AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SIXTH MAJOR DIMENSION OF PERSONALITY:

THE NUMINOUS

Author Note: The author would like to thank Drs. Martin Sherman and Jesse Fox for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Address correspondence regarding this paper to the author at The Center for Professional Studies, 9603 Deereco Road, #5334, Timonium, MD 21094, or via email at drralph@thecfps.com.

Abstract

 The psychology of religion and spirituality is a vibrant field of endeavor because its constructs capture ultimate existential concerns. Yet, the field is stymied by issues of definition, inclusiveness, and generalizability. In order to address these issues, the Five-Factor Model of personality was used in a programmatic research process that aimed to identify a new personality domain that would capture the underlying motivations that explain why religious and spiritual constructs are so important. This report outlines the empirical criteria for developing a new personality dimension and presents the findings from over 25 years of research aimed at empirically identifying this new personality domain. Termed the Numinous, it represents a universal, uniquely human quality that addresses efforts at creating ultimate meaning and well-being. The personological significance of the Numinous is outlined and its relevance for integrating diverse research perspectives as well as its mental health implications are discussed.

An Introduction to the Sixth Major Dimension of Personality: The Numinous          

The psychology of religion and spirituality (PRS) is a vibrant field of endeavor that has been gaining in popularity for over 30 years with little apparent abatement in interest (e.g., Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003). Professionals from across the scientific disciplines are recognizing the value of religious and spiritual (R/S) constructs for addressing key psychological issues in the psychological lives of people. R/S qualities represent important aspects of who we are as people, in fact some consider these qualities to be defining aspects of our species (Albright & Ashbrook, 2001). No doubt R/S constructs are important because they reflect important questions concerning existential ultimacy, such as “What happens to us after we die?” and “Does life carry an intrinsic meaning or is it all chaos?” Answers to these questions, and those like it, carry important implications for how individuals engage life and the issues they confront (e.g., Boyd & Zimbardo, 1997). Nonetheless, the field is stymied by a number of conceptual and empirical issues related to the definition of its constructs, inclusivity, and generalizability of findings. While some may believe that the field is unable to provide satisfying answers to these issues (e.g., Buss, 2001; Paloutzian & Park, 2021; Sloane, Bagiella, & Powell, 2001), I believe that science does have the tools to address these concerns and to identify empirically those motivations and processes that underlie humans’ strong interest in religion and spirituality. At the heart of this approach is the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Its inherent taxonomic structure can be useful for identifying potentially new personality domains. By examining R/S constructs within this model, the potential exists for identifying important, universal motivations that reflect our internal existential needs. The purpose of this report is to outline the empirical criteria for determining whether a construct is unique and to present evidence supporting the existence of a new dimension of personality, termed the Numinous.

Brief Overview of the FFM

Perhaps the most important empirical development in personality psychology has been the emergence of the FFM (Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 2010). This model has shown itself to be quite robust, subsuming constructs from other personality models (see Piedmont, 1998), generalizing across languages and cultures, being recoverable across information sources, predicting a wide array of salient psycho-social-clinical outcomes, and providing a rather comprehensive taxonomy of individual difference traits that have been traditionally viewed in psychology as personality dimensions (de Raad & Mlačić, 2017; McCrae, et al., 2004; Miller, 1991; Penley & Tomaka, 2002; Piedmont, McCrae, & Costa, 1991). The FFM provided a powerful rebuttal to the many criticisms that had emerged concerning the value of trait psychology (e.g., Mischel, 1968). One strength of this model is that it is open-ended: What constitutes a dimension of personality is determined by empirical criteria. Because the FFM is not theory-driven, the potential exists for the model to evolve as new data become available.

The FFM finds its origins in the lexical work of Allport and Odbert (1936). The purpose of this study was to examine the current English lexicon and identify all the adjectives that are used to describe the personality of people. This effort resulted in the identification of over 17,950 terms. The underlying assumption for this work was that if a concept is important to survival, then a term would be created to capture this idea. This is referred to as the lexical hypothesis, the belief that language serves as a cultural repository of our adaptive struggles. Therefore, by identifying those terms that have been encoded to capture salient human qualities ought to provide a starting point for identifying those aspects of temperament that have evolutionary significance. The first to work with these data was Cattell (1947) who selected a subset of 35 bipolar scales and collected self-ratings. The results of his factor analysis of these ratings found 12 underlying dimensions, which eventually emerged as his 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF; Cattell, 1947, 1948). Picking up from Cattel was Fiske (1949) who analyzed ratings on several of Cattell’s rating scales obtained from self-reports, peer, and supervisor ratings and found five broad dimensions. The 1950s and 1960s saw others also using Cattell’s scales in a variety of studies which all yielded a consistent five-factor solution (e.g., Thurstone, 1951; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Norman (1963) concluded from both his own work and a review of the literature that these five factors seemed to constitute an “adequate taxonomy of personality” (p. 582).

The five dimensions comprising the FFM are: a) Neuroticism, the tendency to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, and hostility; b) Extraversion, the quantity and intensity of one’s interpersonal interactions; c) Openness, the proactive seeking and appreciation of new experiences; d) Agreeableness, the quality of one’s interpersonal interactions along a continuum from compassion to antagonism; and, e) Conscientiousness, the persistence, organization, and motivation exhibited in goal-directed behaviors (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Research has found strong cross-observer, cross-instrument convergence indicating that these dimensions are not a product of any self-distortion or rater bias (Piedmont, 1994; Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2000). These dimensions have also been found to be extremely stable over the adult lifespan (Costa & McCrae, 1994) and have been shown to possess a strong genetic basis (Heath, Neale, Kessler, Eaves, & Kendler, 1992).

The Big 5 and Beyond

A major limitation of this early work was its reliance on such a small sample of adjectives (i.e., 70), which can hardly be considered representative of the larger 17,956 terms originally identified. Norman (1963) provided a first effort at increasing the number of adjectives used; he selected 2,800 additional terms from the original list and was able to rationally sort these terms into the empirically obtained five factors. It would take until the 1980s and the work of Lewis Goldberg, before a more aggressive effort at employing a diverse range of trait adjectives began (e.g., Goldberg, 1981, 1982, 1990). This impressive research process provided more compelling evidence that five broad dimensions adequately captured the variance in these ratings. But the question still remained, “Are there other dimensions of personality yet to be discovered?”

In a series of studies by Goldberg and colleagues (e.g., Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004) these researchers explicitly included large numbers of adjective ratings scales that were more representative of the original set. When looking beyond five factors, other dimensions were found, including a factor labelled Religiousness (Ashton, et al., 2004). When researchers expanded their adjective lists and extracted more than five factors, Religiousness was consistently recovered, although other dimensions were also found (e.g., Negative Valence, Beauty, Frugality; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998). Ashton et al. (2004, p. 719) concluded:

Another noteworthy result of the present study was the emergence of a Religiosity dimension within the seven-factor solution…Religiosity can now be added to the diverse array of seventh factors that have emerged, additional to the six widely replicated dimensions, within seven-factor solutions derived from personality-descriptive terms

While these authors noted that Religiousness was considered a personality domain in other models (e.g., Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993; Piedmont, 1999), they believed Religiosity to be different from the other FFM domains, and thus fell outside of the domain of personality proper. Their reasons were that Religiousness is based on a system of beliefs and social attitudes and that it is influenced by environmental forces to a greater extent than is found for the FFM domains. Nonetheless, Ashton et al. also noted (p. 719) “Most researchers would probably agree that Religiosity is a very important dimension of individual differences.”

The Case For and Against Religiousness as a Personality Dimension

The scientific study of religion and spirituality is, in a sense, a scientific “hot potato.” There has always been, it seems, a conflicted relationship between science and theology, each claiming to hold the ultimate “truths” of life, and each competing, sometimes in very direct, physical ways, for the hearts and minds (and souls?) of people (e.g., Kugelmann, 2011). These epistemological conflicts have left some negative feelings on both sides. Nonetheless, there are those who continue to argue for science to understand the value and importance of our spiritual nature (Grassie, 2010; Smith, 2001). Yet, for others, research on religiousness carries minimal significance because these variables are seen as merely stand-in variables for already existing psychological constructs (Buss, 2002; Funder, 2002). Unlike the other individual-difference variables that have turned up in the various lexical analyses, R/S issues are potentially more valuable. R/S represents the varying efforts of people to address the most important issues of life, including ontology (why are we here? Where have we come from?), epistemology (Is there intrinsic meaning to life?), and eschatology (Where are we going? What is our ultimate purpose and goal?). These are important questions that psychology needs to address systematically in its work. It remains to be seen if religiousness can provide appropriate psychological answers to these questions. The ultimate success of research in this area will depend on the social science’s ability to create empirically satisfying constructs that provide nonredundant insights into functioning that are falsifiable.

The Case for Religiousness. A tremendous amount of research has been done on religious and spiritual (R/S) constructs since the late 90’s and early 2000s. A large literature has developed outlining the role and relevance of R/S constructs for understanding a truly varied number of outcomes, including coping, mental health/wellbeing, life satisfaction, interpersonal style, vocational interests, physical health, and many more (see Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001; Miller, 2012; Paloutzian & Park, 2013; Pargament, 2013). The value of these constructs for psychotherapy has long been noted and numerous volumes have appeared that outline methods and techniques for including R/S constructs in treatment to potentiate healing (Pargament, 2007; Richards & Bergin, 1997; Worthington, Johnson, Hook, & Aten, 2013). It is unusual to find a single construct that has such broad predictive breadth.

Nonetheless, the mainstream field tends to view this area in a monolithic manner, using the term “religiosity” to refer to all things R/S. While this term was an accepted perspective (e.g., for many years Division 36 of the APA was named “The Psychology of Religion”), the avalanche of research in this area has allowed for a greater parsing of the term. Today, it is more common to recognize that there is a difference between religiosity (the preferred term in the field is now religiousness) and spirituality (In recognition of the importance of this bifurcation, Division 36 changed its name in 2011 to the Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality). The data seem to indicate that these terms capture different types of phenomena and it has been argued that disaggregating the two terms will provide more precision to the research (T. Seeman, Dubin, & M. Seeman, 2003).

Piedmont (2020) argued that spirituality and religiousness, while overlapping, represent distinct psychological processes. Spirituality was seen to represent a personality trait that captured individuals’ efforts at creating a broad sense of personal meaning within an eschatological context. In other words, knowing that we are eventually going to die, spirituality represents our motivations to create a viable sense of meaning and purpose for the lives we are leading (Piedmont, Ciarrocchi, Dy-Liacco, & Williams, 2009). This need to create a psychological sense of personal viability is seen as being an intrinsic, universal, uniquely human capacity. Religiousness, on the other hand, is conceptualized as a “sentiment.” The term sentiment  reflects emotional tendencies that develop out of social traditions and educational experiences (Ruckmick, 1920; Woodworth, 1940). Sentiments can be very powerful motivators for individuals and have very direct effects on behavior. However, sentiments, like love, gratitude, and patriotism, do not represent innate, genotypic qualities like spirituality. That is why the expression of sentiments can and do vary across cultures and time periods. Sentiments may also be more amenable to change and modification (Piedmont, 2020).

With these conceptual distinctions in mind, Piedmont et al. (2009) empirically tested these assumptions. Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analyses, Piedmont et al. demonstrated that Religiousness and Spirituality are best conceptualized as correlated constructs (the latent disattenuated correlation between them was Φ = .71). Despite the large overlap between the two, each contained sufficient, uniquely reliable variance to warrant their separate interpretations. Other SEM analyses in this study also demonstrated that the model that postulated Spirituality as being the causal precedent over Religiousness was the best fitting model. These structural findings were replicated in both self and observer data, and in US and Filipino samples. Regression analyses also demonstrated that these two constructs may be mediated by different psychological systems. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses, controlling for the FFM personality domains and each of these constructs, indicated that Religiousness was a better predictor of scores on scales related to sexual attitudes (e.g., erotophilia vs erotophobia) and attitudes towards abortion while spirituality did not uniquely correlate with these outcomes. Further, Religiousness was found to be a significant negative predictor of negative affect, while Spirituality was independent. Spirituality was significantly positively related to Positive Affect, while Religiousness was orthogonal. These findings indicate that there is empirical value to disaggregating these two terms. Further, this break-out also helps to separate those aspects of belief that are based on personal ideologies and values from those that are hypothesized to be organismically motivated.

One characteristic of personality traits within the FFM is that they possess an operant quality. An operant motivation is a nonspecific, affective force that drives, directs, and selects behavior. While traits may motivate specific responses to manifest stimuli, they also create a psychological vector that moves people with specific traits towards general life outcomes. For example, someone high on extraversion is going to have a natural preference for group activities and will always seek out and enjoy the company of others, wherever possible. It is not surprising that individuals with different personality profiles have different types of vocational interest (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984), or that personality is related to long-term stability in personal well-being, despite changes in economic, health, or relationship status (Costa & McCrae, 1984). In an effort to examine whether spirituality has any operant features, Piedmont, Wilkins, and Hollwitz (2013) examined the role of Spiritual Transcendence as it related to vocation and spending styles. With a sample of 378 working adults, they assigned subjects to one of four vocational categories: Professional Services (e.g., Accounting, Banking, Insurance); Public Services (e.g., Education, Health Care, Non-Profit); Skilled-Non Professional (Customer Service, Clerical, Retail); and, Skilled Professional (e.g., Engineering, IT, Manufacturing). Those in Public Service and Skilled Non-Professional categories scored significantly higher on Spiritual Transcendence than those in the Professional Service or Skilled Professional categories. It is not surprising that those involved in industries that have service to others as central qualities would attract those with a more spiritual orientation.

Another part of this study involved the Windfall Spending Measures (Richins & Dawson, 1992), where participants were asked to imaging receiving a windfall of $20,000 and then are asked to indicate the amount of money they would spend in six different categories, such as “Buy things I want or need,” “Give or lend to friends or relatives,” “Travel,” and “Pay off debts.” Given the fixed nature of the amount of money to allocate, this task is designed to determine the spending preferences of individuals in terms of what they do and do not value. It was found that those high on Spiritual Transcendence allocated more money on “Church/Charity” than those lower on spirituality. In fact, the allocation for charity was done at the expense of saving that money for themselves. Those lower on spirituality were more likely to allocate funds for travel. Taken together, these findings provide some support for viewing spirituality as having operant qualities, just like the other FFM personality traits.

Wilson (1978) outlined the evolutionary significance of religiousness as a mechanism that enables survival by encouraging people to subordinate their own needs to the larger interests of the group. Waller, Kojetin, Bouchards, Lykken, and Tellegen (1994) have shown that there is a substantial genetic component to one’s religious beliefs and behaviors, suggesting that our spirituality arises from needs hard-wired into our genetic makeup (see also Kirk, Eaves, & Martin, 1999). Newberg, D’Aquili, and Rose (2001) have detailed the neurological mechanisms and structures that appear to be the supporting foundation for the numinous. Griffiths, Richards, McCann, and Jesse (2006) have demonstrated how specific pharmacological agents (i.e., psilocybin) can directly effect and enhance spiritual experiences. It is clear that there are specific evolutionary-based, neuro-anatomical and physiological systems that have been identified as foundational to our existential experiences.

Allport (1950) has argued that religiosity represents a “master motive” that organizes all other aspects of personality. Building on this idea, Frankl made it clear that the heart of spirituality represents our ultimate sense of meaning and purpose which provides an all-encompassing understanding of self in relation to all things understood. As Frankl (1959, pp. 102-103) noted, “Man is the only being which is able to transcend himself, to emerge above the level of his own psychic and physical conditions. By this very fact man enters, nay he even creates a new dimension, the dimension of noetic processes—call them spiritual groping or moral decisions—in contrast to psychic processes in general” [italics added]. There is a long psychological tradition for viewing the numinous as an essential element of psychological functioning (e.g., James, 1994; Jung, 1963; Maslow, 1971). More than just a learned set of values and beliefs, the numinous has been viewed as representing core aspects of psychological growth and maturity.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to include R/S constructs is that they represent psychological qualities that are unique to the human experience (Albright & Ashbrook, 2001). Religion and spirituality are qualities that are essential parts of every culture, across all time periods. These qualities play a significant role in defining cultural identities, and they inform all aspects of a civilization, including laws, science, philosophy, and world view. Unlike the FFM domains which can be assessed in various animal species (e.g., Gosling & John, 1999; King & Figueredo, 1997), R/S issues are unique to the human species, and are defining of it. There are no animal models for R/S processes and no other species evidences these qualities (Piedmont & Wilkins, 2020). Examining our spiritual and religious selves is therefore a process of understanding the most intimate aspects of our own humanity. To not include or consider these constructs in any psychological model would render the model woefully incomplete and leave a significant vacuum in our understanding of the key forces that shape and direct our species through time.

The Case Against Religiousness. While the psychology of religion and spirituality is an active and vibrant field that attempts to address aspects of human functioning that deal with essential psychological constructs not traditionally investigated by the social sciences, this endeavor is hampered by many long-term conceptual and methodological issues (e.g., Funder, 2002; Piedmont, 2014; Sloane, Bagiella, & Powell, 2001). There are three key issues that are relevant here, defining R/S constructs, empirically understanding R/S constructs, and inclusiveness. Each will be discussed in turn.

Perhaps one of the most vexing issues in the field is the lack of any consensual definition for religiousness and spirituality. Scott (cited in Hill et al., 2000) identified over 31 definitions for religiousness and over 40 for spirituality. In perhaps the most comprehensive effort at collating definitions of these constructs, Harris, Howell, and Spurgeon (2018) examined over 500 articles and noted  that these terms are used in overlapping ways and are often poorly defined. Many have already noted this long standing problem (e.g., Batson, 1997; Dittes, 1969; Hill et al., 2000; Koenig, 2008). The inability to find a consensual agreement as to the essence of R/S constructs has led some to believe that such a convergence will not happen (Paloutzian & Park, 2021). Thus, it is difficult to understand the value of research findings when little is known about the underlying nature of the constructs. Are they motivations, learned sentiments, or cultural expressions? This lack of consensus preempts the development of a cumulative body of research knowledge (Hill et al., 2000).

Second, this lack of conceptual clarity also carries over into the development of new measures for the field. One index of the richness of interest in this field is found in the tremendous number of scales that are developed to capture R/S constructs. Hill and Hood (1999) provided a compendium of almost 150 different scales in this area that are available in the literature, and this number has only increased greatly throughout this century. With terms such as “religious coping,” “faith maturity,” “spiritual well-being,” and “spiritual bypass” one can be quickly overwhelmed by this terminology and come to question what exactly is being assessed here. How do all these measures relate to one another? Gorsuch (1984) long ago called for a hiatus in scale construction until the psychological meanings of the extant measures can be sorted out. New scales, he argued, should not be developed unless there was a compelling theoretical/empirical reason for its development. In one of the earliest reviews of the field, Dittes (1969, p. 603) noted similar problems in the field, and his comments remain fresh and timely today:

There has been no sustained development of theory, empirical findings, or research techniques…the chief problems appear to be in the realm of theory and in the theoretical relevance of data. The critical psychological questions and the categories of data by which they can be answered simply have not yet been specified.

Without a clear definition of the basic phenomena of interest, measures lose focus, precision, and consistency, undermining the entire scientific enterprise.

Compounding this inability to identify what is and what is not religious or spiritual, is a relatively simplistic approach to scale development and testing (Batson, 1997). Many research papers rely on simple correlational designs, showing how a new R/S measure correlates with important psycho-social outcomes, like coping, well-being, and purpose in life. While such convergences are potentially useful, the lack of much discriminant validity leads to constructs that are overpacked with irrelevant content. Further, research rarely seeks to provide critical assessments of its constructs by attempting to rule out mediation effects (Buss, 2002; Funder, 2002). Thus, it is not clear to what extent R/S constructs are merely stand-in variables for other psychological constructs. For example, what is the value added by a Religious Well-Being Scale over measures of plain well-being? Does the religious component provide additional predictive power to criteria such as emotional dysphoria? Without evidence of incremental validity (Sechrest, 1963), R/S constructs may simply be the religification of already existing constructs (van Wicklin, 1990). In fact, it is possible that R/S constructs are completely mediated by other secular variables, such as social support, positive emotions, and personality (e.g., Piedmont, Werdel, & Deneke, 2009). The lack of model testing for R/S constructs, the failure to examine potential mediators, and a lack of incremental validity undermine any potential utility R/S scales may provide. Buss (2002) has gone so far as to refer to R/S constructs as the “parasitization” of already existing variables. Methodologically, it is clear that the field has been unsuccessful in making an empirically compelling case for the value of R/S constructs in the broader social sciences.

Finally, there is the issue of inclusiveness. Many measures of R/S constructs are based on the theological principles of specific faiths. Gorsuch (1984) has noted that in the US, most R/S measures take a mainline Protestant orientation. For example, the Faith Maturity Scale (Benson, Donahue, & Erickson, 1993) contains the item, “My life is committed to Jesus Christ” which is appropriate for Christians but has limited utility for those not sharing this denominational approach. As such, numerous scales have been developed that capture other religious approaches, such as Islam (Muslim Daily Religiosity Assessment Scale; Olufadi, 2017), Taoism (Ego Grasping Orientation; Knoblauch & Falconer, 1986),  Hinduism (Hindu Religious Coping Scale; Tarakeshwar, Pargament, & Mahoney, 2003), and Judaism (Jewish Religious Coping Scale, Rosmarin; Pargament, Krumrei, & Flannelly, 2009). There is even a measure for capturing Alcoholic-Anonymous (AA) spirituality (The Surrender Scale; Reinert, 1997). Moberg (2002) has argued that the only effective way of understanding spirituality is to do so from the perspective of each religious denomination. From this approach there is no single spiritual motivation; rather, there exists a plethora of spiritualities, each with their own nuances and dynamics.

Such a plurality of measures creates serious issues for the field, not the least of which is the development of information silos, based on theological parochialism, that preempt efforts at identifying generalizable psychological processes. In turn, such a molecular approach contributes to a view that R/S constructs represent only context-dependent phenomena that are defined by unique cultural/environmental dynamics. Without an overarching perspective or model to organize this information, R/S constructs become “boutique” variables that may only provide limited nuance to understanding specific samples; no generalizable processes or general principles can ever be identified. Without any universal applicability, R/S constructs have limited conceptual and applied appeal for the social sciences.

While the reliance on denominationally-based measures serves to corral believers into distinct groups, left out of this process are those who do not have any religious inclinations, such as atheists, agnostics, and those who do not have a western concept of God. There are two issues here. The first is that because these non-theists (NTs)  have no metaphysical sentiments or beliefs, they are seen as irrelevant to work in this area, leading to their lack of inclusion in research studies (Leach & Sato, 2013). It may be naïve to assume that because one does not hold a belief in a metaphysical reality that one does not have any sense of personal spirituality (Comte-Sponville, 2007; Speed & Hwang, 2019). Because the current literature has clearly demonstrated that those who score higher on measures of R/S tend to experience better psychosocial and health outcomes (e.g., Koenig, et al., 2001), there is an assumption that NTs would have the lowest levels of outcomes on these variables because of their lack of religious orientation, which is not necessarily correct (Speed & Kwang, 2019). Rejecting a religious orientation to life does not imply that one is not concerned about issues of ultimate existential meaning; all people need to address these issues in their lives. The psychology of religion and spirituality becomes very parochial by not including NTs in its research. This also compromises the conceptual integrity of the field because it does not attempt to consider how psychological ultimacy may be constructed by NTs. There may be many ways that people find ultimate existential succorance that lead to similar outcomes; religious and NT individuals may take different routes to get to the same end point. By not including NTs the field loses its ability to comprehensively assess these different methods and forces itself to only address issues from a single perspective.

Second, without including NTs in the research process, the field really offers little hope to these individuals. After all, how do the findings linking R/S constructs to useful positive outcomes, and the corresponding treatment approaches, apply to NTs? How does this group benefit from this research? For example, when research shows a positive association between religious attendance and better blood pressure levels (e.g., Koenig et al., 2001), should therapists recommend that their hypertensive patients to attend church services? Should therapists encourage NTs and other nonbelievers to become believers in order to improve their health status? While some in this field may find this useful (e.g., Koenig, 1999), it may create ethical issues centering on coercion and discrimination (Sloan et al., 2001). Nonetheless, the reliance on denominationally-based research does not offer a framework for applying the psychological benefits of religion beyond group level interpretations. As Piedmont, Fox, and Toscano (2020; p. 553) noted, “It makes no ethical sense, for instance, to assess religious coping in a client who is atheist, even though a strong research base exists demonstrating the utility of religious coping for promoting psychological health.”

The Verdict. R/S constructs hold tremendous potential conceptual value and clinical import for the social sciences. These constructs access aspects of the individual that have not been systematically studied in the mainstream. Further, R/S variables address aspects of ultimate meaning and issues of resilience, well-being, and adaptation. It is not surprising, then, to learn that the study of spirituality in general and of transcendence in particular have taken a major role in the area of positive psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This approach moves counterintuitively to traditional psychology, with its focus on dysfunction. As Peterson and Seligman noted (2004, p. 4) “ When psychiatrists and psychologists talk about mental health, wellness, or well-being, they mean little more than the absence of disease, distress, and disorder…This handbook focuses on what is right about people and specifically about the strengths of character that make the good life possible.”

R/S constructs are about understanding meaningful ultimacy in peoples’ lives, how it is created, its function, and ultimate influence on behavior. It strives to understand how people construct meaning, value, and worthiness both within the scope of their lives and within much larger time perspectives. Understanding what is “right” about humanity is itself a universal good and can offer hope and encouragement to all people. This perspective ought to be sufficient for investing more in this area.

Nonetheless, there are a number of structural, technical problems in this field that hamper its ability to demonstrate the tremendous value and power of R/S constructs. The lack of developed conceptual models, reliance on simple research designs, and an inability to actually consensually define its constructs all conspire to keep R/S research from a more central role in the field. However, these problems are, ultimately, fixable issues. Science does have the methods and tools necessary to provide rigorous examinations of R/S constructs and to detail their value for both understanding people and for intervening in their lives. It is my belief that the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality offers a conceptual and empirical tool that can help develop and validate numinous constructs in a manner that makes them relevant and important for all people regardless of their religious affiliations (or lack of them) or cultural perspective. The remainder of this paper will focus on the assumptions and methods I have used to help bootstrap measures of religiousness and spirituality that meet the field’s standards for psychometric rigor and provide compelling new insights into human functioning.

Developing a Personality Construct

The value of the FFM is that it orients one to the personological content that scores from a scale represent. Similarities and differences among constructs can be readily identified by comparing their “personological fingerprints” (Piedmont, 1998), their unique patterns of association with these five domains. To the extent that two scales have similar correlative patterns, they can be judged as reflecting similar qualities; different patterns can identify the uniqueness between them. Ozer and Riese (1994) have argued that such a process ought to be an essential step in the determining any scale’s construct validity. As they noted (p. 361), “[those] who continue to employ their preferred measure without locating it within the five-factor model can only be likened to geographers who issue reports of new land but refuse to locate them on a map for others to find.” In an extensive meta-analytic reviews of R/S constructs’ relations to the FFM, Saroglou (2002, 2010) noted that the domains of Openness (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C) were consistent correlates. In general, measures of religiousness correlated with A and C while measures of spirituality were related to O and A. These associations do make conceptual sense (e.g., the role of C underlying one’s ability to engage in systematic rituals and the influence of O in creating a receptivity to unusual, mystical experiences; the common association of both types of scales with A reflects the compassionate, caring, and altruistic aspects of these variables as well as helps to explain the strong correlation found between these two constructs). That all these associations were less than .30 makes it clear that most of the variance in R/S constructs are independent of the FFM. I believed that what is of most importance to R/S constructs is what they do not have in common with the qualities contained in the FFM.

In beginning the process of empirically bootstrapping a new personality dimension, there were three propositions that were considered essential if this endeavor were to be of value. First, the new construct would need to be independent of the FFM. Saroglou (2010) has argued that  R/S constructs represent characteristic adaptations of these FFM domains; mere outcomes from larger processes. If R/S variables were merely a combination of the dimensions of O, A, and C, there would be little value for these scales. Therefore, it would be important to demonstrate that the construct represents a new dimension of functioning, bringing unique insights and identifying heretofore unknown personal motivations to the field’s understanding of personality. The identification of a new personality dimension would have broad ranging positive implications for the wider social sciences.

Second, it would be essential that the new dimension be a universal, human quality. The value and relevance of this construct would have applications for use with all types of people, not just believers or people of faith, but be appropriate for those who are NTs or do not share Western-types of religious beliefs. The new construct would need to capture a motivational system that operates for each individual. There can be no reliance on specific theological models or spiritual approaches; the goal of this research is not to validate any one faith perspective, rather the effort is to identify a universal personality quality. To accomplish this, it would be necessary to avoid religious/theistic material and instead aim to capture a broader, more fundamental construct. The goal would be to identify those motivations that make religion and spirituality so important to us as a species.

Finally, it would be important to have a very clear measurement model that can specify the necessary empirical criteria to be met for validating the new construct. My selection was the FFM; a trait-based approach that has very explicit empirical criteria for specifying how to create, test, and prove the value of any individual-differences construct. The specifics of this model will be outlined below, but for now it is important to realize that this effort represents a very different approach to scale development. Our goal is not to develop a construct within the FFM, rather the aim is to identify a new quality from outside the model. This is rarely done and can be challenging (see Piedmont, Sherman, Sherman, Dy-Liacco, & Williams, 2009). To capitalize on the cartography metaphor proposed by Ozer and Riese (1994) noted above, our goal is not to describe already charted land masses, instead it is to go explore the identified, unknown spaces noted on the map of individual differences (the personalitas incognita). Once there, the psychometric standards inherent to the FFM can then be applied to the development of this new personological material.

A Note on Terminology. The perspective being taken here represents a shift from the traditional R/S approach. The goal is to create a specific, organismic variable that explains our interest in, and need for, concepts such as the sacred, God, religion, spirituality, and metaphysical ultimacy. This variable is definitely psychological in nature and is directed towards expanding the social sciences’ understanding of our mental lives. As a new concept, it is necessary to have a new term that represents these dynamics. I prefer to use the term “the numinous.” It is a useful term that has many advantages over current usage.

First, the term has clear religious value. It was originally used by Otto (1958) to reflect aspects of the mystical experience: the awe, wonder, emotional integration, and essential ineffability of encountering a divine reality. The term reflects the noetic qualities associated with ultimate meaning. Second, it is a term that has been used psychologically by Erik Erikson. The numinous represents one of the positive outcomes experienced at the first stage of psychosocial development: Trust vs Mistrust. For Erikson, a child develops feelings of the numinous (awe-some, hallowed) as a result of a mother’s care and reliable concern for the needs of her child. She promotes and supports her child’s beginning sense of self-identity while also supporting the child’s ability to transcend his/her fears of aloneness and separateness (Erikson, 1977). This usage of the term reveals that the numinous has its roots in the very beginning of our psychological lives and its presence influences all future development. As will be outlined below, these qualities will become hypothesized essential features of the numinous as outlined in its ontological model.

Finally, the term includes many different elements to it and underscores the reality that there are many different parts to our “spirituality.” Therefore, the numinous represents a useful descriptive term for the domain of spiritual functioning: there are elements of transcendence, spirituality, religiousness (e.g., the prayers we say and the rituals we perform), wonderment, and mysticism, among others (e.g., Harris et al., 2018). Ultimately, developing this construct within the FFM will identify three additional qualities that are understood to be at the core of the numinous (e.g., infinitude, meaning, and worthiness). The psychological pedigree of the term makes it more amenable to social scientists and does not, in such an obvious manner, involve any specific theological or metaphysical concepts. Relying only on the terms religiousness and spirituality is just too limiting and restrictive and does not do justice to the large literature that has identified so many numinous constructs. The many qualities that have been linked as R/S constructs can now be seen as facets of a single, cohesive domain (e.g., Piedmont, Mapa, & Williams, 2006). As such, this term will be used to refer to the new personality dimension.

Empirical Criteria for Using the FFM to Identify a New Domain

There are six empirical criteria that were identified as essential for determining whether or not the numinous can be considered a useful, additional personality domain. Each will be discussed in turn.

The first, and most fundamental, criterion is that the numinous represents an empirically distinct dimension from the domains of the FFM. As noted above, what is most potentially valuable about a numinous dimension is that it represents a new quality. This requirement is seen as one of the two key features that define a measure as being numinous. The lack of orthogonality would indicate that a scale is merely a repackaged assessment of the extant FFM domains. As noted earlier, religiousness has repeatedly emerged as being independent of the FFM (Ashton, et al. 2004). MacDonald (2000) and Piedmont (1999) have also examined spiritual and religious constructs in relation to the FFM and found that they represented a distinct dimension. Working from a biological approach to personality, Clonninger, Svrakic, and  Przybeck (1993) have identified Self-Transcendence as an additional aspect of character distinct from other motivational constructs.

The second quality of a numinous scale is that it evidences significant, incremental, predictive validity over the FFM. This is the second essential quality of a numinous scale. It must be able to add to our understanding of important psycho-social-spiritual outcomes. Demonstrating incremental validity is conceptually essential for documenting the validity of a numinous scale; it is critical to show that the new scale provides nonredundant insights into important outcomes. However, this can be a challenge statistically. Typically, in conducting incremental validity analyses, I use a hierarchical multiple regression format. On the first step of the analysis I enter all five personality domains simultaneously, and then begin adding the numinous scales using a forward entry approach. Partial F-tests are then calculated to determine whether the numinous scale(s) added significant additional explanatory variance in the outcome. Failure to demonstrate incremental validity would be conclusive evidence that a measure is not a numinous variable.

The challenge here is that the numinous scales are being added as the sixth or later variable in the regression equation. In hierarchical analyses, the largest predictive variables are entered first into the analysis, and explain the largest shares of variance in the outcome. As variables enter later in the analysis, there is less variance available to be explained. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) have observed that increases in R² are generally very small by the time a third substantive predictor is added to a regression equation. Hunsley and Meyer (2003) suggested that an R² increase of between .02 and .04 would indicate a reasonable contribution to the explained variance for a variable entered on the third step. Given that numinous variables are being entered on the sixth and later steps (after the Big 5 domains), the typical 3% – 8% additional variance typically found for numinous measures (e.g., the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments [ASPIRES; Piedmont,  2020] scale and the Numinous Motivation Inventory [NMI; Piedmont, 2017]) represents a conservative, but robust contribution.

The third criterion concerns the breadth of the numinous dimension. Like the other five personality domains, the Numinous ought to be sufficiently broad as to contain multiple facets. The numinous is a distinct dimension of psychological functioning that incorporates a number of linked qualities (e.g., meaning making, worthiness, transcendence) and is related to an array of outcomes (e.g., well-being, purpose in life, mental health) that provide it with an extensive range of interpretive and predictive abilities. Allport (1950) considered the numinous to be a master motive; a dynamic that organized and directed all other aspects of functioning. As such, it represents an aspect of functioning that has a pervasive impact on the mental system. Both the ASPIRES and NMI noted above, contain three facet scales that assess various elements of this broad dimension (these facets will be described in more detail below). Piedmont and Wilkins (2020) provided a detailed review of the development of both these instruments and illustrate how these facets, while all cohering on a single dimension, do have differential correlations with various outcomes.

The fourth criterion concerns the overall robustness of the construct, in that as a substantive aspect of functioning, it ought to be recoverable across multiple information sources (e.g., life outcome, observer-ratings, self-reports, and test data). R/S constructs are frequently described as unique qualities of the individual, often stemming from personal experiences that are considered mystical or noetic (e.g., Hood & Chen, 2013; James, 1994). Such unique and personal experiences may give rise to solipsistic interpretations and understandings that may not necessarily find expression in behavior. Such personalized experiences defy categorization and assessment, given that the form, quality, and value of these transcendent experiences are different from person to person. If we assume that the Numinous represents a broad dimension of personality, then there must be some demonstration of the construct’s consensual validity. In other words, it needs to be shown that self-reported scores on a scale agree with scores obtained from other information sources, such as knowledgeable observers. This cross-observer convergence provides assurance that the Numinous: a) is not a solipsistic construct, but does find expression in behavior; b) that the expression of numinous qualities in behavior can be systematically identified by others; and, c) such identification by others indicates that there is a general understanding of what constitutes numinous functioning that is shared by a community or culture. Such broad consensus demonstrates the value of the construct as well as its importance for understanding people. The ASPIRES and NMI are the only R/S type scales that have validated observer rater forms, and each scale has demonstrated cross-observer validity with the level of convergence as high or higher than that typically found for the FFM domains (Piedmont & Wilkins, 2020). For example, the mean cross-observer agreement correlation (after z transformation) for the three ASPIRES Spiritual Transcendence facet scales is r(981) = 0.45 (Piedmont, 2020) while similar agreement for the FFM personality domains on the NEO PI-3 (after z transformation) is r(250) = 0.43 (McCrae & Costa, 2010).

The fifth criterion is concerned with the generalizability of the construct. If the Numinous is a universal aspect of psychological functioning, then it should be relevant for both describing people and predicting their behavior everywhere. As noted earlier in this paper, R/S constructs are very much limited to those for whom religious belief is important. What relevance would such a scale have for someone who is not a theist or does not hold a theistic perspective that is consistent with the scale? As a dimension of personality, and one that is considered to be unique to humans, the Numinous needs to be shown relevant to people across cultures, languages, and religious affiliation (or the lack of it). The ASPIRES has been found psychometrically robust across many languages including Hungarian (Rican & Janosova, 2010), Polish (Piotrowski, Żemojtel-Piotrowska, Piedmont,  & Baran, 2021), and Filipino (Tagalog; Piedmont, 2007a). It has also been found valid across faith groups including various Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim faiths (Piedmont & Leach, 2002; Piedmont, Werdel, & Fernando, 2009). The NMI has been found useful in working with nontheists (Piedmont, Fox, & Toscano, 2020) and with economically marginalized people (Piedmont, Fox, & Copello, 2021).

The sixth, and final, criterion concerns the ultimate causal role that the Numinous plays in the mental lives of people. While numinous constructs relate to a wide array of outcomes, the question to be answered is, “why these associations?” There are two possible answers. The least interesting answer is that numinous variables represent outcomes from existing psychological processes. For example, an individual may have a negative view of the God, believing that God is punishing him or her, or that God is just uninterested in the person. Such a negative view may be a consequence of the person being depressed, and this image of God fits nicely into this larger dysphoric pattern. If the depression is remediated, the person feels happier and consequently has a more positive view of God. The second answer to this question has greater importance: Numinous variables serve as inputs into our psychological system. Our ultimate existential engagement has direct consequences for our psychological status. There is a growing literature demonstrating the causal precedence of the Numinous on levels of emotional and characterological adjustment.

Using various causal modeling techniques (e.g., structure equation modeling [SEM] and cross-lagged panel analyses [CLPA]), evidence has been consistently accruing demonstrating that scores on numinous scales uniquely, and incrementally, predict psychological outcomes. In a longitudinal study examining psychotherapeutic outcome among outpatients clients, Cheston, Piedmont, Eanes, and Lavin (2003) demonstrated using CLPA that changes in clients’ images of God were more predictive of counselor ratings of symptom experience than the reverse. Using SEM analyses, Piedmont (2007b) demonstrated the causal precedence of the Numinous on emotional well-being in both US and Filipino samples. Most interestingly, Piedmont, Fox and Copello (2020) demonstrated that aspects of the Numinous were independent of the FFM (especially Neuroticism) and incrementally predictive of both emotional dysphoria and characterological impairment. These findings suggest that there is a second pathway mediating psychological distress in addition to Neuroticism (see also Fox & Piedmont, 2020). The value of these findings is that they open the door to an entirely new, universally relevant, personality dimension that holds important insights into a number of key psychological issues that have proven therapeutically challenging (e.g., substance abuse, suicide, Moral Injury, Body Image dysphoria; Piedmont, 2004a; Piedmont et al., 2009; Piedmont et al., 2020) and may suggest new intervention strategies that can effectively resolve these issues.

The six criteria presented here offer a clear, methodological route for developing a new construct that contains important, nonredundant information from the FFM. As noted earlier, for a construct to be considered part of the numinous domain, it would be essential to demonstrate that the scale meets the first two criteria, independence from the FFM and incremental predictive validity over the FFM. Not meeting these two criteria would automatically preclude the scale from being considered a numinous construct. Nonetheless, this approach will ensure that any construct meeting all six of these criteria will represent a salient, significant psychological quality. Piedmont and Wilkins (2020) provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the development and validation of the ASPIRES and NMI scales, as well as other related measures, such as a model for understanding meaning making as it relates to the numinous (referred to as the logoplex, Piedmont, 2004b) and a clinical intake form that includes specific questions for assessing numinous-related life themes and R/S activities, at both a descriptive and inferential level.

Taken as a whole, the Numinous represents an important new personality dimension that is empirically rigorous and represents qualities that have not been traditionally studied or considered as personality. Nonetheless, the study of the numinous can organize a wide array of research on a variety of topics, including terror management, meaning making, dignity, and existential crisis. Using the Numinous as an organizing structure, the inter-relatedness of these constructs becomes clearer; they are now seen as a system of related processes that are intrinsic to and expressive of peoples’ core existential strivings. The next section will provide a brief overview of the ontological basis for the numinous as well as a personological description of the construct itself. The expressed qualities of the numinous have been accrued from the research evidence acquired in the development and validation of the ASPIRES and NMI scales. The ontological model represents this author’s own set of hypotheses about the origin and nature of the numinous.

Describing and Defining the Numinous in Personality

The numinous is an individual-differences construct, an intrinsic motivational drive that people inherently vary on. Some are “low” on this dimension, having little inclination to larger realities, most are in the middle, while still others are “high”, having a strong motivation to put value back into life by encouraging social entities to embrace the ultimate values of goodness, wholeness, individual dignity, and compassion. The fruits of these endeavors is to enhance the capacity of individuals, communities, and nations to act with greater freedom of choice and to engage the world with more passion and personal involvement.

The numinous enables individuals to create a broad understanding of the universe that includes an eternal time perspective, a belief that ones’ life if only one stage in a larger ontological process. Boyd and Zimbardo (1997) demonstrated that this transcendental time perspective has a significant impact on psychological functioning and also represents a unique quality not contained in the FFM. Psychological time is an essential element of the numinous. Having an eternal time perspective carries with it an understanding of a larger set of values and standards that transcend more common, secular models. These ultimate values are understood to inspire our best capacities. Freed from perceived temporal constraints, individuals find the personal freedom to completely invest themselves in these larger concerns, such concerns being most centrally community oriented. Thus the numinous individual understands personal fulfilment within a larger social context: care for community and the need to improve/transform community becomes the ultimate driving goal. Such individuals can go “all in” with these ultimate values; committing their lives to their work, without counting the personal costs to these efforts.

While contemporary social science has not systematically evaluated this construct, this quality has long been recognized as an essential quality of our humanity by sages, philosophers, and theologians from antiquity. Over two thousand years ago the Indian sage Patanjali described this process in his Yoga Sutras (c. 200 BCE) as:

When you are inspired by some great purpose, some extraordinary project, all your thoughts break their bonds; your mind transcends limitations, your consciousness expands in every direction, and you find yourself in a new, great and wonderful world. Dormant forces, faculties and talents become alive, and you discover yourself to be a greater person by far than you ever dreamed yourself to be.

The numinous represents a uniquely human quality; there are no animal models for this motivation. It is the assumption of this model that the numinous is a psychological quality that uniquely defines our species. It is a consequence of the exceptional cognitive powers that our species has (Baumeister, Bauer, & Lloyd, 2010). Our ability to think abstractly, broadly, and creatively on complex topics and ideas provides the neurological substrate to this motivation. Our consciousness, which includes being self-aware as active agents, creates its own psychological space, encumbered with its own unique set of needs. These needs include: 1) infinitude: a desire to find durability for our actions, to know that despite being mortal our efforts will continue to bear fruit after we are gone; 2) meaning: a demand to find purpose and cohesiveness to life. There needs to be justifications for things that we do, the goals that we pursue, and the ultimate endings we seek; and, 3) worthiness: a belief that while we may individually be imperfect, that our involvement in life, our contribution to the human endeavor was “good enough.” These three needs are the constituent elements of the numinous drive. They work together synergistically, leading us to fully engage life and to put new value into it, for the benefit of those both present and yet to come (Tillich, 2000). These are the qualities that arise from our powerful brains, which enables humans to be a species that is the least tied to instinctual scripts of any animal. The numinous fills this void and allows us to deploy an almost limitless capacity to act in a manner that is directed towards, and of ultimate value for, the survivability of the species.

As an individual differences construct, the expression of this dynamic will vary depending upon the strength of its presence, which can range from low to high. The dimensions of infinitude, meaning, and worthiness are essential existential concerns for all people. We all need to address and deal with these issues in our lives. How we address them, the perspective that we take for understanding these qualities in our lives, and the ultimate psychological effect they have on us is a function of how transcendent one is overall. The numinous motivates us to take broader perspectives on life’s processes and to identify more connections with others and communities. Ultimately, a fully expressed numinous motive impels us to consider our lives and actions within an eternal time frame. Levels of the numinous are defined below.

Individuals with the lowest levels of the numinous reflect an orientation towards life that Hart (2019, p. 20) referred to as hyparxeolatry (hī – PARKS – ē – ah – la – trē), “the worship of subsistence in and of itself, or the sort that misers and thieves and those who would never give their lives for others.” Such individuals are not necessarily materialistic or narcissistic, rather they value their lives as of ultimate importance and as such are not willing to risk harming or losing it under any circumstances. There is a strong self-focus here, as the object of concern is for personal safety and security. Such individuals move towards acquiring physical objects and/or organizations to provide the necessary material support and protection. There is also a recognition of the need to invest resources into personal growth and development in order to acquire additional material support for personal security.

As levels of the numinous increase, the attention to external individuals and groups grows. There is a burgeoning sense of social interest  that begins to develop. As the numinous grows, people’s attention begins to broaden from a strictly solipsistic perspective to include other people. These “others” can be care givers or  family members, individuals who can provide not only material, but also emotional support and succorance. There is a capacity to extend oneself in order to address the needs and issues of these other people/groups/communities because of the acknowledged value they have to the individual. Further increases can motivate individuals to become more socially conscious and involved in larger civic groups, because these organizations are seen as providing useful resources and support for individuals in the community. This may involve taking social action in response to perceived community needs or financially supporting groups whose mission is seen as personally important. With higher levels of the numinous, individuals may become donors who wish to provide levels of support to the community that may continue after they have died.

Still higher levels of the numinous begin to support a more value-centered orientation to the world. Such individuals develop a commitment to larger ideals and values that have the potential for improving the perceived worlds of these people. These values begin to give a sense of personal definition and meaning. Emerging at this level is a transpersonal perspective, which includes developing a broad perspective on the patterns operating in nature through time. There is an appreciation of how human activities grow, develop, and become more complex. Accompanying this orientation is an apperception of an underlying guiding structure to the flow of life, which engenders a personal desire to know it, connect with it, and to facilitate its unfolding This view allows for an identification of a larger moral/value system that these individuals come to align themselves with and in which they desire to participate. Their perspectives and understandings are wholistic and inclusive and their engagements with life reflect a universal acceptance and commitment to humanity as a whole.

At the highest level of numinous motivation, individuals come to align themselves with the ultimate values and morals of the eternal perspective they take. These values become most salient in guiding the direction and content of their lives. Their moral conscience, based on these perceived eternal realities, become defining values for them and compel them to act in ways to provide goodness and compassion to those communities, however they define them, that are of most importance to them. These values de-emphasize personal needs for safety and security, and boldly thrust them to care for the perceived needs of the world, where ever they may find it. This level is referred to as the transcendent level because these individuals renounce the self-serving secular models in favor of those values that define their eternal existence. It is here that those high on the numinous become agents of social transformation, putting all their energies into caring and nurturing people and communities, articulating higher principles of collaboration and interpersonal engagement. Because these individuals believe that their current lives are merely one stage in a larger, eternal, ontological process, they are able to unreservedly commit themselves, and their lives, to reaching goals that may, at least in the span of their own lives, never be met. From this perspective, there is no need to count any personal costs to these commitments, because there is the belief that there will be other opportunities after the current life, to acquire more things of value. The most salient feature of those who are high on the numinous is the transformative sense of meaning they bring to life. There is a care and compassion for their community as well as a strong urge to work to move this group to a higher level of functioning that is characterized by greater inclusiveness, enhanced social justice, and more harmonious interpersonal dynamics.

The ultimate fruits of the numinous include dignity, the belief in the unique value and importance of human life; hope, an underlying trust in the innate goodness of life; justice, the need for fairness and consistency in interpersonal relations; abundance, a feeling that one has sufficient personal resources to fulfill ones needs as well as to provide value and support to others; and fulfillment (eudaimonia), an intrinsic experience of completeness that arises from a full engagement with life. The Numinous calls on people to give their very best to life and to be productive agents in the development of both personal and social potentials.

There are two psychological processes operating across levels of this motivation. The first is an increasing awareness of the full complexity and variety of life. Starting from a self-focus, increasing levels of the numinous make individuals aware of larger patterns and processes that encompass all of human strivings. These larger patterns and processes contain values that are more humanistic and compassionate than traditional secular social norms. The stronger the numinous motivation, the more fully individuals align themselves with these values and ardently work to express them. The second process occurring is the time horizons that surround individuals’ activities and goals. Those at the materialistic end of the spectrum are focused and  usually create goals that have a relatively short time line associated with their fulfillment. For example, being able to pay the rent may only have a one month time frame associated with it. There is a need to get the rent in when it is due. Such short time frames (or what is referred to as an event horizon, Piedmont, 2004b) provide little stability to life and are very  prone to being disrupted. Afterall, your credit history is only as good as the last valid payment you made. As the numinous motivation grows, the time frame associated with the goals also increases. One can start planning on getting a college degree, a program study that can take four or more years to accomplish. Yet, this longer time frame provides more stability for individuals as they make their way to the goal (Boyd & Zimbardo, 1997). Ultimately, the time frame guiding meaning becomes eternal in nature. Individuals may believe in the presence of some larger, metaphysical world that encompasses the secular one. Whether such a reality exists or not is irrelevant. For numinous individuals, the belief in such an eternal perspective is enough to free up a tremendous amount of personal energy, and allows for absolute freedom in action; after all there are no costs to be counted. Eternity itself provides abundant space for satisfying all debts and balancing all accounts.

Conclusions

The psychology of religion and spirituality is an exciting and active area of investigation because it deals with aspects of people that are key to ultimate well-being and mental health. It also addresses those concerns that are at the heart of who we are: issues relating to mortality, meaning, and dignity are essential defining qualities of our humanity. Using the FFM as a conceptual and empirical scaffolding, I engaged in a program of research that identified and developed the motivational foundation to these R/S strivings. Termed the Numinous, this construct is hypothesized to represent a defining quality of our species. Empirically, the Numinous has been shown to exert a causal influence on a number of important psychosocial qualities, such well-being, purpose in life, psychological distress, characterological dysfunction, and mental health. Unlike most R/S constructs, the Numinous represents a universal, secular, motivational drive important for understanding all people, regardless of culture, language, and religious status.

Understanding the Numinous as a personality domain opens the door for creating more comprehensive and predictively useful psychological models. The Numinous domain can be helpful in organizing a wide array of research dealing with issues such as Terror Management Theory (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991) and its focus on finitude and mortality. The numinous outlines those psychological motivations that help individuals cope with the certainty of death and enable them to live lives of  value, depth, and coherence. Meaning and purpose have long been recognized as being important aspects of resilience and well-being (Frankl, 1997). What the Numinous adds is a better delineation of the different types of meaning and their psychological significance. Most importantly, the Numinous adds a new dimension to the meaning-making process, specifically the transformative aspects of meaning. Individuals high on the Numinous find not only meaning and direction for their own lives, but also include goals for enhancing and extending the value of communities to which these individuals belong (Piedmont, 2004b). Finally the numinous provides new insights into understanding existential crisis, where individuals believe that they are unworthy and unaccepted by life (e.g. Exline & Rose, 2005; Piedmont, Hassinger, Rhorer, Sherman, Sherman & Williams, 2007). More than just feeling a rejection by the God of one’s understanding, low levels of Worthiness (that component of the Numinous related to ultimate feelings of acceptance) have been demonstrated to represent a second, independent pathway to mental illness and maladaptiveness (Piedmont et al., 2020).

The Numinous has important implications for understanding psychological functioning in all people. As a dimension of personality, it organizes an array of constructs not usually seen as related. Unlike the domains of the FFM, which can be validly assessed in multiple species, the Numinous represents a uniquely human quality. Therefore, any examination of this quality in people opens a conversation on the most intimate and personal aspects of our humanity. Engaging this content with clients can both provide a process for their reframing of distressing aspects of their lives, and offer the potential to transform how individuals understand themselves and their style of overall engagement with life.

From a professional perspective, the Numinous is an empirically sound, scientific construct with universal application that can be easily accepted by all clinicians, regardless of their training backgrounds or religious status. It has important clinical value, both interpretively and predictively. More than just a cultural variable, the Numinous captures important, uniquely human motivations that are at the highest level of personal organization. The Numinous provides a useful psychological template that therapists can use to understand better and to address effectively the concerns of their religiously oriented clients when they speak of faith-related issues. Rather than engaging with denominationally-specific content (with which a clinician may not be familiar or comfortable), therapists can now reframe these issues into the larger context of existential strivings.

It is hoped that this report has provided sufficient justification for the importance of our existential/numinous nature and to consider the motivations that flow from this capacity as a basic dimension of our personality. Engaging the Numinous opens the door to an entirely new dimension of functioning that will generate additional understandings of our psychology and suggest innovative treatment modalities that may offer the potential for truly transformative therapeutic experiences.

References

Albright, C. R., & Ashbrook, J. B. (2001). Where God lives in the human brain. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1, Whole No. 211).

Ashton, M . C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707-721. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-351487.5.707

Batson, C. D. (1997). An agenda item for the psychology of religion: Getting respect. In B. Spilka & D. N. McIntosh (Eds.). The psychology of religion: Theoretical approaches (pp. 3-10). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Bauer, I. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (2010). Choice, free will, and religion, Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 67-82.

Benson, P. L., Donahue, M. J., & Erickson, J. A. (1993). The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, measurement, and empirical validation. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 1-26.

Boyd, J. N., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1997). Constructing time after death: The transcendental-future time perspective. Time and Society, 6, 35-56.

Buss, D. M. (2002). Sex, marriage, and religion: What adaptive problems do religious phenome3na solve? Psychological Inquiry, 13, 201-203

Clonninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R (1993). A psychobiological measure of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50,975-990.

Comte-Sponville, A. (2007). The little book of atheist spirituality. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster?:Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.),  Can personality change?(pp. 21.40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390-400.

de Raad, B, & Mlačić, B. (2017). The lexical foundation of the Big Five Factor Model. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp.191-216). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Dittes, J. E. (1969). Psychology of religion. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds). The handbook of social psychology  (Vol. 5, pp. 602-659). Reading, MA: Wesley Publishing Co.

Erikson, E. H. (1977). Toys and reasons. New York, NY: Norton.

Emmons, R. A., & Paloutzian, R. F. (2003). The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 377-402.

Fox, J., & Piedmont, R. L. (2020). Religious crisis as an independent causal predictor of psychological distress: Understanding the unique role of the numinous for intrapsychic functioning. Religions, 11. doi:10.3390/rel11070329

Frankl, V. E. (1959). From death camp to existentialism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Frankl, V. E. (1997). Man’s search for ultimate meaning. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Funder, D. C. (2002). Why study religion? Psychological Inquiry, 13, 213-214.

Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: A cross-species review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(3), 69-75.

Grassie, W. (2010). The new sciences of religion: Exploring spirituality from the outside in and bottom up. New York, NY: Palgrave-MacMillon.

Harris, K. A., Howell, D. S., & Spurgeon, D. W. (2018). Faith concepts in Psychology: Three 30-year definitional content analyses. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10,1-29.

Hart, D. B. (2019). That all shall be saved: Heaven, hell and universal salvation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Heath A. C., Neale, M. C., Kessler, R. C., Eaves, L. J., & Kendler, K. S. (1992). Evidence for genetic influences on personality from self-reports and informant ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 85-96.

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., Jr., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 51-77.

Hood, R. W., Jr., & Chen, Z. (2013). Mystical, spiritual, and religious experiences. In R. F. Paloutzian and C. L. Park (Eds.). Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality 2^nd ed. (pp. 422-440). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446-455.

James, W. (1994). Varieties of religious experience. New York, NY: Random House. (Original work published 1902)

Jung, C. G. (1963). Memories, dreams, reflections. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

King, J. E., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). The Five Factor Model plus dominance in chimpanzee personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2179

Kirk, K. M., Eaves, L. J., & Martin, N. G. (1999). Self-transcendence as a measure of spirituality in a sample of older Australian twins. Twin Research, 2, 81-87.

Koenig, H. G. (1999). The healing power of faith. New York, NY. Simon and Schuster.

Koenig, H. G. , McCullough M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Knoblauch, D. L., & Falconer, J. A., (1986). The relationship of a measured Taoist orientation to western personality dimensions. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 18, 73-83.

Kugelmann, R. (2011). Psychology and Catholicism: Contested boundaries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leach, M. M., & Sato, T. (2013). A content analysis of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality journal: The initial four years. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 61-68.

MacDonald, D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement and relation to the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 68(1), 153-197.

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY: Viking Press.

McCrae, R. R., et al. (2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 178-201.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2010). NEO inventories professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Miller, L. J. (2012). The Oxford handbook of psychology and spirituality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Miller, T. (1991). The psychotherapeutic value of the five-factor model of personality: A clinician’s experience. Personality Assessment, 57,415-433.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.

Moberg, D. A. (2002). Assessing and measuring spirituality: Confronting dilemmas of universal and particular evaluative criteria. Journal of Adult Development, 9, 46-60. https://dex.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013877201375

Newberg, A., D’Aquili, E., & Rause, V. (2001). Why God won’t go away. New York, NY: Ballantine Publishing Group.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66,  574-583.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3^rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Olufadi, Y. (2017). Muslim Daily Religiosity Assessment Scale (MUDRAS): A new instrument for Muslim religiosity research and practice. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9,  165-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000074

Otto, R. (1958). The idea of the holy (J. W. Harvey, Trans.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ozer, D. J., & Riese, S. P. (1994). Personality assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 357-388.

Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, C. L. (2013). Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd ed). New York, NY: Guilford.

Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, C. L. (2021). The Psychology of Religion and Spirituality: How big the tent? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 13, 3-13.

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the sacred. New York, NY: Guilford.

Pargament, K. I. (2013). APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big 5, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1215-1228.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook of classification. Washington, DC and New York, NY: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press.

Piedmont, R. L. (1994). Validation of the NEO-PIR observer form for college students: Toward a paradigm for studying personality development. Assessment, 1, 259-268.

Piedmont, R. L. (1998). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Clinical and research applications. New York, NY: Plenum.

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.

Piedmont, R. L. (2004a). Spiritual Transcendence as a predictor of psychosocial outcome from an outpatient substance abuse program. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 213-222.

Piedmont, R. L. (2004b). The logoplex as a paradigm for understanding spiritual transcendence. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 15, 263-284.

Piedmont, R. L. (2007a). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale to the Philippines: Spirituality as a human universal. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 10, 89-107.

Piedmont, R. L. (2007b). Spirituality as a robust empirical predictor of psychosocial outcomes: A cross-cultural analysis (pp. 117-134). In R. Estes (Ed.). Advancing quality of life in a turbulent world. New York: Springer.

Piedmont, R. L. (2014). Looking back and finding our way forward: An editorial call to action. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, 265-267.

Piedmont, R. L. (2017). Numinous Motivation Inventory: Preliminary technical manual. Timonium, MD: Author.

Piedmont, R. L., (2020). Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments: Technical manual (3^rd ed.). Timonium, MD: Author.

Piedmont, R. L., Ciarrocchi, J. W., Dy-Liacco, G., & Williams, J. E. G. (2009). The empirical and conceptual value of the Spiritual Transcendence and Religious Involvement scales for personality research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 162-179.

Piedmont, R. L., Fox, J., Copello, E. (2021). “Whatsoever you do unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me:” Using the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments Scale (ASPIRES) in a socially and economically marginalized rescue mission sample. Religions, 12,  474. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070474

Piedmont, R. L., Fox, J., & Toscano, M., E. (2020). Spiritual crisis as a unique causal predictor of emotional and characterological impairment in atheists and agnostics: Numinous motivations as universal psychological qualities. Religions, 11, 551-570. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11110551

Piedmont, R. L., Hassinger, C. J., Rhorer, J., Sherman, M. F., Sherman, N. C., & Williams, J. E. G. (2007). The relations among spirituality and religiosity and Axis II functioning in two college samples. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 18,  53-73.

Piedmont, R.L., & Leach, M.M. (2002). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale in India: Spirituality as a universal aspect of human experience. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1886-1899.

Piedmont, R. L., Mapa, A. T., & Williams, J. E. G. (2006). A factor analysis of the Fetzer/NIA Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality (MMRS). Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 17, 177-196.

Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991 Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-637.

Piedmont, R.L., McCrae, R.R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593.

Piedmont, R. L., Sherman, M. F., Sherman, N. C., Dy-Liacco, G. S., & Williams, J. E. G. (2009). Using the five-factor model to identify a new personality disorder domain: The case for experiential permeability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1245-1258.

Piedmont, R. L., Werdel, M. B., & Deneke, E. (2009). An evaluation of Reinert’s Surrender Scale in an outpatient alcohol/other drug abuse treatment sample. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 27, 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/073473209012784858

Piedmont, R.L., Werdel, M. B., & Fernando, M. (2009). The utility of the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) scale with Christians and Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 131-146.

Piedmont, R. L., Wilkins, T. A., & Hollwitz, J. (2013). The relevance of Spiritual Transcendence in a consumer economy: The dollars and sense of it. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 4, 59-77.

Piedmont, R. L., & Wilkins, T. A. (2020). Understanding the psychological soul of spirituality: A guidebook for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Piotrowski, J. P., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Piedmont, R. L.,& Baran, T. (2021). Polish adaptation of the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) scale and examining a spiritual transcendence nomological net. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,13, 36-45. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000273

Reinert, D. F. (1997). The Surrender Scale: Reliability, factor structure, and validity. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 15, 15–32.

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (1997). A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy. -Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Richins, M.L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Measure development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316.

Rosmarin, D. H., Pargament, K. I., Krumrei, E. J., & Flannelly, K. J. (2009). Religious coping among Jews: Development and initial validation of the JCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 670-683. doi:10.1002/jclp.20574

Ruckmick, C. A. (1920). The brevity book on psychology. Chicago, IL: Brevity Publishers.

Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.

Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness As a cultural  adaptation of basic traits: Five-Factor Model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 108-125.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495-524.

Seeman, T. E., Dubin, L. F., & Seeman, M. (2003). Religiosity/spirituality and health: A critical review of the evidence for biological pathways. American Psychologist, 58, 53–63.

Sloane, R. P., Bagiella, E., & Powell, T. (2001). Without a prayer: Methodological problems, ethical challenges, and the misrepresentations in the study of religion, spirituality, and medicine. In T. G. Plante & A. C. Sherman (Eds.). Faith and health: Psychological perspectives (pp. 339-354). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

 Smith, H. (2001). Why religion matters. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszcznski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of self-esteem. In C. R. Snyder & F. R. Donelson (Eds.). Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 21-40). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Speed, D., & Hwang, K. (2019). Heretic, heal thyself! Atheism, nonreligion, and health. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11, 297-307. http://dx.oi.org/10.1037/rel0000158

Tarakeshwar, N., Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2003). Measures of Hindu Pathways: Development and preliminary evidence of reliability and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 316-332. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.9.4.316

Tillich, P. (2000). The courage to be (2^nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Technical Report No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US Air Force.

Waller, N. Kojetin, B., Bouchard, T., Jr., Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1994). Genetic and environmental influences on religious interest, attitudes, and values: A study of twins reared apart and together. Psychological Science, 1, 138-142.

Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Woodworth, R. S. (1940). Psychology (4^th ed.). New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Johnson, E. L., Hook, J. N., & Aten, J. D. (2013). Evidence-based practices for Christian counseling and psychotherapy. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.