).
4.4.6 Legal Problems
Legal problems are measured by whether any of the following criminal or legal event
occurred to the respondent since February/ March, 1990: (a) ‘‘A robbery (e.g., a mugging
or stick-up),‘‘(b) ‘‘A personal assault (e.g., being beaten up, hit, or attacked with a
weapon),’’ (c) ‘‘Respondent’s home was burglarized or broken into,’’ (d) ‘‘Accused of
something for which a person might be sent to jail,’’ and (e) ‘‘Arrested.’’ A dummy
variable is created comparing respondents who had experienced at least one of the above
legal problems (coded 1) to those who had experienced none of the legal problem men-
tioned above (coded 0). Descriptive statistics on all variables used in this study are
presented in Table 2.
5 Analytical Strategy
Our analysis proceeds in two stages. First, we perform a series of analysis linking DSES to
each psychological outcome in 1998 and 2004. Model 1(baseline model) includes only
sociodemographic variables and conventional religious measures. Models 2–4 add overall
123
Table 2 Descriptive statistics (1998 and 2004)

1998 2004 (Weighted)
N Mean (%) SD Range N Mean (%) SD Range
Mental health outcomes

Depression 1,371 1.91 .75 1–5 854 4.50 7.03 0–30
Happiness 1,364 2.19 .65 1–3 1,315 2.22 .64 1–3
Excitement with life 920 2.37 .61 1–3 880 2.46 .56 1–4
Satisfaction with self 1,090 1.75 .76 1–4
Optimistic about the future 1,086 2.12 .60 1–3
Sociodemographic control 1,374 1,318

Female (Male) 55.07% 0–1 52.33% 0–1
Young age (old age) 43.25% 0–1 42.38% 0–1
Middle age 34.64% 0–1 37.90% 0–1
High education(Middle education) 31.30% 0–1 34.38% 0–1
Low education 16.23% 0–1 12.12% 0–1
Black (Others) 13.90% 0–1 10.97% 0–1
Married (Others) 47.31% 0–1 58.96% 0–1
Low income (Middle income) 33.41% 0–1 22.14% 0–1
High income 19.07% 0–1 32.59% 0–1
Missing income (Others) 11.79% 0–1 12.71% 0–1
Religious practices 1,374 1,318

Religious attendance 3.70 2.77 0–8 3.90 2.69 0–8
Prayer 4.27 1.51 1–6 4.33 1.68 1–6
DSES 1,374 1,318
Overall measures of DSES 3.90 1.31 1–6 4.01 1.20 1–6
Theistic DSES 3.85 1.47 1–6 3.85 1.41 1–6
Non-theistic DSES 3.95 1.28 1–6 4.18 1.07 1–6
Life stressors 1,318

Bereavement 25.11% 0–1
Health stressors 64.14% 0–1
Work problems 32.42% 0–1
Financial problems 24.33% 0–1
Family stressors 22.41% 0–1
Legal problems 13.74% 0–1
measures of DSES (6-item in 1998 and 16-item in 2004), and theistic and non-theistic
DSES subscales, respectively.
Although the corresponding model for each psychological outcome includes the same
variable, the functional form for each set varies according to the dependent variable. We
begin by examining the relationship between DSES and psychological distress using a
series of OLS regression (Table 3) and zero-inflated Poisson regression (Table 4) for 1998
and 2004 data, respectively. As for positive psychological outcomes (happiness, excite-
ment with life, satisfaction with self, and optimism about the future), since they are all
ordinal variables, we use ordered logistic regression to examine the association between
123
Table 3 OLS regression estimates of daily spiritual experiences on distress

Distress (1998)
N = 1,371
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Female –.00 –.01 –.01 –.00

Young age .30**** .30**** .30**** .30****
Middle age .25**** .24**** .24**** .25****
Low education .29**** .29**** .28**** .28****
High education –.15** –.14** –.14** –.15**
Black –.10 –.11 –.11 –.10
Married –.07 –.07 –.07 –.07
Low income .20**** .20**** .20**** .20****
High income –.14* –.14* –.14* –.14*
Missing income –.04 –.04 –.04 –.04
Religious attendance –.03*** –.03*** –.03**** –.03***
Prayer .04* .03 .02 .04*
Daily spiritual experiences .01
Theistic DSES .04
Non-theistic DSES –.02
Intercept 1.67**** 1.65**** 1.62**** 1.70****
R2 .12 .12 .12 .12
Adj R2 .11 .11 .11 .11
Notes: Cell entries are OLS regression coefficients

****p \ .0001, ***p \ .001, **p \ .01, *p \ .05, p \ .1
DSES and psychological well-being. All cell entries are in the form of odds ratios. After
testing the main effects model, next we add a series of cross-product interaction terms (the
cross-product term of DSES and sociodemographic characteristics) to test the hypothesis
that the association between DSES and psychological well-being vary by different soci-
odemographic strata. Finally, we test the hypothesis regarding the possible stress-buffering
properties of DSES on psychological well-being by including cross-product interaction
terms as shown in Table 10. As noted earlier, all analysis in 2004 is weighted to adjust for
subsampling of non-respondents and number of adults in the household.
6 Results
6.1 Psychological Distress
Tables 3–4 display results of the DSES on psychological distress using OLS regression for
the analysis in 1998 and zero-inflated Poisson regression for the analysis in 2004. In
general, our results provide limited support for the association between DSES and psy-
chological distress for each year. As shown in Table 3, OLS regression model reveals that
there is little (e.g., theistic DSES, p \ .1) or no association (e.g., overall and non-theistic
123
Table 4 Zero-inflated Poisson regression coefficients estimating the effects of daily spiritual experiences
on distress odds and counts
Distress (2004)
N = 854
Log odds of no distress

Female –.39* –.41* –.40* –.41*
Young age –1.12*** –1.13*** –1.16*** –1.10***
Middle age –.93** –.94** –.96** –.91**
Low education –.12 –.17 –.18 –.14
High education –.26 –.25 –.24 –.26
Black .31 .26 .25 .29
Married .25 .25 .25 .27
Low income –.35 –.36 –.36 –.36
High income –.08 –.05 –.04 –.08
Missing income .04 –.01 –.00 .01
Religious attendance .02 –.00 –.00 .01
Prayer .03 –.08 –.09 –.04
Daily spiritual experiences .27*
Theistic DSES .24*
Non-theistic DSES .23*
Constant .48 –.00 .23 –.11
Log of distress counts

Female –.05 –.04 –.05 –.04
Young age .21 .21 .22 .21
Middle age .01 .02 .03 .01
Low education –.03 –.01 –.01 –.02
High education –.13 –.14 –.14 –.13
Black –.14 –.11 –.10 –.12
Married –.14 –.15 –.14 –.15
Low income .15 .16 .16 .16
High income .04 .04 .03 .04
Missing income .07 .09 .08 .10
Religious attendance –.05 –.04 –.04 –.04
Prayer .04 .08 .08 .07
Daily spiritual experiences –.09
Theistic DSES –.08
Non-theistic DSES –.09
Constant 2.01*** 2.17*** 2.08*** 2.21***
Log pseudo-likelihood –3023.91 –3010.09 –3011.62 –3012.27
Notes: Cell entries are zero-inflated Poisson regression coefficients

****p \ .0001, ***p \ .001, **p \ .01, *p \ .05, p \ .1
123
DSES, ns) between the 6-item measure of DSES and psychological distress, net of other
controls.
Table 4 displays the results of zero-inflated Poisson regression of numbers of depressive
days on the sets of independent variables utilizing the 16-item measure of DSES. Because
approximately 40% of the respondents reported zero days of psychological distress in 2004
data, the distribution of our dependent variable is inflated by zero. Zero-inflated Poisson
regression is appropriate to model outcomes measured as counts with excess zero values in
the data. This provides the prediction of the odds of no-distress and the number of days in
distress. The upper portion of Model 2 of Table 4 indicates that people with a unit increase
in daily spiritual experiences have 31% higher odds of having no distress, holding other
variables constant (OR = 1.31, p \ .05). This pattern holds for both theistic DSES and
non-theistic DSES. Although we have modest support for the negative association between
DSES and risk of distress, we find no evidence for the linkage between DSES and number
of days in distress. Indeed, as shown in the lower portion of Table 4, greater level of daily
spiritual experiences is not associated with fewer days in distress (OR = .91, ns), holding
other variables constant. Taken together, there is relatively limited evidence linking DSES
with negative psychological effects (Question 1).
6.2 Psychological Well-being
By contrast, our results strongly support the hypothesis that DSES is related to positive
psychological affects. Tables 5–8 presents cumulative odds ratios from a series of ordered
logistic models, estimating the net effects of daily spiritual experiences on four dimensions
of positive psychological affect, respectively: happiness, excitement with life, satisfaction
with self, and optimism about the future.
Several findings emerged from Tables 5–8 are especially noteworthy. First, results of
Models 2–4 show that the DSES items(overall, theistic, and non-theistic) are all strongly
positively related to positive psychological affect, net of the controls of social demographic
characteristics and conventional religious practices (attendance and prayer), suggesting
that DSES has a bearing on positive affect through aspects of spirituality other than
conventional religious practices. This pattern holds for each positive psychological out-
come across both years. Overall, individuals with a unit increase of daily spiritual
experiences is associated with significantly higher odds (13–72% increase) of being happy,
excited, satisfied with self, and optimistic about the future in the ordered logit scale while
other variables are held constant (Question 1).
Second, the net effect sizes of DSES are generally similar in each year across four
dimensions of positive outcomes except in Model 3 of Table 5 where non-theistic DSES in
1998 (b = 1.20, p \ .001, see Table 5) seems to predict happiness somewhat better than
2004 items (b = 1.13 p \ .1). Taken as whole, our findings are in line with those of previous
work (the Loyola study), suggesting that the DSES is strongly associated with higher levels
of positive affect, but has relatively little bearing on negative affect (Question 2).
Third, consistent with previous studies, our results reveal that religious attendance
exerts a modest but positive significant effect on most of the outcomes (except for satis-
faction with self) as shown in Table 7. The inclusion of the DSES items in Models 2–4
does weaken the magnitude of attendance on most of the positive psychological outcomes,
especially for the analysis in 2004. However, no persistent pattern is found across two
years. Based on results displayed in the left-hand portion of Tables 5, 6, the DSES only
accounts for a modest portion of the well-established association between religious
123
Table 5 Ordered logistic regression estimates for daily spiritual experiences on happiness
262
Happiness
123
N = 1,364 N = 1,315
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Female 1.05 1.03 1.05 1.01 1.16 1.14 1.16 1.13

Young age .88 .90 .88 .93 1.16 1.17 1.16 1.19
Middle age .70* .69* .68* .71* .75 .75 .75 .76
Low education .89 .90 .89 .93 .67* .65* .65* .66*
High education 1.28 1.35* 1.33* 1.34* 1.16 1.18 1.18 1.16
Black .63** .59** .60** .59** .92 .88 .89 .90
Married 2.29**** 2.24**** 2.27**** 2.22**** 2.14**** 2.11**** 2.11**** 2.15****
Low income .58*** .58**** .58*** .58*** .80 .78 .80 .77
High income 1.47* 1.53** 1.53** 1.49* 1.57** 1.60** 1.60** 1.58**
Missing income 1.19 1.20 1.19 1.22 .73 .73 .73 .72

Religious attendance 1.14**** 1.09** 1.11**** 1.08** 1.07** 1.04 1.05 1.04
Prayer 1.02 0.90* 0.94 0.90* 1.14*** 1.03 1.08 1.02
Daily Spiritual Experiences 1.38**** 1.28***
Theistic DSES 1.20*** 1.13
Non-theistic DSES 1.44**** 1.39****
–2 Log likelihood 2407.56 2378.68 2394.89 2366.66 2321.80 2310.36 2318.52 2300.13
Dx2 28.88 12.67 40.90 11.44 3.28 21.67
Notes: Cells entries are cumulative odds ratios
****p \ .0001, ***p \ .001, **p \ .01, *p \ .05, p \ .1
C. G. Ellison, D. Fan
attendance and psychological well-being in 1998 data. Taking happiness in 1998 as an

example (left-hand portion of Table 5), although the introduction of overall DSES and
theistic DSES in Models 2 and 4, partially attenuates the odds of religious attendance on
happiness from 1.14 (p \ .0001) to 1.09 (p \ .01) and 1.08 (p \ .01), respectively, the net
association between attendance and happiness remains strong and significant. Moreover,
the incorporation of theistic DSES in Model 3 of Table 5 has almost no bearing on the net
effect of religious attendance (OR = 1.11, p \ .0001). The results are similar to those
found in Table 6. In addition, interestingly, rather than a mediating pattern, findings in
Tables 7, 8 suggest a strong suppressor pattern between frequency of prayer and two
dimensions of positive affects (satisfaction with self and optimistic about the future), after
adjusting for the DSES. All in all, we do not find strong and consistent support for the
argument that DSES mediates the association between religious practices and psycho-
logical well-being (Question 3).
In addition, when comparing baseline model with Models 2–4 of Tables 5–8, in general,
we find that non-theistic items (Model 4) seem to be a better predictor of positive psy-
chological outcomes than overall DSES (Model 2) and theistic DSES (Model 3). As the
model fit becomes better, –2 Log L decreases in magnitude and the difference with
baseline model (Dx2) becomes greater. Indeed, taking year 1998 (left portion of Table 5) as
an example, Model 4 has the smallest –2 Log L(2366.66) and largest Dx2 (40.49) compared
to Models 2 and 3, suggesting a better overall model fit with the inclusion of non-theistic
items. Similar patterns can also be found for other psychological outcomes such as
excitement with life, satisfaction with self and optimism about the future presented in
Tables 6–8 (Question 4).
6.3 Interaction Effects
In addition to examining the possible direct and mediating effects of the DSES on psy-
chological well-being, we next examine whether the DSES exerts different effects among
specific groups (age, gender, race, or SES). The results of the interaction between the
DSES and sociodemographic variables on psychological outcomes (with the adjustment
for other sociodemographic factors and religious practices) are summarized in Table 9.
Since we are more interested in the direction and significance level of the cross-product
term than the exact coefficient, only that information is rerported. As shown in the lower-
portion of Table 9, the only significant relationship in 1998 data is the interaction between
young age and DSES on excitement about the future (p \ .05). As for results of 2004, we
find that the effects of DSES on some of the positive outcomes are particularly salient
among the female, African American, and missing income groups (e.g., the cross-product
term of female and DSES on happiness and satisfaction with self, the cross-product term
of black and DSES on optimistic about the future and the cross-product term of missing
income and DSES on excitement with life) at .05 or .1 level. Similarly the DSES seems to
protect against distress among well-educated people (p \ .05) but to exacerbate distress
among African Americans (p \ .05). Overall, no consistent or interpretable pattern of
interactions is found in either year. As a result, contrary to hypothesis 2, we find no clear
evidence of any group difference in the effects of the DSES on psychological well-being
(Question 5).
Finally, in Table 10, we examine the possibility that the links between the DSES and
psychological outcomes are contingent on levels of stress. Contrary to our expectation,
there are only two significant interactions among 30 possible stress-buffering relationships:
123
Table 6 Ordered logistic regression estimates for daily spiritual experiences on excitement with life
264
Excitement with life
123
N = 920 N = 880
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Female .65** .64** .65** .63** 1.10 1.08 1.09 1.06

Young age 1.28 1.32 1.28 1.36 1.17 1.17 1.15 1.21
Middle age 1.29 1.30 1.28 1.34 1.25 1.26 1.24 1.28
Low education .52*** .53** .52*** .54** .89 .87 .86 .89
High education 1.76*** 1.83*** 1.82*** 1.81*** 1.85**** 1.91**** 1.91**** 1.88****
Black .71 .67* .68 .68 .76 .71 .72 .72
Married 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.07 .99 .99 .98 1.00
Low income .75 .76 .76 .76 .81 .78 .79 .76
High income 1.82** 1.88** 1.87** 1.85** 1.49* 1.47* 1.50* 1.43*
Missing income 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.02 .76 .72 .75 .69
Religious attendance 1.11*** 1.08* 1.09** 1.07* 1.07* 1.03 1.04 1.04
Prayer 1.12* 1.02 1.05* 1.02 1.06 .91 .94 .93
Daily spiritual experiences 1.26** 1.40***
Theistic DSES 1.15* 1.24*
Non-theistic DSES 1.29*** 1.47****
–2 Log likelihood 1520.12 1510.20 1515.64 1506.68 1356.36 1343.36 1349.84 1338.63
Dx2 9.92 4.48 13.44 13.00 6.52 17.73

****p \ .0001, ***p \ .001, **p \ .01, *p \ .05, p \ .1
C. G. Ellison, D. Fan
Table 7 Weighted ordered logistic regression estimates for daily spiritual experiences on satisfaction with
self (2004)
Satisfaction with self (2004)
N = 1,090
Female .87 .85 .86 .84

Young age .90 .91 .89 .95
Middle age .63** .62** .61** .63*
Low education 1.06 1.03 1.01 1.06
High education 1.52** 1.59*** 1.60*** 1.54**
Black 1.50 1.48 1.45 1.53*
Married 1.39* 1.37* 1.36* 1.41*
Low income .98 .94 .96 .92
High income 1.47* 1.51** 1.54** 1.45*
Missing income 1.06 1.04 1.06 1.01
Religious attendance 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prayer 1.04 .84** .88* .87**
Daily spiritual experiences 1.64****
Theistic DSES 1.39***
Non-theistic DSES 1.72****
–2 Log likelihood 1865.29 1830.37 1845.10 1821.28
Dx2 34.92 20.19 44.01

****p \ .0001, ***p \ .001, **p \ .01, *p \ .05, p \ .1
the cross-product term of legal problems and DSES on happiness and excitement with life.
Although this suggests that the DSES may be able to boost happiness and excitement
among those with legal problems (p \ .1), due to small number of significant interactions,
there is no consistent overall pattern to confirm the stress-buffering effect of the DSES
(Question 6).
7 Discussion
The goal of this study has been to augment our knowledge of a new, and increasingly
popular, measure of spirituality, the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (DSES; Underwood
2006; Underwood and Teresi 2002) by: (a) examining its associations with multiple
psychosocial outcomes, as well as (b) exploring variations in these associations by
demographic subgroup, stressor exposure, short versus long versions of the DSES, and
theistic versus non-theistic subscales, using data from two nationwide surveys of US
adults, the 1998 and 2004 NORC General Social Surveys. Several important substantive
conclusions emerge from these analyses:
First, the DSES is a relatively strong predictor of positive well-being outcomes avail-
able in the GSS: happiness, excitement with life, self-esteem, and optimism. The effect
sizes are substantial, and where comparisons across versions of the DSES are possible (i.e.,
between the 6-item short form and the 16-item long form), there are no clear differences in
123
Table 8 Weighted ordered logistic regression estimates for daily spiritual experiences on optimistic about
the future (2004)
Optimistic about the future (2004)
N = 1,086
Female .85 .82 .83 .81

Young age 1.35 1.45* 1.39 1.50*
Middle age 1.08 1.12 1.10 1.14
Low education .77 .75 .73 .78
High education 1.00 1.03 1.05 .99
Black 1.28 1.25 1.21 1.31
Married .97 .96 .94 .97
Low income 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.19
High income 1.36* 1.38* 1.42* 1.33
Missing income 1.34 1.34 1.37 1.30
Religious attendance 1.07** 1.02 1.02 1.04
Prayer 1.03 .82*** .84** .86**
Daily spiritual experiences 1.71****
Theistic DSES 1.50****
Non-theistic DSES 1.69****
–2 Log likelihood 2099.75 2056.76 2067.84 2056.53
Dx2 42.99 31.91 43.22

****p \ .0001, ***p \ .001, **p \ .01, *p \ .05, p \ .1
the magnitude or statistical significance of relationships. On the other hand, the DSES
bears little or no association with two different indicators of psychological distress that are
contained in these databases.
Second, there is no evidence that the DSES mediates the associations between religious
practices (chiefly measured in terms of self-reported religious attendance) and these psy-
chosocial outcomes. Consistent with a wealth of previous studies, we find that religious
attendance bears a modest but significant positive association with most of the outcomes
examined here. However, the DSES bears a strong independent link with well-being; its
inclusion adds significantly to the fit of all models of positive psychosocial outcomes, but
controlling for the DSES has little impact on the estimated net effect of attendance. In other
words, daily spiritual experiences do not help to account for—or explain (away)—the links
between religious attendance and well-being; instead, the DSES appears to tap yet another
aspect of spirituality that is associated with these outcomes.
Third, the use of different versions of the GSS contained in the 1998 and 2004 editions
of the GSS provides an opportunity to compare their respective associations with well-
being. However, based on these results, it is not clear that the long form (16 items, 2004)
predicts these outcomes better than the short form (6 items, 1998). To the contrary, the
estimated net effect sizes appear similar. Because each version of the DSES contains a mix
of theistic and non-theistic items by design, it is possible to compare their respective
associations with well-being, within and across the two years of the GSS. Based on the
123
Table 9 The interaction between daily spiritual experiences and social demographic characteristics on
mental health outcomes
2004
Distress Happiness Excitement with life Satisfaction Optimistic about the future
with self
Female 0 + 0 +* 0
Young age 0 0 0 0 0
Middle age 0 0 0 0 0
Low education 0 0 0 0 0
High education –* +* 0 0 0
Black +* 0 0 0 +*
Married 0 0 0 0 0
Low income 0 0 0 0 0
High income 0 0 0 0 0
Missing income 0 0 + 0 0
1998
Distress Happiness Excitement with life
Female 0 0 0
Young age 0 0 –*
Middle age 0 0 0
Low education 0 0 0
High education 0 0 0
Black 0 0 0
Married 0 0 0
Low income 0 0 0
High income 0 0 0
Missing income 0 0 0
Notes: Only statistically significant relationships are displayed. All models adjust for other sociodemo-
graphic characteristics, religious attendance and frequency of prayer
*p \ .05, p \ .1
Table 10 The interaction between daily spiritual experiences and life stressors on mental health outcomes
(2004)
Distress Happiness Excitement Satisfaction with self Optimistic about the future
with life
Bereavement 0 0 0 0 0
Health stressor 0 0 0 0 0
Work problems 0 0 0 0 0
Financial problems 0 0 0 0 0
Family stressor 0 0 0 0 0
Legal problems 0 +* +* 0 0
Notes: Only statistically significant relationships are displayed. All models adjust for sociodemographic
characteristics, religious attendance and frequency of prayer
*p \ .05, p \ .1
123
pattern of results observed here, it seems that the non-theistic subscale consistently out-
performs the theistic subscale as a predictor of well-being. This is true in each year, and
across most of the outcomes examined in this study. Thus, it may be important for
investigators to distinguish between these two subscales, and the reasons for this pattern of
differences certainly merits closer scrutiny in the future.
Fourth, a clear advantage of including the DSES in a nationally representative sample of
US adults—as opposed to specialized and/or clinical samples—is to gauge the robustness of
its associations with well-being. To what extent are these relationships confined to specific
segments of the population, e.g., certain SES or racial/ethnic subgroups, or age categories,
or one gender group? In these data we find no consistent or meaningful pattern of subgroup
variations in the links between the DSES and well-being, for any outcome, for either year.
Indeed, in 1998 only 1 of 30 statistical interactions tested was significant at even the p \ .05
level (two-tailed); in 2004, only 5 of 50 interactions were significant at this level, while 2
others were significant at the p \ .10 level (two-tailed, i.e., p \ .05, one-tailed). Thus, in
each year only a small number of interactions, or contingent associations, were detected,
which is roughly what chance alone would predict (i.e., 3–10% of tests were statistically
significant). Also, the pattern of interactions was quite scattered across the subgroups,
yielding no clear or interpretable patterns. Moreover, it would be appropriate to introduce
statistical adjustment for the number of tests conducted, in order to avoid the potential for
capitalizing on chance associations. Examples of this would include a Bonferroni adjust-
ment, or a simple division of the alpha level by the number of tests conducted. Any such
adjustment would render virtually all of these interactive findings non-significant.
Fifth, in a similar vein, although theoretical analyses have suggested that the DSES may
serve as a stress buffer, we find no evidence that the links between the DSES and well-
being are stronger for persons who have encountered (a) multiple stressful life events or
conditions during the preceding year, or (b) any specific type or pattern of stressors (e.g., in
certain domains, such as family, bereavement, financial problems, etc.). It was only pos-
sible to address this question using the 2004 GSS data, which included information on a
broad array of social stressors. However, two of 30 possible interactions were significant,
each of those at the p \ .05 level (two-tailed). Once again, adjustment of the alpha level
for the number of tests conducted (.05/30 = .0017) would eliminate these two patterns.
Given the evidence of robust associations between the DSES and psychological well-
being in these general population samples, the DSES measure of daily (or routine) spiritual
experiences clearly deserves further study. Several directions for future research seem
especially promising. First, the DSES was initially developed for use in health-related
studies, and its inclusion in additional work on psychosocial outcomes certainly seems
warranted. Although our results underscore the robust associations between the DSES and
various facets of well-being, two caveats should be entered. First, a limitation of this study
is that the GSS contains only a handful of items tapping psychosocial outcomes, and the
reliability and validity of most of these measures is unclear, as is their relationship to more
established measures of optimism, self-esteem, and other dimensions of well-being. Thus,
replication using such measures is recommended. Second, as noted earlier, it is less clear
whether or how the DSES is associated with negative mental health outcomes. The
measures of distress included in the 1998 and 2004 GSS—which are the only negative
outcomes available in either year of the GSS—may be less than ideal for drawing firm
conclusions on this matter. The 1998 measure is a brief measure of non-specific distress (a
composite of depressed affect, anxiety, hopelessness, and worthlessness; see Kessler et al.
2002), while the 2004 measure is simply a count of the total number of days during the
preceding month in which the respondent experienced feelings of emotional upset.
123
Thus, it will be important to conduct further work using recognized indicators of

clinically relevant aspects of psychopathology, e.g., the SA-45 (Sitarenios et al. 2000), or
diagnostic measures based on the DSM-IV (e.g., major depression, generalized anxiety
disorder, etc.). Further, despite its advantages (i.e., size, representativeness), one key
limitation of the GSS is its replicated cross-sectional design. It would be extremely helpful
to know the extent to which observed associations between the DSES and various indi-
cators of well-being reflect relatively stable, dispositional factors, and whether daily
spiritual experiences actually influence changes in these outcomes over time. The inclusion
of at least the short form of the DSES in longitudinal studies (ideally, across more than two
waves of data) would be a major step forward, because it would allow for direct exami-
nation of this issue.
Although the DSES items were developed with specific reference to accounts of
spiritual experiences drawn from multiple world religious traditions, and were intended to
be relevant to individuals from a broad array of religio-cultural backgrounds and contexts
(Underwood 2006; Underwood and Teresi 2002), the extent to which this laudable goal
was achieved can only be assessed via further research on non-Judeo-Christian groups.
Such studies are needed (a) within the US and other western societies, which are under-
going slow but steady religious diversification (e.g., Smith 2002), and in other societies,
e.g., in South and East Asia (e.g., Kim 2003).
Finally, in light of the mounting evidence of the potential value of the DSES, the
determinants and antecedents of such routine daily spiritual experiences should be
investigated thoroughly, as well as the sequelae. Specifically, it may be worth knowing
about the social processes, religious socialization practices, life circumstances, and other
factors that may foster or impede such experiences of the transcendent in daily life. This
might also extend to possible biosocial or genetic influences. For example, recent work
underscores the significant genetic contribution in religiousness and spirituality, and par-
ticularly the tendencies toward major, life-changing religious or spiritual experiences (i.e.,
more so than other facets, such as religious affiliations, practices, or doctrinal beliefs)
(Bradshaw and Ellison 2007). Thus, the potential genetic background must be taken into
account before firm conclusions about causal relationships between the DSES and well-
being or other outcomes can be reached.
In sum, this study has contributed to our understanding of a neglected domain of
religiousness and spirituality, daily or routine spiritual experiences, and the associations
between an increasingly popular measure of this domain (the DSES; Underwood 2006) and
psychological well-being. Our results indicate that the DSES—and especially its non-
theistic component—bears a substantial association with positive well-being variables. To
our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate such associations within a high-
quality, nationally representative sample of community-dwelling US adults. Given the
strength of these associations, and their consistency across subgroups within the popula-
tion, the DSES merits further study and incorporation into research on the links between
religiousness and spirituality with health, well-being, and perhaps other outcomes as well.
We hope this paper will stimulate interest in, and attention to, these objectives.
References
Bradshaw, M., & Ellison, C. G. (2007). Is individual religious involvement the product of biological
predispositions, social forces, or both? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (in press).
123
Ciarrocchi, J. W., & Deneke, E. (2004). Happiness and the varieties of religious experience: Religious
support, practices, and spirituality as predictors of well-being. Research in the Social Scientific Study of
Religion, 15, 211–233.
Cook, J. A., & Wimberly, D. W. (1983). If I should die before I wake: Religious commitment and
adjustment to death of a child. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 222–238.
Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2004). General Social Surveys: Cumulative Codebook, 1972–
2004, Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Machine-readable data file [MRDF] distributed by
Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, and Roper Center for
Public Opinion, Storrs, CT.
Dunn, K. S., Chapelski, E., Wordlaw Stinson, L., & Massanari, R. M. (2004). Everyday spirituality in
central city elders. Journal of Religious Gerontology, 15(3), 41–59.
Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 32, 80–99.
Ellison, C. G., Boardman, J. D., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). Stress, religious involvement, and
mental health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Area Study. Social Forces, 80, 215–249.
Ellison, C. G., & Levin, J. S. (1998). The religion-health connection: Evidence, theory, and future directions.
Health Education and Behavior, 25, 700–720.
Flannelly, K. J., Koenig, H. G., Ellison, C. G., & Galek, K. C. (2006). Belief in an afterlife and mental
health: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(7), 524–529.
Fowler, D. N., & Hill, H. M. (2004). Social support and spirituality as culturally relevant factors in coping
among African American women survivors of partner abuse. Violence Against Women, 10, 1267–1282.
Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and mental health: A meta-analysis of recent studies.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 43–56.
Hadaway, C. K., Marler, P. L., & Chaves, M. (1993). What the polls don’t show: A closer look at US church
attendance. American Sociological Review, 58, 741–752.
Hayton, T., Boylan, L. S., Jackson, S. C., & Devinsky, O. (2002). Religious/spiritual beliefs and behavior in
epilepsy. Annals of Neurology, 52(3), S20.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and
spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist, 58, 64–74.
Holland, J. C., Kash, K. M., Passik, S., Gronert, M. K., Sison, A., Lederberg, M., Russak, S. M., Baider, L.,
& Fox, B. (1998). A brief spiritual belief inventory for use in quality of life research in life-threatening
disease. Psycho-oncology, 7(6), 460–469.
Holland, J. M., & Niemeyer, R. A. (2006). Reducing the risk of burnout in end-of-life settings: The role of
daily spiritual experiences and training. Palliative and Supportive Care, 3, 173–181.
Hood, R. W., Jr. (1997). The empirical study of mysticism. In B. Spilka & D. N. McIntosh (Eds.), The
Psychology of Religion (pp. 222–232). Boulder: Westview Press.
Idler, E. L. (1987). Religious involvement and the health of the elderly: Some hypotheses and an initial test.
Social Forces, 66, 226–238.
Idler, E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K., Krause, N., Ory, M., Levin, J. S., Pargament, K. I.,
Powell, L., Underwood, L., & Williams, D. R. (2003). Measuring multiple dimensions of religion and
spirituality for health research. Research on Aging, 25, 327–365.
Ironson, G., Solomon, G. F., Balbin, E. G., O’Cleirigh, C., George, A., Kumar, M., Larson, D., & Woods, T.
E. (2002). The Ironson-Woods spirituality/religiousness index is associated with long survival, health
behaviors, less distress and low cortisol in people with HIV/AIDS. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,
24(1), 34–48.
Keefe, F. J., Affleck, G., Underwood, L. G., Lefebvre, J., Caldwell, D. S., Drew, J., Egert, J., Gibson, J., &
Pargament, K. (2001). Living with rheumatoid arthritis pain: The role of daily spirituality and daily
religious and spiritual coping. Journal of Pain, 2(2), 101–110.
Kendler, K. S., Ling, X. Q., Gardner, C. O., McCullough, M. E., Larson, D. B., & Prescott, C. A. (2003).
Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and substance use disorders.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 496–503.
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S.-L. T., Walters, E. E., &
Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence and trends in non-
specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976.
Kim, A. E. (2003). Religious influences on personal and societal well-being. Social Indicators Research, 62,
63, 149–170.
Koenig, H. G., George, L. K., & Titus, P. (2004a). Religion, spirituality, and health in medically ill
hospitalized older patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52, 554–562.
Koenig, H. G., George, L. K., Titus, P., & Meador, K. G. (2004b). Religion, spirituality, and acute care
hospitalization and long-term care by older patients. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164, 1579–1585.
123
Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Krause, N. (2002). Exploring race differences in a comprehensive battery of church-based social support
measures. Review of Religious Research, 44, 126–149.
Krause, N. (2003). Religious meaning and subjective well-being in late life. Journal of Gerontology:
Psychological Sciences, B58, S160–S170.
Krause, N. (2006a). Exploring the stress-buffering effects of church-based and secular social support on self-
rated health in late life. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 61B, S35–S43.
Krause, N. (2006b). Gratitude toward God, stress, and health in late life. Research on Aging, 28, 163–183.
Krause, N. (2006c). Religious doubt and psychological well-being: A longitudinal investigation. Review of
Religious Research, 47, 287–302.
Krause, N., & Ellison, C. G. (2003). Forgiveness of others, forgiveness by God, and psychological well-
being in late life. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 77–93.
Mirola, W. A. (1999). A refuge for some: Gender differences in the relationship between religious
involvement and depression. Sociology of Religion, 60, 419–437.
Otto, R. ([1923] 1958). The idea of the holy. London: Oxford University Press.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping. New York: Guilford.
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods of religious coping: Devel-
opment and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 519–543.
Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative
religious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 710–724.
Parker, M., Roff, L., Klemmack, D. L., Koenig, H. G., & Baker, P. (2003). Religiosity and mental health in
southern, community-dwelling older adults. Aging and Mental Health, 7, 390–397.
Pearce, M. J., Little, T. D., & Perez, J. E. (2003). Religiousness and depressive symptoms among adoles-
cents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 267–276.
Peterman, A. H., Fitchett, G., Brady, M. J., Hernandez, L., & Cella, D. (2002). Measuring spiritual well-
being in people with cancer: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy- spiritual well-being
scale (FACIT-Sp). Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24(1), 49–58.
Pollner, M. L. (1989). Divine relations, social relations, and well-being. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 30, 90–104.
Roof, W. C. (1993). A generation of seekers. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Roof, W. C. (2000). Spiritual marketplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sawatzky, R., Ratner, P. A. & Chiu, L. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between spirituality and
quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 72, 153–188.
Schieman, S., Pudrovska, T. & Milkie, M. A. (2005). The sense of divine control and the self-concept: A
study of race differences in late life. Research on Aging, 27, 165–196.
Sitarenios, G., Rayes, M., & Morrison, J. (2000). SA-45: The symptom assessment-45 questionnaire. North
Tonawanda (NY): Multi-Health Systems.
Smith, T. W. (2002). Religious diversity in America: The emergence of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and
others. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 577–585.
Smith, T. B., McCullough, M. E., & Poll, J. (2003). Religiousness and depression: Evidence for a main
effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 614–636.
St. George, A., & McNamara, P. H. (1984). Religion, race, and psychological well-being. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 23, 351–363.
Strawbridge, W. J., Shema, S. J., Cohen, R. D., Roberts, R. E., & Kaplan, G. A. (1998). Religiosity buffers
the effects of some stressors on depression but exacerbates others. Journal of Gerontology: Social
Sciences, B53, S118–S126.
Underhill, E. ([1911] 1961). Mysticism. New York: E.P. Dutton.
Underwood, L. G. (2006). Ordinary spiritual experience: Qualitative research, interpretive guidelines, and
population distribution for the daily spiritual experiences scale. Archive for the Psychology of Religion/
Archiv fur Religion Psychologie, 28, 181–218.
Underwood, L .G., & Teresi, J. A. (2002). The daily spiritual experience scale: Development, theoretical
description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using health-
related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 22–33.
Thomas, M. E., & Holmes, B. J. (1992). Determinants of satisfaction for blacks and whites. The Sociological
Quarterly, 33, 459–472.
Zemore, S. E., & Kaskutus, L. A. (2004). Helping, spirituality, and Alcoholics Anonymous in recovery.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 383–391.
Zullig, K. J., Ward, R. M., & Horn, T. (2006). The association between perceived spirituality, religiosity, and
life satisfaction: The mediating role of self-rated health. Social Indicators Research, 79(2), 255–274.
123

Daily Spiritual Experiences

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Daily Spiritual Experiences

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Soc Indic Res (2008) 88:247–271

Daily Spiritual Experiences and Psychological Well-being

Christopher G. Ellison Æ Daisy Fan

Accepted: 3 September 2007 / Published online: 10 October 2007

Keywords Daily spiritual experiences Mental health Psychological well-being

C. G. Ellison (&) D. Fan

4.1 Dependent Variables: Psychological Distress and Psychological Well-Being

Our dependent variables include five dimensions of psychological outcomes (psycholog-

4.1.1 Psychological Distress (1998)

4.1.2 Psychological Distress (2004)

4.1.3 Happiness (1998 and 2004)

4.1.4 Excitement with Life (1998 and 2004)

4.1.5 Satisfaction with Self (2004)

4.1.6 Optimistic About the Future (2004)

4.2 Independent Variables

4.2.1 1998 DSES

Daily spiritual Loading Loading

Theistic Feel God’s presence .89 Feel God’s presence .87

Daily spiritual Loading Loading

Desire to be closer to God .87 Desire to be closer to God .84

4.2.2 2004 DSES

directionality, in accordance with Underwood’s suggestion (Underwood 2006), the raw

4.2.3 Religious Practices

4.3 Sociodemographic Characteristics

We further adjust for respondent’s sociodemographic characteristics as possible con-

Gender is a dichotomized into 1 = female, 0 = male.

To capture the effect of DSES on psychological well-being in different age groups, we

Education is originally measured by highest educational degree earned by respondent

4.3.5 Marital Status

Marital status is a binary variable with 1 = married and 0 = others.

4.4 Life Stressors

4.4.2 Health Stressors

4.4.3 Work Problems

4.4.4 Financial Problems

4.4.5 Family Stressors

4.4.6 Legal Problems

Table 2 Descriptive statistics (1998 and 2004)

N Mean (%) SD Range N Mean (%) SD Range

Mental health outcomes

Sociodemographic control 1,374 1,318

Religious practices 1,374 1,318

Life stressors 1,318

Table 3 OLS regression estimates of daily spiritual experiences on distress

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Female –.00 –.01 –.01 –.00

Notes: Cell entries are OLS regression coefficients

6.1 Psychological Distress

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Log odds of no distress

Log of distress counts

Notes: Cell entries are zero-inflated Poisson regression coefficients

6.2 Psychological Well-being

1998 2004 (Weighted)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Female 1.05 1.03 1.05 1.01 1.16 1.14 1.16 1.13

attendance and psychological well-being in 1998 data. Taking happiness in 1998 as an

6.3 Interaction Effects

Excitement with life

1998 2004 (Weighted)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Female .65** .64** .65** .63** 1.10 1.08 1.09 1.06

Notes: Cells entries are cumulative odds ratios

Female .65 .64 .65 .63 1.10 1.08 1.09 1.06