Next Article in Journal
A Vocational Reading of Gen 2:15 to Link Theology of Work and Ecotheology Following Escrivá’s Christian Materialism
Previous Article in Journal
Buddhism’s Oldest History Revisited: A New Text of the Dīpavaṃsa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/rel16050595
religions-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Transformational Spirituality, Transcendence, and Awe/Gratitude: Examining Their Influence on Prosocial and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Pakistan

by
Malik Muhammad Sohail
1,*,
Akhlaq Ahmad
2 and
Arndt Büssing
3
1
Department of Sociology, International Islamic University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2
Institute of Social & Cultural Studies, University of Punjab Pakistan, Lahore 54590, Pakistan
3
Institute for Integrative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Gerhard-Kienle-Weg 4, 58313 Herdecke, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2025, 16(5), 595; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16050595
Submission received: 25 November 2024 / Revised: 6 March 2025 / Accepted: 29 April 2025 / Published: 4 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Religions and Health/Psychology/Social Sciences)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As spirituality aims to reconnect us with the Sacred and should have effects on prosocial behavior, too, this study aimed to examine the role of transformational spirituality in raising prosocial and pro-environmental behavior. Data were collected from 370 students and teachers from different universities in Punjab. This cross-sectional study found that students scored higher on religious practices and awe/gratitude as an experiential aspect of spirituality as compared to their teachers. Living from the faith, perception of the sacred, and awe/gratitude were moderately interconnected. Both living from the faith and perception of awe/gratitude were strongly or moderately related to prosocial behaviors and valuing the environment/nature, as well as times of pausing in silence and reflection. These results help us to understand the role of the complex construct of spirituality that may contribute to promoting prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors of a young generation.

1. Introduction

Religion is regarded as a powerful source of specific beliefs and related ethical values and behaviors. It suggests codes by which we lead life and may also influence our prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors (Ives and Kidwell 2019; Shin and Preston 2019). Some studies, for instance, Wald et al. (2005), have shown the strong influence of religion on the social and political attitudes of the followers. Similarly, Jelen (1992), Huckfeldt and Sprague (1995), and Mathras et al. (2015) have found a positive influence of religiously sacred and legitimate beliefs on different social and political attitudes. Djupe and Hunt (2009) and Ramírez and Fernández (2018) demonstrated religion as a strong predictor of social behaviors and suggested that the role of religion in the formation of pro-environmental attitudes should be further explored. A better understanding of the association between spirituality and prosocial behavior is an important concern of well-meaning scholars from diverse academic disciplines (Einolf 2013).
However, the influence of religious beliefs and convictions on concrete behaviors may vary between different cultures and religions. In some societies, religion has more normative relevance, while in other societies, religion becomes more and more irrelevant in the use of a moral instance and thus loses its cultural centrality. This will, of course, influence social values, attitudes, and behaviors.
Spirituality, as a complex construct of experiences, attitudes, convictions, and related ethical values, is vital for prosocial and environmental behaviors. Spirituality points to human transcendence, introspection, interconnectedness, and the quest for meaning in life (King and Boyatzis 2015). A substantial number of studies show that different indicators of spirituality are associated with prosocial behavior (Einolf 2013; Büssing et al. 2018).
Spirituality has a very strong and established connection with humankind and nature (Taylor 2001) as the motif of interconnectedness is central (Büssing et al. 2018). Personal spiritual inspiration is an important indicator of environmental consideration and has a strong impact on the environment (Pandey and Gupta 2008). Shrivastava (2010) regarded the spiritual development of an individual as important for its pro-environmental behavior and environmental conservation. It was also found that the spiritual values of an individual enhance the love for the environment (Crossman 2010). Nisbet et al. (2009), Leary et al. (2008), Zhang et al. (2014), and Schultz (2001) highlighted that connectedness to nature is one of the important components of spirituality and ignites humanism, kindness, empathy, and altruism in individuals. Similar findings refer to pausing in wondering awe and gratitude as an experiential aspect of spirituality (Büssing et al. 2021; Büssing 2021).
However, disagreement on this topic among scholars continues. For instance, Steg and Vlek (2009) and Vaidyanathan et al. (2018) do not consider research on prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors consistent and conclusive. They have found that religious beliefs correlate with pro-environmental attitudes, while potential processes are missing in these studies. Similarly, Cornwall (1989) and Hayes and Marangudakis (2000) found discrepancies between religious teachings and practices among Christian denominations, which is quite a common phenomenon where normative ideals do not easily match with concrete practices of people. Likewise, Ramírez and Fernández (2018) pointed out that current research is unable to establish a link between religiosity (which is a complex dimension with different layers) and pro-environmental behaviors. Interestingly, there are opposing effects from the more liberal spiritual attitude as compared to religious fundamentalism (Preston and Shin 2022). Spirituality was associated with positive environmental attitudes and behaviors, while religious fundamentalism predicted these intentions negatively, and these effects were not related to general religiosity (Preston and Shin 2022). It seems that the different spirituality indicators are relevant for this topic, too, as the findings may differ depending on these indicators and specific measures.
As the aforementioned findings may also depend on cultural and religious differences, and to extend the field of knowledge, we were interested in the transformational aspects of spirituality, particularly regarding whether their faith is a base of prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors for Muslims from Pakistan. Very few studies have been conducted on the influence of religious and spiritual beliefs on the attitudes of Muslims in Pakistan (Sohail 2020). We addressed different indicators of spirituality and religiosity, such as spiritual attitudes, convictions, and behaviors related to God on the one hand and experiences related to the perceptions of the Sacred/God in life on the other hand, and we contrasted these with religious practices. These indicators of spirituality were then related to respectful and peaceful behaviors toward others and engagement regarding the well-being of disadvantaged people, as well as the protection and maintenance of creation (which all refer to God’s creation) in terms of a transformative aspect of spirituality. Further, these indicators of spirituality were related to multidimensional life satisfaction. For this explorative study, we assume that the concrete experiential aspects of spirituality are more relevant for these behaviors than the formal religious practices or religious convictions alone.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

A convenient sample of 370 students and teachers was recruited from different universities in Punjab, the largest province of Pakistan. All respondents of this survey voluntarily and anonymously participated in this study. Before starting the online questionnaire, an ethical approval was obtained from University of Chakwal. Respondents were informed about the purpose and nature of the study. Respondents marked an informed consent before advancing to the survey questionnaire, which was provided in the English language as students and teachers were well educated in that language.

2.2. Transformative Spirituality

To assess the transformative aspect of spirituality, we used the three main scales of the ‘Franciscan inspired Spirituality Questionnaire’ (FraSpir), which refers to the basic principles of that religious congregation but is by no means restricted to religious brothers and sisters, and assesses the core dimensions: (1) Live from the Faith/Search for God and the transformative outcomes; (2) Peaceful attitude/Respectful treatment; (3) Commitment to Disadvantaged and Creation (Büssing et al. 2017). The scales’ internal reliability coefficients Cronbach’s alpha of the primary version ranges from 0.81 to 0.97 (Büssing et al. 2017). All items were evaluated on a 5-point scale of agreement and disagreement (0—does not apply at all; 1—does not truly apply; 2—half and half (neither yes nor no); 3—applies quite a bit; 4—applies very much).
The primary structure of the scale could be reproduced in this sample from Pakistan by explorative factor analysis:
(1)
Live from the Faith with 10 items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87), i.e., f1 Faith is orientation in life; f2 I try to live in accordance with my religious beliefs; f4 My faith/spirituality gives meaning to my life; f6 I have a sense of the Sacred in my life; f7 I listen to God’s word in me; f8 I keep times of silence before God.
(2)
Peaceful attitude/Respectful treatment of others with 6 items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83), i.e., f21 I am conscious of the fact that I deal with others well and respectfully; f22 I always try to put myself into others and wonder how I would feel in their situation; f25 I actively go to people who are not so good with me and try to clarify the causes; f26 In conflicts I always try to find ways of reconciliation.
(3)
Commitment to Disadvantaged and Creation with 3 items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71): i.e., f15 I actively engage for the well-being of disadvantaged people; f16 I am actively involved in the protection and maintenance of creation; f18 I am trying to find ways to help people in need.

2.3. Transcendence Perception (DSES-6)

The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale was developed as a measure of the perception of the transcendent in daily life, and so the items address experiences rather than certain beliefs or behaviors (Underwood and Teresi 2002; Underwood 2011). Here, we have used the 6-item version (DSES-6; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91), including specific items such as the sense of presence of God, God’s love, the desire to be closer to God (union), finding strength/consolation in God, being touched by the beauty of creation (Underwood and Teresi 2002). The answer categories from 1 to 6 are many times a day, every day, most days, some days, once in a while, and never/almost never. Item scores were finally summed up. Cronbach’s alpha in this sample is 0.77.

2.4. Awe/Gratitude (GrAw-7)

To measure feelings of wondering awe in specific situations and subsequent feelings of gratitude, we have used the 7-item Awe/Gratitude (GrAw) scale, which had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82) (Büssing et al. 2018). This scale addresses the “emotional response to an immediate and ‘captured’ experience, and not an emotional response in response to the goodwill of a person” (Büssing et al. 2018). It is a measure of emotional or spiritual resonance toward specific touching situations and can be regarded as an experiential aspect of spirituality (Büssing et al. 2018). Examples of items are “In certain places, I become very quiet and devout”; “I stop and am captivated by the beauty of nature”; “I pause and stay spellbound at the moment”; “I stop and then think of so many things for which I’m really grateful”. All items were evaluated on a 4-point scale (0—never; 1—seldom; 2—often; 3—regularly). The results were transformed to a 100% scale. The internal reliability of these items is also good in this sample from Pakistan (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88).

2.5. Religious Practices (SpREUK-P)

To assess the frequency of concrete religious practices, we used the respective subscale of the SpREUK-P (Büssing et al. 2012). The 5-item scale of religious practices address the frequency of private praying, performing obligatory prayers (Salat), going to the mosque, meditation (either Eastern or Western styles), participation in religious events (i.e., religious congregations, etc.), and the importance of religious symbols in the private area. This 6-item scale of religious practices has satisfactory internal consistency in this sample (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77).

2.6. Nature/Silence/Reflection

From the Perceived Changes Questionnaire (PCQ), which addresses changes in attitudes and behaviors because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Büssing et al. 2020), we used the subscale Nature/Silence/Reflection (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87). The respective five items address going outdoors and enjoying what is around, perceiving nature more intensely, consciously taking time for silence, enjoying quiet times of (silent) reflection, and perceiving times of loneliness intensely. The respective items were introduced by the phrase “Due to the current situation…”, which referred to the Corona pandemic. Agreement or disagreement was scored on a 5-point scale (0—does not apply at all; 1—does not truly apply; 2—neither yes nor no; 3—applies quite a bit; 4—applies very much). Cronbach’s alpha of this 5-item scale in this sample is 0.77.

2.7. Life Satisfaction (BMLSS-10)

Life satisfaction as a relevant outcome of all aforementioned experiences and attitudes was measured using the Brief Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale (BMLSS) (Büssing et al. 2009). The 10 items address intrinsic (oneself, life in general), social (friendships, family life), external (work situation, where one lives), perspective (financial situation, future prospects), and health dimensions (health situation, abilities to deal with daily life concerns) of life satisfaction as a multifaceted construct. The internal consistency of the instrument was found to be good in the validation study (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) (Büssing et al. 2009). All items were introduced by the phrase “I would describe my level of satisfaction as …”, and scored on a 7-point scale ranging from dissatisfaction to satisfaction (0—terrible; 1—unhappy; 2—mostly dissatisfied; 3—mixed (about equally satisfied and dissatisfied); 4—mostly satisfied; 5—pleased; 6—delighted). The BMLSS-10 sum scores refer to a 100% level (‘delighted’). Scores >60% indicate higher life satisfaction, while scores <40% indicate dissatisfaction and scores between 40 and 60 indicate indifference. The scale exhibited a good internal consistency in the present sample, too (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85)

2.8. Statistical Analyses

SPSS 27.0 was used to calculate descriptive statistics, internal consistency (Cronbach’s coefficient α), factor analyses (principal component analysis using Varimax rotation with Kaiser’s normalization), as well as analyses of variance (ANOVA), first-order correlations, and stepwise regression analyses.
Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the significance level of ANOVA and correlation analyses was set at p < 0.01. Regarding the classification of the strength of the observed correlations, we considered r > 0.5 as a strong correlation, an r between 0.3 and 0.5 as a moderate correlation, an r between 0.2 and 0.3 as a weak correlation, and r < 0.2 as negligible or no correlation.

3. Results

3.1. Description of the Sample

Among 593 people who started the survey, 114 (19%) did not provide basic sociodemographic data, while 109 (18%) provided sociodemographic data and responded to the life satisfaction questionnaire but not to the spirituality measures. Thus, for the following analyses, data from 370 participants (62%) who provided mostly complete data were used. These three groups did not significantly differ in terms of gender, being a student or teacher, religiosity, or life satisfaction.
Women were dominating in the sample (63%), and most were students (89%), mainly from Behavioral and Social Sciences (60%). Among them, 99% were Muslims (Table 1).
Their life satisfaction was in the upper mid-range (Table 1). The sample scored high on religious practices, awe/gratitude, living from the faith, Peaceful and Respectful Attitude, Engagement for Others and Environment, and Nature/Silence/Reflection, while the Perception of the Sacred in their life was in the upper mid-range (Table 1).
There were significant gender-related differences for living from the faith (F = 10.2, p < 0.001; Eta2 = 0.056), awe/gratitude (F = 7.7, p < 0.001; Eta2 = 0.042) and religious practices (F = 6.7, p = 0.001; Eta2 = 0.037) which scored lowest in men as compared to women and diverse people. Students scored higher on religious practices (F = 1.7, p < 0.001; Eta2 = 0.032) and awe/gratitude (F = 20.2, p < 0.001; Eta2 = 0.053) as compared to their teachers.
Correlations between indicators of spirituality and behaviors related to others, the environment and the creation, and to participants’ life satisfaction.
Correlation analyses revealed that Living from the Faith was moderately related to Perception of the Sacred, awe/gratitude, and related religious practices, while the Perception of the Sacred itself was only weakly related to awe/gratitude and marginally only to religious practices (Table 2).
The religiosity indicator Living from the Faith was strongly related to Peaceful and Respectful Attitude, Engagement for Others and Creation, and Nature/Silence/Reflection, while it was weakly only related to life satisfaction. In contrast, the perceptive aspect of spirituality, Perception of the Sacred, was weakly only related to Peaceful and Respectful Attitude, Engagement for Others and Creation, and Nature/Silence/Reflection, while awe/gratitude was moderately related to these behaviors and perceptions (Table 2). Religious practices were moderately related to Peaceful and Respectful Attitude and Nature/Silence/Reflection, only marginally to life satisfaction, and not to emotional exhaustion (Table 2).

3.2. Predictors of Prosocial and Pro-Environmental Behavior

As there were several contributors to prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors, stepwise regression analyses with the significant variables described above were performed. As shown in Table 3, the best predictor of Engagement for Others and Creation was Nature/Silence/Reflection, which alone explained 24% of the variance, followed by Living from the Faith, adding a further 7% of explained variance, and finally, awe/gratitude, which added 1% of the variance. These three variables together explain 32% of the variance. Not significant in the regression model were Perception of the Sacred, religious practices, life satisfaction, gender, and age.

4. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between different indicators of spirituality and prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors using a convenience sample of students and teachers in Pakistan. It was found that women scored higher on Living from the Faith, awe/gratitude, and religious practices, compared to men. Research has shown that women often identify themselves as more religious than men (Voas et al. 2013). Numerous cross-cultural studies explicate complex factors behind women’s religiosity, including personality, social status, and socialization (Schnabel 2017). A recent study on the same population found that overall religiosity is slightly higher among females as compared to males (Khan et al. 2022).
In this study, students scored higher on religious practices and awe/gratitude, compared to their teachers. This finding is not consistent with previous findings, which found older adults to be more religious than younger adults (Clarke 2005). There could be several explanations for these findings.
This study finds Living from the Faith moderately related to Perception of the Sacred, awe/gratitude, and religious practices and strongly to Peaceful and Respectful Attitude, Engagement for Others and Creation, and Nature/Silence/Reflection, while it is weakly only related to life satisfaction. Religious beliefs or concepts may facilitate prosocial behavior, including charity, volunteering, and helping strangers (Norenzayan and Shariff 2008). Although some researchers found a negative correlation between religious belief and prosocial behavior (Decety et al. 2015), most of the correlational findings, for instance (Benson et al. 2006; Furrow et al. 2004), prove positive relationships between religious beliefs and prosocial behavior. Experimental research by Shariff et al. (2016) has also shown that religious reminders increase prosocial behavior. Likewise, Koenig et al. (2007) have applied a bivariate genetic model to male twins’ data for altruistic behavior and their religiousness and found that both common genetic and shared environmental variances explained this association.
The current study found that the Perception of the Sacred in life is only weakly related to prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors and religious practices. It seems that simply perceiving the transcendent in life is not enough as it has only some weak effects on religious and prosocial activities; instead, pausing in wondering awe and gratitude was strongly related to religious practices with moderate effects on prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors. It seems that the reflective aspect of wondering and the consequence of being grateful is more relevant. In fact, regression analyses with Engagement for Others and Creation as a dependent variable revealed that nature as a resource to encounter the Sacred and becoming quiet (silence) and reflecting was the best predictor. This is followed by religiously living from faith and awe and gratitude. In contrast, the perception of the Sacred and religious practices had no relevant independent influence in this model. It is thus not simply the intentional ability to perceive the transcendent, to be obedient and perform the religious practices, but to live from the foundations of faith, i.e., to regard one’s own faith as orientation in life that provides meaning, to live in accordance with the ethical principles of the religious believes, to listen to God’s word in times of prayer and meditation, and thus keeping times of silence with God, etc.
At the individual level, religion and spirituality considerably influence personal values (Saroglou and Muñoz-García 2008; Morrison et al. 2015), motivation and goals (Oman and Morello-Frosch 2018), ethics (Sabbaghi and Cavanagh 2015), and moral identity (Rodríguez-Rad and Ramos-Hidalgo 2018). However, some researchers have also shown the negative influence of religion on sustainable behaviors (Eckberg and Blocker 1996; Muñoz-García 2014). They considered the frequency of prayers, self-identification with a specific religion, and the intensity of the image of God as important. The negative influence of religion on sustainable behavior may be the result of individual worldviews (Agudelo and Cortes-Gómez 2021). As shown in this study with Muslims from Pakistan, the different indicators of religiosity and spirituality may have different relevance for the behavior outcomes. The centrality of faith in an individual’s life seems to be crucial for the related behaviors.
It is important to underline that in Muslim society, it is believed that Islam fosters a profound relationship between the individual and God through religious practices such as prayer (ṣalāh), fasting during Ramadan (ṣawm), almsgiving (zakāt), and the pilgrimage to Mecca (ḥajj). These rituals transcend mere acts of worship; serving to cultivate spiritual discipline, communal identity, and social responsibility. Islam thus places significant value on the collective performance of religious duties, reflecting its emphasis on community (ummah) and shared moral obligations. Additionally, Islam encourages active engagement with others, considering social interaction, cooperation, and compassion among the highest virtues in human conduct. In Islamic contexts, thus, nature is seen as a sign of God (āyah), and environmental stewardship (khalīfah) is a religious duty (Foltz 2003). As compared to the Individualistic spirituality of Western individualist models of spirituality (Taylor 2010), Islamic ideology conceptualizes environmental responsibility not merely as a personal ethical choice, but as a religious obligation and culturally embedded practice.

5. Limitation

While interpreting the findings of this study, a few methodological limitations should be considered. First, the sample included students and teachers from a specific geographic region, making the generalizability of the findings difficult. Participants with different socioeconomic backgrounds may have different perceptions, and thus, future studies should enroll more heterogeneous samples. Additionally, the use of convenience samples may introduce selection bias. Second, the current study employed a cross-sectional design that did not verify the causal relationships between different variables. Therefore, the findings have to be verified in more diverse samples, ideally with a longitudinal design that may include in-depth qualitative interviews, too. Further, self-report studies are prone to socially desirable answers, and thus, observational behavioral studies may be included in such more complex designs.

6. Conclusions

Based on the analysis conducted in this study, it can be concluded that a strong religious fundament in life, which encourages ethically living from the faith, an awareness of nature around us as a resource, and keeping moments of reflective silence, and thereby pausing in wondering awe and gratitude, has a correlational influence on prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors. These results can be used to understand the role of spirituality as a complex construct with different sub-dimensions, which help promote prosocial behavior for the current and future generations of people sharing one world to live.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B.; Methodology, A.B.; Validation, A.A.; Investigation, A.A.; Resources, A.A.; Data curation, M.M.S.; Writing—original draft, M.M.S.; Writing—review & editing, A.A.; Project administration, A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by UOC Institutional Research Ethic Committee (No. UOC/REC-22/03, Date: 3 May 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

In the start of survey, an informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz, and Angela María Cortes-Gómez. 2021. Sustainable behaviors, prosocial behaviors, and religiosity in Colombia. A first empirical assessment. Environmental Challenges 4: 100088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Benson, Peter L., Peter C. Scales, Arturo Sesma, and Eugene C. Roehlkepartain. 2006. Adolescent spirituality. Adolescent and Family Health 4: 41–51. [Google Scholar]
  3. Büssing, Arndt. 2021. Wondering Awe as a perceptive aspect of spirituality and its relation to indicators of wellbeing: Frequency of perception and underlying triggers. Frontiers of Psychiatry 12: 738770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Büssing, Arndt, Daniela Rodrigues Recchia, and Thomas Dienberg. 2018. Attitudes and Behaviors Related to Franciscan-Inspired Spirituality and Their Associations with Compassion and Altruism in Franciscan Brothers and Sisters. Religions 9: 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Büssing, Arndt, Daniela Rodrigues Recchia, Rudolf Hein, and Thomas Dienberg. 2020. Perceived changes of specific attitudes, perceptions and behaviors during the Corona pandemic and their relation to wellbeing. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 18: 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Büssing, Arndt, Daniela Rodrigues Recchia, Thomas Dienberg, Janusz Surzykiewicz, and Klaus Baumann. 2021. Awe/Gratitude as an experiential aspect of spirituality and its association to perceived positive changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12: 642716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Büssing, Arndt, Franz Reiser, Andreas Michalsen, and Klaus Baumann. 2012. Engagement of Patients with Chronic Diseases in Spiritual and Secular Forms of Practice: Results with the Shortened SpREUK-P SF17 Questionnaire. Integrative Medicine: A Clinician’s Journal 11: 28–38. [Google Scholar]
  8. Büssing, Arndt, Julia Fischer, Almut Haller, Peter Heusser, Thomas Ostermann, and Peter F. Matthiessen. 2009. Validation of the brief multidimensional life satisfaction scale in patients with chronic diseases. European Journal of Medicine Research 14: 171–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Büssing, Arndt, Markus Warode, Mareike Gerundt, and Thomas Dienberg. 2017. Validation of a novel instrument to measure elements of Franciscan-inspired spirituality in a general population and in religious persons. Religions 8: 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Clarke, Shailagh. 2005. Religiosity and Spirituality in Younger and Older Adults. Ph.D. thesis, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cornwall, Marie. 1989. The determinants of religious behavior: A theoretical model and empirical test. Social forces 68: 572–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Crossman, Joanna. 2010. Conceptualizing spiritual leadership in secular organizational contexts and its relation to transformational, servant and environmental leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31: 596–608. [Google Scholar]
  13. Decety, Jean, Jason M. Cowell, Kang Lee, Randa Mahasneh, Susan Malcolm-Smith, Bilge Selcuk, and Xinyue Zhou. 2015. The negative association between religiousness and children’s altruism across the world. Current Biology 25: 2951–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Djupe, Paul A., and Patrick Kieran Hunt. 2009. Beyond the Lynn White thesis: Congregational effects on environmental concern. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48: 670–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Eckberg, Douglas Lee, and T. Jean Blocker. 1996. Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical problem of fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35: 343–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Einolf, Christopher J. 2013. Daily spiritual experiences and prosocial behavior. Social Indicators Research 110: 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Foltz, Richard. 2003. Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust. Cambridge: Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School. [Google Scholar]
  18. Furrow, James L., Pamela Ebstyne King, and Krystal White. 2004. Religion and positive youth development: Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science 8: 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hayes, Bernadette C, and Manussos Marangudakis. 2000. Religion and Environmental Issues within Anglo-American Democracies. Review of Religious Research 42: 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Huckfeldt, R. Robert, and John Sprague. 1995. Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ives, Christopher D, and Jeremy Kidwell. 2019. Religion and social values for sustainability. Sustainability Science 14: 1355–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jelen, Ted G. 1992. Political Christianity: A contextual analysis. American Journal of Political Science 36: 692–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khan, Fahad, M. M. Sohail, and Daniya Ahmed. 2022. Gender Differences in Religiosity, Positive Mental Health, and Psychological Distress Among Pakistani Young Adults [Manuscript Submitted for Publication]. Chakwal: Center for Religion, Science and Social Wellbeing, University of Chakwal. [Google Scholar]
  24. King, Pamela Ebstyne, and Chris J. Boyatzis. 2015. Religious and spiritual development. In Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science: Socioemotional Processes, 7th ed. Edited by Michael E. Lamb and Richard M. Lerner. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, vol. 3, pp. 975–1021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Koenig, Laura B., Matt McGue, Robert F. Krueger, and Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr. 2007. Religiousness, antisocial behavior, and altruism: Genetic and environmental mediation. Journal of Personality 75: 265–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Leary, Mark R., Jessica M. Tipsord, and Eleanor B. Tate. 2008. Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social and natural worlds into one’s sense of self. In Transcending Self-Interest: Psychological Explorations of a Quiet Ego. Edited by Heidi A. Wayment and Jack J. Bauer. Washington: APA Books. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mathras, Daniele, Adam B. Cohen, Naomi Mandel, and David Glen Mick. 2015. The effects of religion on consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Consumer Psychology 26: 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Morrison, Mark, Roderick Duncan, and Kevin Parton. 2015. Religion does matter for climate change attitudes and behavior. PLoS ONE 10: e0134868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Muñoz-García, Antonio. 2014. Religion and environmental concern in europe. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 36: 323–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nisbet, Elizabeth K., John M. Zelenski, and Steven A. Murphy. 2009. The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior 41: 715–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Norenzayan, Ara, and Azim F. Shariff. 2008. The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science 322: 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Oman, Doug, and Rachel Morello-Frosch. 2018. Environmental health sciences, religion, and spirituality. In Why Religion and Spirituality Matter for Public Health. Cham: Springer, pp. 139–52. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pandey, Ashish, and Rajen K. Gupta. 2008. Spirituality in management: A review of contemporary and traditional thoughts and agenda for research. Global Business Review 9: 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Preston, Jesse L., and Faith Shin. 2022. Opposing effects of spirituality and religious fundamentalism on environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 80: 101772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ramírez, Rafael Robina, and Manuel Pulido Fernández. 2018. Religious travellers’ improved attitude towards nature. Sustainability 10: 3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rodríguez-Rad, Carlos J., and Encarnacion Ramos-Hidalgo. 2018. Spirituality, consumer ethics, and sustainability: The mediating role of moral identity. Journal of Consumer Marketing 35: 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sabbaghi, Omid, and Gerald F. Cavanagh. 2015. Jesuit, catholic, and green: Evidence from Loyola University Chicago. Journal of Business Ethics 127: 317–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Saroglou, Vassilis, and Antonio Muñoz-García. 2008. Individual differences in religion and spirituality: An issue of personality traits and/or values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47: 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schnabel, Landon. 2017. Gendered Religiosity. Review of Religious Research 59: 547–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schultz, P. Wesley. 2001. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 327–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shariff, Azim F., Aiyana K. Willard, Teresa Andersen, and Ara Norenzayan. 2016. Religious priming: A meta-analysis with a focus on prosociality. Personality and Social Psychology Review 20: 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shin, Faith, and Jesse L. Preston. 2019. Green as the Gospel: The Power of Stewardship Messages To Improve Climate Change Attitudes. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 13: 437–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shrivastava, Paul. 2010. Pedagogy of passion for sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education 9: 443–55. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sohail, Malik Muhammad. 2020. Belief in God’s help during hepatitis C: A qualitative study on Muslim patients in Pakistan. Journal of Religion and Health 59: 928–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Steg, Linda, and Charles Vlek. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 309–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Taylor, Bron. 2001. Earth and nature-based spirituality (part I): From deep ecology to radical environmentalism. Religion 31: 175–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Taylor, Bron. 2010. Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. Oakland: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  48. Underwood, Lynn G. 2011. The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale: Overview and Results. Religions 2: 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Underwood, Lynn G., and Jeanne A. Teresi. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Vaidyanathan, Brandon, Simranjit Khalsa, and Elaine Howard Ecklund. 2018. Naturally ambivalent: Religion’s role in shaping environmental action. Sociology of Religion 79: 472–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Voas, David, Siobhan McAndrew, and Ingrid Storm. 2013. Modernization and the gender gap in religiosity: Evidence from cross-national European surveys. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 65: 259–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wald, Kenneth D., Adam L. Silverman, and Kevin Fridy. 2005. Making sense of religion in political life. Annual Review of Political Science 8: 121–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, Jia Wei, Paul K. Piff, Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva, and Dacher Keltner. 2014. An occasion for unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. Journal of Environmental Psychology 37: 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Characteristics of participants (n = 370).
Table 1. Characteristics of participants (n = 370).
N%Mean ± SD [Range]
Gender 100
Female22763
Male12234
Diverse123
Mean age (years)347 22.5 ± 5.0 [17–15]
Religion 100
Islam36699
other31
Status 100
Student32889
Teacher4211
Studies
Arts and Humanities5615
Behavioral and Social Sciences22360
Business, Economics and Administrative Sciences318
Commerce and Engineering92
Law and Islamic studies and Oriental learning144
Basic and Health Sciences134
Life satisfaction (BMLSS-10)370 68.8 ± 16.5 [0–100]
Indicators of spirituality
Perception of the Sacred (DSES-6)357 28.3 ± 4.5 [12–36]
Awe/Gratitude (GrAw-7)362 84.0 ± 17.2 [0–100]
Religious Practices (SpREUK-P)360 86.4 ± 16.4 [0–100]
Living from the Faith (FraSpir)356 3.2 ± 0.7 [0–4]
Peaceful and respectful attitude (FraSpir)349 3.1 ± 0.8 [0–4]
Engagement for Others and Environment (FraSpir)349 3.0 ± 0.7 [0–4]
Nature/Silence/Reflection (PCQ)352 79.8 ± 17.5 [0–100]
Table 2. Correlation analyses.
Table 2. Correlation analyses.
N = 356Living from the FaithPerception of the SacredAwe/GratitudeReligious Practices
Living from the Faith (FraSpir)1.000
Perception of the Sacred (DSES-6)0.475 **1.000
Awe/Gratitude (GrAw-7)0.445 **0.257 **1.000
Religious Practices (SpEUK-P)0.411 **0.189 **0.717 **1.000
Outcomes
Peaceful and Respectful Attitude (FraSpir)0.528 **0.228 **0.362 **0.305 **
Engagement for Others and Creation (FraSpir)0.520 **0.231 **0.366 **0.296 **
Nature/Silence/Reflection (PCQ)0.501 **0.316 **0.338 **0.248 **
Life satisfaction (BMLSS-10)0.284 **0.288 **0.1000.151 **
Age (years)−0.080−0.003−0.238 **−0.241 **
** show significant correlation.
Table 3. Predictors of prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors (stepwise regression analyses).
Table 3. Predictors of prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors (stepwise regression analyses).
Dependent Variable: Engagement for Others and Creation
Model 3: F = 49.1, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.32		BetaTp
3(constant) 2.2010.029
Nature/Silence/Reflection0.3135.692<0.001
Living from the Faith0.2474.215<0.001
Awe/Gratitude0.1402.5540.011
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sohail, M.M.; Ahmad, A.; Büssing, A. Transformational Spirituality, Transcendence, and Awe/Gratitude: Examining Their Influence on Prosocial and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Pakistan. Religions 2025, 16, 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16050595

AMA Style

Sohail MM, Ahmad A, Büssing A. Transformational Spirituality, Transcendence, and Awe/Gratitude: Examining Their Influence on Prosocial and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Pakistan. Religions. 2025; 16(5):595. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16050595

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sohail, Malik Muhammad, Akhlaq Ahmad, and Arndt Büssing. 2025. "Transformational Spirituality, Transcendence, and Awe/Gratitude: Examining Their Influence on Prosocial and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Pakistan" Religions 16, no. 5: 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16050595

APA Style

Sohail, M. M., Ahmad, A., & Büssing, A. (2025). Transformational Spirituality, Transcendence, and Awe/Gratitude: Examining Their Influence on Prosocial and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Pakistan. Religions, 16(5), 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16050595

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop