Perceptions of Spirituality and of God: A Psychological Qualitative Study

Abstract

The majority of people living in the U.S. report that spirituality is an important part of their life that is influential to their well-being. However, individuals vary widely in how they conceptualize spirituality, which often stems from and overlaps with their conceptualizations of God or so-called “God image”. Examination of people’s experiences of spirituality and conceptualization of God can enable psychologists to improve their understanding of individuals’ core personal experiences. This study evaluates both spirituality and God image, as well as the relationship between these two constructs, using qualitative hermeneutic analysis of interviews with 63 adults (51% women, 49% men, aged 18–75) from a midwestern U.S. university town. Substantial overlap characterized participants’ descriptions of spirituality and God. Participants tended to either view spirituality in relational terms or as an abstract concept, with the latter conceptualization being distanced from personal experience. Religious concepts and personal experiences were integral to most participants’ descriptions of both spirituality and God. The results emphasize the importance of addressing contextual worldviews about spirituality, inclusive of personal experiences.

1. Introduction

Many people affirm the salience of religion and spirituality in their lives. Research shows that 81% of those living in the U.S. believe in God (Gallup 2022), while 70% say that spirituality is an important part of their daily life (Alper et al. 2023). Moreover, research affirms that spirituality can benefit individuals both physically and emotionally in the form of healing and psychological well-being (Koenig et al. 2001; Miller and Thoresen 2003; Powell et al. 2003; Whitehead and Bergeman 2020). This acknowledgement of the importance of spirituality relates to the central role that spirituality plays in many people’s worldviews, i.e., their very way of perceiving life. “We surround ourselves with spiritual references, creating a context in which the sacred is invoked to convey the significance of every major life event” (Spilka et al. 2003, p. 2). From a naturalistic framework, spiritual experiences represent an important part of human culture (Wildman 2011). Furthermore, for many individuals, spirituality and beliefs about God can be foundational to interpreting life events, the touchstone of values and ascribed meaning.

Spirituality and religiosity, while related, are distinct yet overlapping constructs. Spirituality is often understood as a personal, subjective experience involving a search for meaning, connection to the sacred, or transcendence, which may or may not be linked to organized religion (Hill and Pargament 2003; Zinnbauer et al. 1997). Religiosity, in contrast, typically refers to adherence to organized beliefs, practices, and institutions associated with specific religious traditions (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). This study explores spirituality and religiosity as partially convergent, examining how participants’ descriptions of spirituality often incorporate religious concepts, particularly in relation to their perceptions of God, without treating the terms as synonymous.

Given the salience of spirituality and relationships with Deity to many aspects of life among theists, it stands to reason that such factors would be relevant to mental health and therapeutic treatment. Psychotherapy is intended to promote mental well-being by addressing psychological challenges and enhancing coping skills. To achieve these goals, professionals may encourage self-reflection and self-examination. Since spirituality and relationships with Deity are psychological and inform the interpretation of experiences (Habbestad 2024), addressing spiritual topics with clients may be a viable treatment strategy (Captari et al. 2018). Indeed, several scholars have long argued that the study of spirituality can yield many insights for psychologists and their clients (e.g., Richards and Bergin 1997). Furthermore, others emphasize the need for a contemplative approach to the study of spirituality (Frohlich 2020). For instance, Frohlich (2020) calls for the exploration of theological topics to be rooted in self-awareness and experience. Incidentally, this approach could prove beneficial to therapeutic treatment.

Specifically, encouraging clients to determine their personal definition of spirituality may be relevant to treatment. Since spirituality can be integral to personal identity and meaning-making, exploration of personal spiritual beliefs and experiences should be relevant to well-being (Hill and Pargament 2003; Kimball et al. 2013). Conversely, if an individual’s definition of spirituality is unclear, their ability to interpret or articulate sacred experiences may be hampered (Ambrose 2006). Helping individuals to define their spirituality seems to warrant research attention.

Despite the accelerated growth in the psychological study of spirituality (Lucchetti and Lucchetti 2014; Weaver et al. 2006), there is no clear description for the construct of spirituality. The number of perspectives about spirituality and the differences between those perspectives are remarkable (Demir 2019; Zinnbauer et al. 1997; Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). Although the literature consistently reports positive associations between spirituality and mental health (e.g., Rosmarin et al. 2022; Whitehead and Bergeman 2020), findings may be limited by the generic nature of the terminology used. The word spirituality conveys multiple meanings, such that research may be tapping into general rather than specific effects. Due to this lack of specificity, psychological perspectives of spirituality remain less complete than they ought to be.

In particular, although the psychology research literature frequently references individuals’ perceptions about God (often referred to as God image), psychological definitions of spirituality typically avoid mentioning Deity. That is, the study of spirituality and the study of perceptions of God are currently distinct areas of inquiry in the scientific study of religion (e.g., Hill and Hood 1999; Spilka et al. 2003). This implicit separation between definitions of spirituality and God image is partly due to the distinct historical origins of relevant scholarship, with the former addressed in the philosophy of psychology (James [1907] 1974) and the latter originating from the psychoanalytic object relations literature (see Brokaw and Edwards 1994). Nevertheless, this historical separation of individuals’ perceptions of spirituality from their perceptions of God may no longer be justified, since most individuals’ spiritual beliefs are intertwined with their beliefs about Deity (Ammerman 2013; Hill and Hall 2002; Hill and Pargament 2003).

Another likely reason for the implicit separation between psychological definitions of spirituality and psychological research of individuals’ perceptions of God is the general reluctance among psychologists to openly talk about influences that cannot be seen nor measured (Bergin 1980). Assumptions about empirical science have often translated into agnostic or even atheistic affirmations (e.g., Ellis 1980). Nevertheless, scholarship in recent decades has challenged the perception that rigorous scholarship is necessarily linked with agnosticism/atheism and has affirmed that psychological inquiry can be based upon theistic principles, inclusive of the reality of a divine creator or God (Melling 2013; Richards and Bergin 2005; Slife et al. 2012). Furthermore, irrespective of psychologists’ personal beliefs about theism, it has become apparent they benefit from serious consideration and an accurate understanding of the roles that spirituality and religion play in individuals’ lives (Captari et al. 2018; Shafranske and Sperry 2005; Smith et al., forthcoming). In particular, clinician assessment of clients’ theistic beliefs and subsequent alignment or adaptation of treatment with those beliefs can improve clients’ mental health and well-being (Aggarwal et al. 2023; Richards and Bergin 2005; Smith et al. 2007).

To better understand individuals’ spirituality, psychologists and scholars need to ascertain specifically what they intend to say when using the term. Through a bottom-up approach to inquiry, descriptions come as researchers collect and organize the experiences and labels used by individuals. However, very few scholarly descriptions of spirituality have employed this bottom-up method of inquiry. In fact, in the psychological literature the majority of attempts to describe spirituality have come from philosophical approaches (Cho and Snarey 2019; Spilka et al. 2003; Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). Thus, the preponderance of the literature regarding spirituality and psychology appears to be based upon top-down approaches, such as theorists’ descriptions and assumptions.

In contrast to that general trend, scholars studying the psychology of religion have long argued for the benefit of bottom-up as opposed to top-down methods of inquiry (e.g., Zinnbauer et al. 1999; Gorsuch 1984). This type of approach would be particularly beneficial when studying spirituality and individuals’ perceptions of Deity. Therefore, this qualitative research study sought to examine individuals’ perceptions of spirituality while also considering their perceptions of God, in contrast to historical top-down approaches to those topics.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Historical Theorists’ Perspectives on Spirituality

While religion and spirituality have been central to human experience throughout history (Nelson 2009; Spilka et al. 2003), the scientific study of those topics emerged in the late 1800s (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). Early theorists sought objective study and explanations of spirituality and religion, not accepting at face value the tenets promoted within the religious traditions.

William James ([1902] 1963) held different perspectives regarding God and religion across his career. Initially, he described God as a “stimulator” of moral action and human potential, evolving into the perspective of God as a source of comfort and healing for the “sick soul”. He identified two approaches to religious experience, namely healthy-minded, embracing imperfection and striving for improvement, and sick-minded, seeking passive comfort and redemption. According to James, the value of religious beliefs comes through their fruits and pragmatic results.

Sigmund Freud (1961) viewed religious belief as a societal expression of neurosis used to defend against fears of the unknown, death, violence, etc. (i.e., a mechanism for suppressing instincts). He indicated that individuals believe in God as a projection of an oedipal father figure, with supposed spirituality being an “oceanic feeling”, an infantile yearning for the father. In contrast, Carl Jung (1971) believed spirituality to be more fundamental to human nature than instincts driven by sexuality and aggression. For him, spirituality represented a basic desire for rebirth and transformation of the psyche to reach a higher level of consciousness. He emphasized the role of personal experience over historical or logical interpretations. Jung saw religion as both transformative and transcendent in the process of individuation. He viewed illness as a disconnection from the naturally religious inner psyche and was skeptical of dogma, expressing concerns about how religious masses could engulf the individual.

Erich Fromm (1951) emphasized that the purpose of religion lies not in its origins but in the values it promotes and the behaviors it brings about. For Fromm, religion had two types, namely authoritarian and humanistic. Authoritarian religion was submission to divine authority, with humans being weak and dependent on God for strength and escape from loneliness. In contrast, humanistic religion emphasized self-realization and joy vs. guilt. He further asserted that projecting one’s values onto God leads to alienation from oneself and that true reconnection with the self can only be achieved through God.

Gordon Allport (1952) noted changes in Western societies that increasingly separated religion and spirituality. Allport avoided this distinction and instead promoted the idea of sentiment, which included both the subjective (doctrines, values, etc.) and objective (the way the person incorporates the values and doctrines). He saw sentiment as fulfilling the need for meaning and purpose and, thus, guiding individuals toward an examined life, formalizing conscience, and ultimately helping people expand their personality by finding their place in the supreme context.

Abraham Maslow (1970) emphasized personal experience over organized religion, arguing that “essential righteousness” (p. 47)—peak or mystical experiences—forms a religious core, enabling a coalition of many without prioritizing supernatural belief. Maslow tied religious experiences to the human drive toward self-actualization, dismissing a divide between religious and natural values and instead suggesting that doctrines and rituals merely extend a prophet’s original peak experience to the masses, adding supernatural weight to values already inherent in nature, with religious experiences being a blend of innate human qualities and natural events.

Victor Frankl (1975) suggested that spirituality is the most unique dimension of a person. Looking beyond instincts and learned behaviors, he saw spirituality as the motivating force to discover the meaning in one’s existence and the ultimate meaning. Frankel argued that religion is the conscious expression of something innately unconscious, along with our sense of morality. He described self-transcendence as linked to ideals beyond the self (God, cause, etc.), with responsibility coming from a commitment to conscience.

The conceptualizations of these early theorists were influential for many decades. In their attempts to describe spirituality and religion, we see a large diversity of thought that did not coalesce into a systematic field of inquiry (see

Table 1. Historical theorists’ perspectives of religious and spiritual experience.

Theorist	Perspective of Spirituality	Underlying Assumptions
Sigmund Freud	Mystical sense of oneness with the universe is a projected yearning for oneness with parents	Intrapsychic
Carl Jung	Wholeness; realization of self; connection to God	Multidimensional
William James	The healing of the divided self; relationship to the divine	Relational, experiential, contextual
Erich Fromm	Realization of human power and transcendence of ego	Pragmatic
Gordon Allport	Intrinsic religious sentiment	Humanistic
Abraham Maslow	Peak experiences	Transcendental
Victor Frankl	Responsibleness to God; transcending self	Existential

).

2.2. Subsequent Theorists’ Perspectives on Spirituality

Starting in the 1980s, scientific investigation of religion and spirituality began to increase (Lucchetti and Lucchetti 2014; Weaver et al. 2006). A variety of attempts to describe spirituality multiplied and accumulated into a “critical mass” (Spilka et al. 2003, p. 9), but the lack of consistent terminology hindered research progress (Emmons and Paloutzian 2003). Since spiritual meaning varies across cultures and religions, most scholars have intentionally separated spirituality from religion, despite objections from others (e.g., Demir 2019; Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005; Spilka et al. 2003).

Various studies have attempted to synthesize and compile contemporary perspectives of spirituality (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005; Gorsuch 2002; Hill et al. 2000; Sharma et al. 2009; Zinnbauer et al. 1999). The descriptions found within these studies and others are outlined in

Table 2. A sampling from the literature of contemporary theorists’ perspectives of religious and spiritual experience.

Category	Author/Year	Description of Spirituality
Connectedness/relational	Armstrong (1995)	The presence of a relationship with a Higher Power that affects the way one operates in the world.
	Benner (1989)	The human response to God’s gracious call to a relationship with himself and our response to a deep and mysterious human yearning for self-transcendence and surrender, a yearning to find our place (p. 20).
	Dollahite (1998)	A covenant faith community with teaching and narratives that enhance the search for the sacred and encourage morality (p. 5).
Humanistic/existential	Doyle (1992)	The search for existential meaning (p. 302).
	Hart (1994)	The way one lives out one’s faith in daily life, the way a person relates to the ultimate conditions of existence (p. 23).
Introspective	Vaughan (1991)	A subjective experience with the sacred (p. 105).
	Hill et al. (2000)	The feelings, thoughts, experiences, and behaviors that arise from a search for the sacred. The term “search” refers to attempts to identify, articulate, maintain, or transform. The term “sacred” refers to a divine being, divine object, Ultimate Reality, or Ultimate Truth as perceived by the individual (p. 66).
	Clark (1958)	The inner experience of the individual when he senses a Beyond, especially as evidenced by the effect of this experience on his behavior when he actively attempts to harmonize his life with the beyond (p. 22).
	Fahlberg and Fahlberg (1991)	That which is involved in contacting the divine within the Self or self. (p. 274).
Multidimensional	Richards and Bergin (1997)	Those experiences, beliefs, and phenomena that pertain to the transcendent and existential aspects of life [i.e., God or a Higher Power, the purpose and meaning of life, suffering, good and evil, death, etc.] (p. 13).
	Tart (1975)	The vast realm of human potential dealing with ultimate purposes, with higher entities, with God, with love, with compassion, with purpose (p. 4).
	Elkins et al. (1988)	A way of being and experiencing that comes about through awareness of a transcendent dimension and that is characterized by certain identifiable values in regard to self, life, and whatever one considers to be the ultimate (p. 10).
Transcendent	Shafranske and Gorsuch (1984)	A transcendent dimension within human experience…attempts to place the self within a broader ontological context (p. 231).

.

The term God image stems from psychoanalytic object relations theory. Later theorists, like Fairbairn and Klein, shifted focus from sexual motivations to social/emotional motivations, emphasizing the need to establish and maintain close connections with others (Mitchell 2000). John Bowlby’s attachment theory (Bowlby 1969, 1973) built on this framework, which has clear implications for how people’s perceptions of spirituality might be associated with individuals’ God image. When an attachment figure, including God, is perceived as being available and helpful, then the individual will be more likely to function confidently in the environment (e.g., have faith in contexts perceived to be spiritual). On the other hand, when an attachment figure is perceived as unavailable, disinterested, or capricious, then the individual will mistrust and doubt (Kirkpatrick 1992, 2005; Rowatt and Kirkpatrick 2002). Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) attachment styles of secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent could also apply to perceptions of Deity (see Cherniak et al. 2021; Rowatt and Kirkpatrick 2002).

Research using this paradigm has generally found positive associations of secure attachment styles with a host of positive mental health variables, whereas avoidant and anxious–ambivalent attachment styles are typically positively associated with pathology (e.g., Kirkpatrick 1992, 2005; Kirkpatrick and Shaver 1990; Rowatt and Kirkpatrick 2002; Zhang et al. 2022). Similarly, Hall and Brokaw (1995) described how mature object relations development is associated with a positive God image, spirituality, and psychological well-being. Many other studies have demonstrated that a negative God image can promote pathological personality development and psychological distress (see Eurelings-Bontekoe et al. 2005; Ferenczi et al. 2021). Individuals’ God image is apparently related to how they interpret ambiguous events and maintain a sense of consistent meaning in their lives.

God image is, thus, relevant to individuals’ well-being and worldviews. The concept of God image offers a relational framework for understanding perceptions of spirituality, with the premise that “any search for the sacred is essentially a search for relationship” (Hill and Hall 2002, p. 365). Kunkel et al. (1999) provided a conceptual map of God image but then notably asserted that much of the previous research has been based on reductionistic and positivistic traditions within the field of psychology and that “underlying latent structure of God images may not be discoverable by use of correlational approaches that have predominated the field” (p. 194). Bottom-up, qualitative methods can, therefore, be useful to describe the intersections of spirituality, God image, and psychological well-being.

2.3. Purpose of the Present Study

To address the complexity characterizing the topics of spirituality and God image, this qualitative study sought to learn from individuals’ descriptions and experiences. The specific research questions addressed were as follows: (a) How do individuals describe spirituality?; (b) How do individuals’ describe Deity?; and (c) How do individual’s descriptions of spirituality relate with their descriptions of Deity? Specifically, in-depth interviews inquiring about several different aspects of spirituality and God image were examined using hermeneutic methodology. To our knowledge, the current study is unique in addressing the association between God image and perceptions of spirituality.

3. Methods

3.1. Procedures

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ university. Participants were recruited through flyers placed in local businesses and religious organizations. Religious leaders were also invited to announce or post information about the study. Participants received a USD 15 incentive for participation. They completed an informed consent form and were involved in a face to face structured interview with university research assistants who had been trained in research interviewing.

Interviews generally lasted from 40 to 60 min. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Participants’ responses to the following six questions were analyzed:

• What are your beliefs about the existence of a Supreme Being, Creator, or God? (If they believed in the existence of God, then the following three questions were also asked):
  • What is God like? (attributes/character?)
  • How does God view you?
  • How would you describe your relationship with God?
• How would you describe spirituality?
• What role, if any, does spirituality play in your life?
• What things do you do, if anything, that you consider spiritual?
• What aspects of spirituality, as you understand it, are least appealing?
• What do you believe are the primary reasons that you hold the spiritual beliefs you do?

3.2. Participants

Participants were 63 adults living in a midwestern university town of the United States of America. Participants consisted of nearly equal numbers of women (51%) and men (49%). Ages ranged from 18 to 75, with the average being 37.5 years old. Across all participants, 62% were married, 25% were single, and 13% were divorced or widowed. Religious affiliation was 31% Latter-day Saint, 24% Roman Catholic, 19% Protestant, 14% Christian non-affiliated, and 12% from a variety of other religious backgrounds (i.e., Buddhist, agnostic). The majority of participants (84%) believed in God or a supreme being, with 8% believing in an impersonal essence and 8% considering themselves to be agnostic or atheist.

3.3. Data Analysis

The philosophical underpinnings for the present study are based in the reflective and existential ontological premise of our will to understand within a relational framework. Specifically, meaning exploration is undertaken in a manner similar to that of analyzing a poem or novel (Jackson and Patton 1992). Relevant to this is the epistemological premise based on philosophical hermeneutical analysis, which posits the following:

Understanding is not, in the first instance, a procedure or rule-governed undertaking; rather, it is a very condition of being human. Understanding is interpretation. […] Second, in the act of interpreting (of “taking something as something”), sociohistorically inherited bias or prejudice is not regarded as a characteristic or attribute that an interpreter must strive to get rid of or manage in order to come to a “clear” understanding […] understanding requires the engagement of one’s biases. Third […] meaning is negotiated mutually in the act of interpretation; it is not simply discovered. […] Finally […] understanding is “lived” or existential.

(Schwandt 2000, pp. 195–96)

Transcripts of the 63 interviews were the data for analysis in this study. Data analyses focused on the meaning derived from the data using hermeneutic analysis (Kvale 1994). We first conducted an unfocused reading of the text to gather meanings, consciously avoiding a priori assumptions about meaning (Jackson and Patton 1992; Kvale 1994). It was not until after all of the transcripts were read in their entirety that initial impressions were recorded. Second, we reread the text, constantly comparing between the parts and the whole to gain a deeper understanding with each reading (Kvale 1994). Once an initial array of ideas was noted, the text was reread several more times in its entirety as well as by question. Notes were jotted on a whiteboard and ideas were kept or rejected through the process of part–whole analysis. As new categories emerged, relationships were examined. Author personal assumptions and observations were tested against the text (more on this later) to challenge thematic findings. Through this process, themes became more apparent and the micro/macro examination revealed the phenomena and perspective of the participants.

In identifying the initial themes, the focus remained on participants’ experiences, grounded in representative quotes. Themes extracted from the data were then compiled relative to the three research questions about individuals’ perceptions of spirituality, relationship with God or God image, and the corresponding relationship between the two.

3.3.1. Peer Review

To increase the integrity of the findings, the initial results were reviewed by other researchers in three separate steps. First, a colleague trained in qualitative research read a random selection of one-third of the transcripts. Next, the peer reviewer examined the transcripts again, this time explicitly evaluating the initial interpretations written by the principal author. Second, the resulting written interpretations were reviewed by a third independent team member experienced in qualitative analyses, who read a different randomly generated sample of one-third of the transcripts. Across several meetings, the written data summaries were refined. As a final step, three additional researchers reviewed the research summaries. This multi-step review improved the believability and validity of the interpretation of participants’ accounts.

3.3.2. Reduction of Analytic and Interpretive Bias

Given that personal biases can influence qualitative data interpretation, the first author of this study undertook three steps to help raise awareness about personal biases, to keep them at the forefront.

Prior to any analysis of the transcripts, I, as the first author, went through and answered all of the questions. Like the participants, I verbally gave my answers as if I were being interviewed. This self-interview was recorded and answers to the questions analyzed. The main themes I extracted from my own responses to the questions were that I described God in more superficial terms but with human-like characteristics, spirituality was something that is not necessarily tied to religion (one could feel spiritual out in nature), spirituality is relational, and that there was a “works” or “doing” component to ones advancement of spirituality. Later on, comparing personal responses to the findings of participants led to some surprise findings as well as some that fit my own worldview. For example, the realization that some participants could describe God more deeply through their experience and that religion played such a high role in spirituality were unexpected. I found myself wanting to turn a blind eye to some of the findings like the “doing” and “relational” nature of spirituality. I also found myself being extra careful when interpreting participants from participants who appeared to share my own beliefs. Being attentive to my own beliefs helped me to look deeper and to convey participants’ experiences rather than my own.

In addition, to help contrast my own views and to assist in thinking outside of my own experience as a Christian, I read a college text on world religions. Finally, I conducted five preliminary interviews with Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Some of the ideas generated from these conversations (not included in the analysis) were the self-actualizing nature of spirituality, spirituality as a path, God as an essence, spirituality as one’s own mind or conscience, the experiential nature of spirituality, and a least appealing aspect of spirituality being religion.

4. Results

The present study set out to describe participants’ (a) descriptions of spirituality, (b) perceptions of God image, and (c) the interaction between them.

4.1. Perceptions of Spirituality

Analyses identified the following six central themes across participants’ descriptions of spirituality:

• Participants used abstract language when defining spirituality.
• Participants viewed spirituality in terms of their own or others’ religious beliefs.
• Participants held either all-encompassing or limited views regarding the role that spirituality plays in their lives.
• Participants described spirituality in terms of extraordinary experiences, rather than in terms of day-to-day living.
• Participants’ descriptions of spirituality frequently involved relational language.
• Christian participants described spirituality in terms of doing rather than being.

4.1.1. Abstract Descriptions of Spirituality

Participants’ descriptions of spirituality were varied, multidimensional, and, in a majority of cases, abstract. When they did attempt direct descriptions, they often used metaphors/similes or descriptions of what it is not. Often, it was as if the participants did not have the sufficient language/terminology to describe what they believed or experienced. The following responses from different participants illustrate both the vague and abstract representations of spirituality:

Spirituality. Hm, I guess-I guess I don’t know if I really understand what spirituality really is. I guess, maybe in my feeble way of thinking about it, it’s probably prayer, uh, it’s-it’s-it’s acknowledgment of God being there, a Supreme Being, and the acknowledgment that uh, He needs to be honored and glorified, uh. That’s as much as I can determine what spirituality is, in my way of thinking.

Spirituality is, it’s like the air in the sky, it is like the wind on a day that is windy and you cannot see it but it’s there, you see the grass and the green trees and you see things growing, like, but you don’t necessarily understand how and why all those things are green or grow or why the ocean is...looks a certain color on a certain day or another day it looks a different color. To me, spirituality is like an inner essence and it doesn’t necessarily mean that we can understand it all.

I know a lot of people go to church and believe God says this, Jesus said this, and da-da-da, but spirituality for me is being aware of the energy and living life, the belief that the love I give is the mark I make of my life, this is what matters. And basically, all the other stuff is necessary to survive in this physical place that we are, but uh, you know, it’s like wearing your shoes outside if the cold gets to you, you know, it’s-it’s a necessary thing, but it isn’t what it’s really about.... I guess paradox, if you want to call-call it that, the more I’ve learned about that, the less I understand, and I guess it doesn’t bother me anymore.

4.1.2. Based on Religious Belief

While not all participants’ perceptions of spirituality were grounded in religious beliefs, most individuals used religious experience and traditions to frame their definition of spirituality. Orthodox theists tended not to differentiate spirituality from religion, e.g., “[I] guess someone who is strong in their beliefs, spirituality would be strong in their beliefs with God, they pray” and “[I] think spirituality has to do with the laws of God and following those laws”.

Interestingly, even many of the participants initially purporting that spirituality had nothing to do with religion used religious terms to articulate what spirituality was to them, usually by way of contrast, such as in the following example:

Spirituality, that’s a tough one. Number one, it has nothing to do with religion. Religion I believe is man’s way, it’s just a vehicle to help us to be spiritual. Spirituality is a personal, and yet a growth process, but it’s not a personal overview of living a bad day’s life. My spirituality is my relationship with my Lord; it’s my education process, learning what He expects of me and how He expects me to live and is based on my relationship. I think it’s based on scripture.

4.1.3. Views About Spirituality Tended to Be All-Encompassing or Distanced from Personal Experience

Many participants saw spirituality as being central to their identity and way of life, while others reported that spirituality played little or no role in their lives. For example, people strongly affirming spirituality used certain phrases, such as “Spirituality gives me the basic framework that I try to hang things on or work around”, “My spirituality is at the core of my being”, “My existence […] if I sleep and I wake up in morning, it’s the way of my existence”, and “It’s how I view myself in this universe”. At the other end of the spectrum, individuals said, “[Spirituality plays] about 5% in my life. That’s all, I mean, I don’t believe in a lot of things in terms of spirituality … it’s just a matter of looking at things logically”, and “It’s not real significant. When I’m in the garden I think spiritual thoughts, when I’m not, I don’t think about it a whole lot”.

4.1.4. Spirituality Is Exemplified by Extraordinary Experiences

Implied in many of the responses was the idea that spirituality is the enrichment or changing of ordinary experiences into extraordinary ones. Responses to the questions about spirituality typically fell within one of the following four sub-themes:

• Spirituality gives additional strength to overcome life’s difficulties.
• Spirituality is a higher journey or pathway to something greater.
• Spirituality involves enriched feelings.
• Spirituality is connection with God at a higher level.

The following responses are illustrative: “I think my spirituality is what gets me through it [adversity] and helps me make the decisions that I feel that I need to make and to hold strong to those”, “Spirituality I think is being able to look beyond your daily life and tasks…it’s a journey to perfection, the perfection of life”, and “Spirituality is being able to commune with God with our spirit, the deepest part of our spirit is communicating on that level”. The following personal experience with spirituality illustrates the transcendent nature of the spiritual feeling:

I can tell you the day and the time when I had my conversion experience. It was a Thursday evening about 6:45, 26 October 1986, and I heard the words, “Jesus Loves You”, and they were as clear as the words you’re speaking right now. It’s what they call an interlocution, it’s like a voice, an inside voice, it is loud, it’s spoken, human conversation, and along with it came an incredible love, it’s just a peace that transcends everything. I remember looking at the people around me, I was in a group of about 12 people at the time, and I just had so much love for each person I was in tears, and I saw the beauty of each person. For a couple of weeks after that I was walking about 3 feet off the ground. It was amazing.

4.1.5. Relational Descriptions of Spirituality

One central aspect in participants’ descriptions of spirituality was the notion that spirituality has a relational component. These relationships were with nature, friends, and community, such as in the following quotes from different respondents:

I want to feel that connectedness with all essential beings and to feel that connectedness even to those who are, you know, being really cruddy to me, and those who are harming other people and have seen suffering, even those who are the cause of suffering I would still like to be able to see my connectedness with it.

Spirituality is the degree with which you have a oneness with God; it’s the ability of human being to grow closer to God and to emulate those good qualities that God has and to, you know, to develop a communication with God so you can have that oneness.

Other participants said, “It’s being with my children, or animals or trees, or natural experiences, and just shedding all that daily life”, and “Closest I can come to feeling spiritual and feeling like there’s real devotion […] there’s [is] just in my relationships with women and close friendships”.

4.1.6. Christians Tended to Describe Spirituality as Doing Rather than Being

An additional theme from individuals’ descriptions of spirituality that emerged was in relation to how participants responded to the question of what things they did that were spiritual. While a handful of participants described spirituality in terms of sitting and meditating, mindfulness, or sitting and watching the birds for hours, the majority of respondents, especially those inferred to be of a monotheistic religious tradition, identified spirituality as something they did, or things they needed to do, to cultivate whatever they ascribed spirituality to be. This typically involved religious activity, such as reading scripture, praying, attending church, or performing service, e.g., “I pray all the time. I’m talking to God, to Jesus, the Holy Ghost all the time”, “[I] pray fervently, and often, and I do that anyway, for, also time spent with God is kind of the pipeline of spirituality”, “Reading the Bible is stimulating. Thinking about it, there’s some spiritual things in there […] I find a lot of spirituality in the New Testament”, and “We have our church services and we have a number of opportunities throughout the week in my church to provide service to other people”.

Spirituality was also viewed in terms of developing one’s moral character and in displaying appropriate and dignified behavior becoming of one’s spirituality. For instance, respondents gave the following answers: “I try to represent my spiritual beliefs through my, what I do, how I behave, um, I try not to say cuss words, I try not to do things that people would judge being uh, poor behavior”, and “I think playing a game with my son is spiritual, going out and having ‘catch’ can be spiritual experience because it can show love towards each other and I think when you’re doing that, kind of gives that spiritual feeling”.

4.2. Perceptions of God

Participants described a variety of ways in which they perceive God. Specifically, the following six themes emerged:

• Reported experiences with God led to more concrete perceptions of Deity, whereas descriptions without a personal sense of experience were more abstract and characterized by adjectives.
• Participants’ religiosity clearly influenced descriptions of God.
• Participants’ descriptions allude to a gap between themselves and God that created dissonance.
• God is more personally relevant in times of need.
• God is viewed in gender specific terms.
• God is viewed in mostly favorable terms.

4.2.1. Experiences with God Led to Richer Perceptions of Deity

Deeper, reflective descriptions of God were influenced by direct experience with God in a variety of ways and whether they had been a partaker of God’s blessings. Consider the following quotes from three different interviewees:

Growing up as a youth I used to think of Him as being not really a person, just something of Deity that was everywhere, you know, that oversaw everything that was in charge of everything that happened. Now that I’ve grown older, now that I’ve put more purpose and meaning and understanding into my religious beliefs, I believe that He is a Human Being such as you or I, Someone who is probably very Fatherly or Grandfatherly, when, someone I can go to and know is on the other side listening to me as if I were speaking face to face. I feel that He answers my prayers, not always in the way that I want Him to, but that answers do come, and that if I’m in-tune with the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, that I realize and recognize those answers. And I think of Him as a Person and Human Being who probably experienced, definitely experienced somewhere along His life things very similar to what I’m experiencing here on earth and gives purpose to why I’m here and where I’m going.

I believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing. I believe that God knows my thoughts, my intents, I know God knows me better than I know myself. And I truly believe that He loves me and He is concerned about me because since I am, since I believe that I am literally His son, see, I can’t comprehend the love that He has for me, I know He loves me more than I love my son, which is hard for me to comprehend, because the love that I have for my son is tremendous and the way I want my son to succeed in life is the way that God the Heavenly Father wants me to succeed.

He’s loving, He’s forgiving, He gives us free-choice of wanting to believe in Him or not. He doesn’t demand of us, so He gives us some free-rein there. Um, He’s sacrificing in the respect that He gave His only Son for us, and I think about that with our own children. He gives us many gifts. I mean, He’s a very giving God. He gives us many gifts of our children, whatever possessions we have, things like that. I do think that um, He hurts when we do wrong, I think that we can’t even begin to understand what that’s like, the pain He must feel when we sin against Him.

In contrast to statements of individuals who reported “experiences” with God, a second type of description—void of personal experiences—was consistently more abstract. For instance, some respondents answered the following: “Well, basically kind I guess, loving, and all-knowing, merciful, forgiving, caring, there may be others but I guess those are the ones that come to mind immediately”, “He’s all-just, all-knowing, all-forgiving. That’ll probably be it”, and “Merciful and fair and loving”.

4.2.2. Religious Beliefs Influence God Image

While some participants left out religion entirely in their descriptions of God, most participants referred to religious beliefs as a starting point for describing Deity. For instance, one respondent stated the following: “Well, I certainly believe in God and as a Catholic I believe in a triune God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that God created the universe, He created all of us”. Another said, “I subscribe to Buddhist philosophy, so it’s not theistic. They—there are, I guess I have to practice this, there are many God-Goddess-like figures, but they aren’t ‘out there’. They are manifestations of what this part of us”. An inferred Muslim participant said the following:

Based on things that I’ve learned or read from a Holy Book, you know, you can’t, because like for the most things, you, God is not, it’s not like a Christians where, you know, they have a lot of movies about God and they show you that God is a Male and all that, so you can tell, you can picture what It is, based on the Muslim religion, you just read in the book about God, where you just kind of believe, your belief is built on what you read and you know… so you know God is forgiving, is the Almighty, He knows everything, you know, it’s just anything, a mixture of everything.

A participant unaffiliated with any religious sect said, “My version of God pretty much is the same as the Bible. Someone, Something, I don’t know, would forgive and wouldn’t judge, and yeah, that’s it. Someone good!”

4.2.3. Perceived Gap Between Participant and God Creates Dissonance

An emergent theme across participants, especially those of a monotheistic persuasion, was the idea that there is a gap between themselves and God. This gap was described in one or more of the following ways:

• Perfection and works.
• Perceived personal deficits.
• God cannot be known.
• God is good, so why is there suffering?

First, Christian participants placed an emphasis on God’s perfection contrasted with human nature, e.g., “He created us in His image and by sin we have fallen from that and only He can put us back together again, and we’ll always fall short of perfect love of God The Father. We can just continually work toward that;” and “I believe that He’s judgmental to the point that if you refuse His teachings and His beliefs, then He will refuse to accept a place for you in the Kingdom to come”.

Second, and related to an emphasis on works, was the tendency for many participants to view God in terms of what they lacked or what they themselves were not doing. Participants with concerns about their deficiency would state that they had a relationship with God, but that it was not as good as it could be because they did not go to church, read scripture, or engage in religious activities. According to one respondent, God has “supreme intellect” and He views “[me as] probably kind of ignorant”. Perceptions of this nature included thoughts, such as “I think for the most part, my relationship with God is good. I sometimes don’t pray enough or I don’t take all the sacraments … I still think I’m not doing enough”. Another participant said the following:

It’s probably not as well as it should be, or could be. I probably could go to church and learn more or sit you know, and read a Bible and stuff like that, to learn more about this type thing. […] If I were to go to church on Sundays and stuff, I feel like I would have more of a personal relationship with Him.

Third, the perception that God is a mystery, is unfathomable, and has such supreme attributes that are beyond mortal comprehension was shared by participants, who stated ideas, like “I’ve thought about it [God’s dealings] before, but it leaves me, leaves my mind smokin”, “I think God is unfathomable”, and “God is sovereign…He remains somewhat of a mystery”.

Finally, some participants had difficulty reconciling attributions of God with lived realities, resulting in dissonance, as follows:

It’s kind of hard to say. Sometimes I think He’s fair and just and everything, and sometimes it’s kind of hard with all the problems in the world and sicknesses and diseases and what have you that it’s, it’s kind of hard to really believe that He’s a true and loving God if He does let everybody suffer from diseases and the different problems in the world. A lot of the problems in the world are man-made but there’s … it’s a hard question.

4.2.4. God Was Perceived as More Personally Relevant in Times of Need

While it was expected that participants would view God as a source of help, some participants viewed the Deity as only relevant in times of need, e.g., “They are really there when you need them. It’s like they are there and uh, they don’t show up, but when you need them”. Another representative quote was as follows: “I believe there is God existing on the earth, and uh, sometimes I really believe it when I feel troublesome, and or worry about something, and uh … if I pray they can help me to go through the problem or something, yah”.

4.2.5. God Was Viewed in Gender-Specific Terms

When using Christian terminology, participants described God as a male figure. Participants from Eastern religious traditions occasionally used the pronoun “he” but without direct gender attribution. Only two participants described the Deity in terms characteristic of womanhood.

4.2.6. God Was Viewed Favorably

Overwhelmingly, theistic participants described God using favorable, positive terms. Two example comments are as follows: “He created everything beautiful and that’s what He is, just everything beautiful”, and “He is an all-loving Person, He loves everyone, no matter what they’ve done, and He cares for everyone”.

4.3. Associations Between Perceptions of Spirituality and Perceptions of God

The final task of analysis involved comparing individuals’ descriptions of spirituality with God image. The following six themes emerged, with four directly comparing the two constructs and two holistic themes that applied to both spirituality and views of God:

• Participants found it easier to describe God than spirituality, although both were difficult to describe
• Perceptions of spirituality were uniquely different when God is not viewed in anthropomorphic terms or is not viewed as relevant
• Participants’ perceptions of spirituality and perceptions of God were consistent within an integrated belief system
• Greater abstract views of God led to less personalized descriptions of spirituality
• Participants viewed religion as the culprit for any negative perceptions rather than spirituality or God
• Superficial exploration of beliefs in God and perceptions of spirituality were often deemed sufficient.

4.3.1. Participants Described God with Greater Facility than Spirituality

Overall, participants demonstrated greater ease in describing their view of God compared to their description of spirituality. The following pair of responses by the same participant exemplifies this difference:

Description of God: “I believe that there is a God, that He is aware of us and that we are children of God. I believe that He is an actual Personage, that He is a higher being, more knowledgeable than we are and He is loving and just”.

Description of spirituality: “To me it’s something that is a part of your life, it’s not something…lifestyle is something that influences you, choices, how you act and how you behave, you do something that needs to be kindled”.

4.3.2. Differences Based on Anthropomorphism

Perceived differences between spirituality and perceptions of God were apparent between monotheistic traditions and all other forms of religious beliefs. First, participants who did not describe God in anthropomorphic/monotheistic terms used more relative and less rigid terminology, such as “I just feel spirituality as anyone can be with just accepting things as they are”. Second, these participants described spirituality more in terms of a moral/value system or as a script for life, as follows: “Spirituality is … the way I feel things will be, the way I’m doing things, you know, you stay in the ways, spirit way you act and think”. Third, participants who did not anthropomorphize the idea of Deity reported that spirituality was an internal, introspective phenomenon, as follows: “Spirituality is most innermost in our minds, in our bodies”, and “We should have a spirit belief in the heart”.

4.3.3. Consistent Perceptions of God and Spirituality Reflected Overlapping Beliefs

The way people described God was similar to how they described spirituality. For example, a monotheistic participant described both God and spirituality using relational terminology, e.g., “[God is] very parent-like … I have a close relationship” matched with “I think spirituality is really a relationship with the Supreme Being”. Another participant who described God as a guide also spoke of spirituality in the same manner, as follows: “He’s also there to guide us and help us live our lives” matched with “I would describe spirituality as…how or what I am going to believe and the decisions I’m going to make”. Similarly, a participant describing God as an essence also spoke of spirituality that way, “[God] like an essence” matched with “Spirituality is an intimate knowledge with that essence”. Similar congruency was found across descriptions that emphasized beliefs, love/feelings, growth/progression, nature, conditional worth, and so forth. For example, when a participant viewed God as an authoritative/punishing figure, the description of spirituality emphasized compliance, e.g., “To me He is somebody who is standing up there, looking at you all the time … and I think He is up there to make sure we do what…He tells you to do” matched with “[Spirituality] things you are supposed to do, the things you are not supposed to do”. In sum, theistic participants provided remarkably consistent descriptions of Deity and of spirituality. Although there was diversity across participants (with some emphasizing beliefs, others actions, others relationships, etc.), descriptions of God and spirituality appeared to be related parts of a consistent framework/worldview.

4.3.4. Abstract Descriptions of God and Impersonal Descriptions of Spirituality

Participants who were more specific in their descriptions of God and spirituality typically used more first-person language (“I” and “me”), while participants who gave brief descriptions tended to report their ideas using more generalized terms (“people”, “you”, and “others”). The first set of responses below illustrates a personalized description of God followed by the corresponding description of spirituality. The second set illustrates a contrast to the first set with more abstract responses, as follows:

(1) Description of God: I believe that God knows my thoughts, my intents, I know God knows me better than I know myself. And I truly believe that He loves me and He is concerned about me...I know that He’s there for me and He hears and answers my prayers.

(1) Description of Spirituality: I don’t think you can be spiritual without having a relationship with God. So, I think being spiritual is something that is an action word. I think you’ve got to be actively engaged in spiritual things like prayer, would be something that would be an action, reading scripture is a spiritual experience, or help you to have a better spiritual aura. I think also, things like giving service or following the example of Jesus Christ, anything like that, serving others.

(2) Description of God: I just believe that there is a God and if you follow the right path, if you go down the wrong road and do something wrong and you know it, you should be asking for forgiveness and confess your sins or whatever. It’s not necessarily in church; you can be home alone and stuff.

(2) Description of spirituality: Everybody has their own beliefs. There is not one certain set of, or one certain type of church. Every church is basically kind of different. Every church has their own beliefs.

4.3.5. Any Negative Perceptions About God or Spirituality Were Attributed to Religion

When participants described any negative experiences or perceptions during their responses to the questions, they qualified those as relevant to religious problems, such as abuses of power or intolerance. The following quote exemplifes the denigration of religion by three participants who otherwise had positive descriptions of Deity and spirituality: “I do believe in God, like I say, and, but I don’t believe in a lot of the [religious] teaching and, and some of the rules and regulations”.

4.3.6. Uncritical Exploration

Individuals reported maintaining consistent beliefs over time. Although some participants reported introspection and specific experiences that helped to solidify their beliefs, most individuals seemed satisfied with a cursory understanding of the concepts. Individuals credited the influence of their upbringing, friends, and community in shaping their beliefs, as follows: “That’s how I was raised. My parents started taking me to church when I was very young, you know. I was confirmed in the faith they were, so, that’s what I’ve come to believe;”, “Gosh, I’d actually have to say the tradition of growing up in my family being [religion identified], all honesty;”, and “If I were born in a different country, I’d probably have a different belief”.

5. Discussion

The present study set out to describe individuals’ perceptions of spirituality, their perceptions of God, and the interactions between those two constructs. Our analyses of descriptions across 63 interviews indicated that, at the broadest level, the concepts of spirituality and Deity are perceived in abstract terms, unless participants have had what they believe to be experiences with God or spirituality. Those experiences tended to specify participants’ descriptions and provide context and depth. Our interpretation of the findings indicated that, without context, abstract conceptualizations of spirituality lacked utility in the participants’ lives. Therefore, experiential context is missing from the social science research that describes and evaluates spirituality in abstract terms.

In this study, religious beliefs provided people with a framework to discuss spirituality and God. Interacting with others and discussing the topic in religious settings clearly enhanced participants’ spiritual vocabulary and capacity to provide concrete descriptions grounded in life experience. Religious interactions enabled the complex nature of spirituality and the Divine to be connected with individuals’ worldview and experience. Hence, the results of this study suggest that it may be unwise for scholars to separate religion from spirituality among theistic participants. This is so because even individuals not actively participating in religious devotion remained influenced by prior personal religious participation or social norms influenced by religious teachings. In the end, life experience often informs individual perception.

5.1. Review of Main Themes

Participants’ descriptions of spirituality were varied and multidimensional. They were also often connected with expectations to acquire a state of consciousness atypical of daily life. Individuals often described engaging in specific actions, such as attending church or praying, as intentional efforts to acquire spirituality not experienced otherwise. This finding seemed reflective of the action orientation of Western culture and may be a classic example of how a system of beliefs/values can align with cultural socialization.

Despite this common emphasis on actions to attain spirituality, it was remarkable that the participants who described spirituality in the greatest depth related not personal actions but extraordinary experiences beyond their control. Instead of focusing on individual actions, the richer descriptions of spirituality commonly identified relationships with Deity, others, and nature through synchronistic or miraculous events. When these participants discussed transcendent experiences, they pointed to internal experiences, such as a greater capacity to experience feelings like love and contentment or increased strength/capacities. These extraordinary experiences were described in singular terms, and it was apparent that these experiences reinforced participants’ interest in and interaction with things deemed spiritual.

Although typical participants viewed spirituality as an abstract condition or state, some apparently had given it little consideration, although religious beliefs were often invoked as the default foundation for describing spirituality. Religious ideas and ideals were highly intertwined with definitions of spirituality (Hill and Hall 2002; Pargament 1999; Westerink 2012; Zinnbauer et al. 1999).

Most participants expressed a belief in God using positive characterizations. However, participants often alluded to a gap between themselves and God that created emotional dissonance. Because individuals commonly viewed God as relevant to their personal belief systems, the presence of dissonance may have implications for self-concept and well-being and warrants additional research. Moreover, many people characterized God as being more relevant to them in times of need. In those cases, associated descriptions of God seemed characterized by personal passivity and relevant to an external locus of control. However, in other cases, the descriptions included a deeply intimate and familial reference to God as a father. These individuals’ descriptions tended to be concrete, whereas descriptions without personal experience were more abstract, superficial, or characterized by adjectives. The emphasis of some participants on experiential as opposed to ideational conceptualizations of God contradicts current trends in psychological research and opens up possibilities for future inquiry to take a more experiential approach.

Typically, participants had an easier time describing God than they did describing spirituality. The more abstract a participant’s view of God, the less personalized their descriptions of spirituality. Perceptions of spirituality were uniquely different when God was not viewed in anthropomorphic terms or viewed as irrelevant to the individual. Superficial exploration of beliefs in God and perceptions of spirituality were often deemed sufficient. Whenever individuals said anything critical or demeaning in response to the questions about spirituality or God, the content almost always pointed to religion as an institution, such as judgment from others in church.

5.2. Comparisons of Themes with Psychological Theorists’ Ideas

While classical and contemporary psychology theorists have attempted to address spirituality, their conceptualizations demonstrate variable but overall limited overlap with the diverse accounts of spirituality reported in this study. For instance, some of the ideas of William James were consistent with responses in this study, particularly the emphasis on God as a provider of saving experiences. Although participants’ descriptions intertwining religion and spirituality contradicted James’ preference to separate the institution and the individual, it was also the case that their critical comments were exclusively directed at institutional religion.

Similarly mixed in relevance to the participants’ descriptions, Carl Jung’s ideas about archetypes and one’s connection to God through personal experience were relevant to many people’s comments, but their descriptions of rationality and faith did not explicitly align with Jung’s theory. Erich Fromm’s belief that God could not be known was not consistent with participants’ perceptions in most cases, although there was a perceived gap between the participants and God. Gordon Allport’s ideas around intrinsic/extrinsic orientations to spirituality were evident within the participants’ descriptions. His view that people tend to turn away from a particular religion and look elsewhere for spirituality received mixed support. Some participants clearly have attempted a separation with religion in favor of a freer spirituality, but their prior religious beliefs, or religious beliefs commonly spoken in public, still influenced their ideas about spirituality. Cases in which participants held Eastern, atheist/agnostic, and scientific views generally supported Allport’s ideas.

Maslow’s dichotomy of religion as institutional and religion as individual, with the former being a hindrance to self-actualization, warrants some attention due to the findings in this study. While it clear that religion was integrated into individuals’ perceptions of spirituality and God, there was also some evidence that religious orthodoxy and hang-ups with religion may act as a barrier to experiencing spirituality and God more deeply than otherwise might be the case. Participants’ descriptions of extraordinary spiritual experiences also appeared to support Maslow’s idea of “peak experiences”. Maslow’s belief that religion and spirituality are about transcendent meaning beyond the self was supported in many of the participants’ descriptions.

Some of the themes in the present study support as well as contradict aspects of more contemporary scholars. The finding that participants had difficulty in defining spirituality runs counter to Zinnbauer et al. (1999), who maintained that individuals were clear in their thinking and able to describe spirituality and religion, as well as being able to differentiate between the two. However, the findings of this study were clearly consistent with the general body of psychological research that identifies spirituality as a multidimensional construct.

The consistent problem pointed out by researchers is the saturation of vague definitions of spirituality with a complete lack of consensus (Spilka et al. 2003; Westerink 2012; Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). Present findings point to at least one explanation for the difficulty psychology faces in defining spirituality. It may well be that spirituality can only be described and not defined because an individual’s language may be inadequate in capturing the highly subjective nature of spirituality. Spiritual experiences were perceived as rare, not commonplace, thus lacking a shared vocabulary.

Nevertheless, contemporary theorists’ definitions of spirituality capture, at least in part, several aspects of the perceptions of participants in the present study. In terms of humanistic/existential theories, participants often discussed such critical issues as meaning-making, direction, and purpose in life. Indeed, spirituality was seen as foundational to their interpretation of life events. Similarly, psychological theories emphasizing introspection aligned with participants’ descriptions. Even in the cases where God was not mentioned or affirmed, spiritual participants often described spirituality as an internal barometer for making decisions and weighing moral implications.

As stated earlier and corroborated by the current body of literature, spirituality and perceptions of God were described as multidimensional concepts. Individuals mentioned many components of beliefs, actions, values, relationships, emotions, etc. Spirituality and perceptions of God comprise many issues at many levels. However, a key point not to be missed is that despite the multiplicity of components, spirituality was often described as the whole, not merely a collection of random parts.

Psychological theories relevant to transcendence were consistent with participants’ mention of extraordinary experiences. Spirituality was described in terms of heightened feelings, overcoming adversity, and intimacy with Deity or with the sacred. An even stronger alignment occurred with contemporary psychological theories emphasizing connection. Interwoven throughout several themes of this study was the importance placed in relationships involving Deity, others, and nature. In some instances, the relational aspect of spirituality was the only dimension reported. Theorists have increasingly argued that descriptions of spirituality and an individual’s perceptions of God must exist in a relational context (Davis et al. 2021; Hall and Brokaw 1995; Hill and Hall 2002; Paloutzian and Park 2014; Spilka et al. 2003). For instance, the findings of this study were relevant to scholarship about individuals’ attachment to God (Cherniak et al. 2021; Kirkpatrick 2005; Rowatt and Kirkpatrick 2002). Kirkpatrick’s work built upon Ainsworth’s three attachment styles (secure, avoidant, and anxious–ambivalent) that were all demonstrated by different participants in this study. Many participant responses reflected a sense of security and faith in God when He was perceived in personal terms. Their belief that God would intervene on their behalf was conveyed using upbeat and positive wording about God. A handful of participants demonstrated attachment ambivalence, saying that God was “out there” but was preoccupied with greater things, not in their condition. The anxious/ambivalent type of attachment was also prevalent within the perceptions of individuals reporting the perceived gap between them and God, with associated dissonance. Although the participants viewed God in benevolent terms, inconsistencies and troubled anxiety marked their expectations about God’s willingness or ability to help them in times of trouble. These dissonant feelings brought about the desire to be more worthy of God’s love and, therefore, his help through reaching greater personal perfection and performing more works.

In summary, there was substantial overlap between the perceptions of spirituality and God expressed by the participants in this study and the ideas promoted in several contemporary psychological theories. However, the descriptions provided by participants were much richer and varied than contemporary theories indicate. Psychological theories generally failed to capture both the internal consistency within participants’ beliefs and the complexity across participants’ beliefs. The findings from this study clearly show the benefits of using a qualitative method to describe spirituality and God image from the perspective of the individual. There is much to be gleaned from allowing people to describe their worldview in relation to topics relevant to psychology.

5.3. Implications for Practice

The results of the current study have several implications for the fields of psychology and counseling. First, worldviews that include God and religion are integrated into descriptions of spirituality and, therefore, need not be minimized within the professional literature or in psychotherapy. Second, multidimensional and holistic approaches to spirituality are preferable to unidimensional approaches. Third, individuals’ perceptions of spirituality and perceptions of God were often perceived in relational terms. Fourth, exploring individuals’ perceived dissonance with God may be helpful in the treatment of such issues as perfectionism, OCD, social anxiety, and identity development. Fifth, facilitating spiritual self-awareness and values clarification may enhance therapeutic outcomes.

5.3.1. Individuals’ Worldviews Often Include God and Religion

This study revealed spirituality’s deep ties to religious belief and God image, countering psychology’s trend to exclude these constructs (Hill and Hall 2002). Participants’ religious beliefs and views of God’s role and characteristics are linked to their definitions of spirituality (Ammerman 2013; Hill and Pargament 2003; Westerink 2012). Psychologists, therefore, could benefit from being open to clients’ religious worldviews and considering theistic strategies for their practice (Richards and Bergin 2005; Richards 2021). Furthermore, interventions aimed at helping clients enhance their worship experience (e.g., talking about spiritual experiences, asking questions that promote religious dialogue, discussing service opportunities, illuminating the relational components of worship, etc.) could enable clients to use religion to build their spirituality and well-being more effectively.

5.3.2. One Size Does Not Fit All

Descriptions of spirituality and Deity vary, affirming that a multidimensional, holistic approach may be warranted to address such plurality. Narrow definitions would fail to acknowledge the complexity and depth of associated beliefs. Research and counseling practices will likely be more productive when they focus on ascertaining individuals’ worldviews rather than a reductionistic focus. Clinically, clients may struggle to express their spiritual beliefs, but this does not mean that spirituality is not important to them or irrelevant to counseling. Likewise, professionals and clients may have differing spiritual worldviews, even within the same religious tradition. Therefore, efforts to avoid making assumptions about their clients and to properly assess their worldview are essential (Smith et al., forthcoming). Some clients may have no interest in spirituality, while others may view it as integral to their daily lives. A mismatch in approach could likely be ineffective, if not damaging, to the therapeutic alliance. Clients who see God as a source of help may find therapy a valuable place to explore how God could promote healing in their lives.

5.3.3. Perceptions of Spirituality and Perceptions of God Are Often Inherently Relational

This finding suggests that asking clients not merely about beliefs but about experiences and interactions may facilitate understanding of individuals, whose spiritual experiences interact with their perceptions of Deity (Currier et al. 2021; Hall and Brokaw 1995; Hill and Hall 2002). Attachment theory and related work have highlighted the critical association between relationships with others and with God (Cherniak et al. 2021; Mitchell 2000). Since counseling is fundamentally relational and aims to help clients develop more meaningful relationships, clients’ relationships with the Divine can be integrated effectively into the counseling process.

5.3.4. Perceived Dissonance in Relation to God May Impact Identity, Scrupulosity, Perfectionism, and Anxiety

A commonly perceived gap between a person and God merits exploration for clients experiencing psychological challenges. Particularly, it may be that such a worldview is related to a myriad of clinical issues, including perfectionism, anxiety, and identity development. Investigation of religious dogmatism may help when clients demonstrate psychological rigidity, helping disentangle their personal approach to the purpose/core meaning of religious teachings. Additionally, examining the psychological impact of a “doing” rather than “being” mindset about spirituality may be relevant to clients’ overall coping methods.

5.3.5. Facilitation of Spiritual Self-Awareness and Values Clarification Can Enhance Therapeutic Outcomes

In this study, some participants struggled to articulate their spiritual perceptions. This opens up an opportunity for providers to explore spiritual self-awareness with their clients. Combining this with values clarification can help the client pinpoint their core spiritual convictions and bring about deeper clarity. Values clarification builds up a client’s autonomy, reduces anxiety, and promotes personal values to behavior congruence (Kirschenbaum 2013).

Pursuing practical exercises for clients that involve spirituality, connection, transcendence, and journaling about spiritual experiences aligns with this study’s focus on spirituality’s role in shaping meaning (Richards and Bergin 2005). For example, a client might examine how their view of a compassionate God strengthens their relationships, builds resilience and gives hope. To effectively counsel the religious/spiritual client, it may also be appropriate to gather beliefs and views of Deity to be more helpful in understanding the client and any latent anxiety about God, spirituality, and religion (Smith et al., forthcoming). In addition, since personal experiences among participants were related to richer descriptions of God in this study, part of the work in counseling could be to support and encourage clients to seek out such experiences with the Divine.

5.4. Limitations of the Present Study

The present study has many limitations. This particular study involved participants with a high composition of Christian religious affiliation who were selected from a restricted geographical area noted for religious participation relative to coastal and urban areas of the United States. Even though a variety of Christian denominations were represented (Catholic, Protestant, Latter-day Saint, etc.), the findings of this study would not necessarily generalize to other contexts. Second, a limitation of the present study was that some of the participants were not native English speakers, which likely contributed to some of the vagueness and lack of specificity described in this study. Third, questions about spirituality and God were asked in the same interview. Although these questions were separated by three intermediate questions, there could have been spillover in content across participants’ descriptions, which likely contributed to some of the continuity in beliefs that was highlighted. Fourth, the fact that the data were analyzed without member checks did not allow for confirmation that the interpretations accurately represented the intentions of the participants.

5.5. Directions for Further Research

The findings of this study suggest many fruitful areas for future research. One area of research clearly evident would be to replicate this study with a population more inclusive of individuals with Eastern, atheist/agnostic, and scientific views about God and the nature of spirituality. In particular, the emphasis on “action” and “doing” among Christian participants contrasts completely with the perspective of “being” and “essences” characteristic of Eastern and agnostic perspectives. Understanding the nature of individuals’ dissonance with spirituality and God, especially in relation to an anxious/ambivalent view of Deity, could also result in clinical insights.

Furthermore, some participants’ emphasis on extraordinary spiritual experiences would appear fruitful to explore. Some work has been carried out in this area already in the subfield of transpersonal psychology; however, due to a lack of rigorous research methods and controversial findings, that work has not been influential. If research investigating “peak experiences” and other transcendent spiritual events could be conducted in ways more congruent with professional expectations for high quality research, it may receive more attention in the literature.

In quantitative studies, measures will likely need to be multidimensional to study the construct of spirituality adequately. Furthermore, because the construct of spirituality may be more abstract than the concept of Deity, one possibility in the area of measurement would be to develop measures that are more based on perceptions of God than upon perceptions of spirituality in general. Such grounding of the concepts may enhance the reliability of the measures and improve their ability to accurately evaluate the individuals’ worldviews regarding spiritual topics.

Participants’ descriptions of spirituality in the present study seemed to indicate that their beliefs are typically formed in childhood but then change slightly at some point and then remain relatively stable thereafter. Psychological research has inconsistently examined how spiritual beliefs change over time. Why do individuals hold the beliefs they do? Why are those beliefs maintained relatively consistently over time?

Research could also study the implications of talking about clients’ religious beliefs to assist them in better defining and experiencing their spirituality. In other words, it is important to find out the most effective ways of helping a client explore their beliefs, engage in service, or promote dialogue on the subject.

As with most psychological research, the current study was limited to the perceptions of individual participants. Contextual and group factors were not considered. Hence, future research could be carried out to examine the impact of family, culture, government messaging/policies, and social groups on beliefs and any associated themes.

6. Conclusions

Many individuals ascribe great importance to religion and spirituality, which are complex belief systems relevant to many psychological variables. The present study yielded insights into conceptualizations of spirituality, provided a rationale for integrating religion and Deity in descriptions of spirituality, and revealed the integrated nature of relational attributes in describing both constructs. By contrasting the findings of the present study with both classical and contemporary theories, this study helped to show where psychological models aligned with or differed from individuals’ lived experience. The qualitative methods in this study were useful in understanding the nature of spirituality and God from the participants’ point of view, and the depth and breadth of individuals’ perceptions clearly warrants additional scholarship. This study highlights the need for psychologists to consider clients’ spiritual beliefs within therapeutic frameworks. Furthermore, researching spirituality across diverse cultural contexts is likely to deepen our understanding of these multifaceted constructs. In addition, integrating quantitative measures into future investigations would not only validate the findings in this study but also facilitate an understanding of the prevalence of spiritual beliefs and the impact that they have on therapeutic outcomes.