Spirituality and Religiosity—Do They Always Go Hand in Hand? The Role of Spiritual Transcendence in Predicting Centrality of Religiosity

Abstract

Although spirituality and religiosity are related, they are not identical phenomena. Based on the results of previous research, we hypothesized that, of the two dimensions of spirituality—transcendence proper (TP) and spiritual openness (SO)—only the former would be a significant positive predictor of religiosity operationalized as centrality of religiosity (COR). This study included 343 participants aged 18 to 82 years (M = 32.18, SD = 10.84), who completed Scale of Spiritual Transcendence and Centrality of Religiosity Scale questionnaires. Structural equation modeling revealed that, when TP and SO were controlled for simultaneously, both predictors were significant. However, while the associations of TP with COR were strong and positive, SO turned out to be a significant but negative predictor of each aspect of COR. This suggests that spirituality can encompass elements that are negatively associated with traditional religiosity and supports the thesis that spirituality is a broader construct than religiosity.

1. Introduction

Over the past 20 years, psychologists have shown a rapidly increasing interest in spirituality and religiosity issues as potentially important for adaptive human functioning. Longitudinal studies have indicated that religiosity reduced mortality (Li et al. 2016) and depression (VanderWeele et al. 2016). A recent meta-analysis of several hundred studies, both cross-sectional and longitudinal, revealed a small yet significant positive effect of religion/spirituality on life satisfaction (Yaden et al. 2022). At the same time, however, research showed that not all forms and expressions of spirituality had an equally beneficial effect on mental health (Yaden et al. 2022). Thus, in the field of psychology, the controversy over how to define and interrelate spirituality and religiosity continues.

Contemporary perspectives on the relationship between spirituality and religiosity can be divided into those emphasizing their similarities and those highlighting their differences. The former view stresses that both constructs refer to “the feelings, thoughts, experiences, and behaviors that arise from a search for the sacred” (Hill et al. 2000, p. 66). Accordingly, some scholars argue that the two concepts largely overlap and should not be separated (Streib and Hood 2011). At the other end of the spectrum, the two are viewed as oppositional—religiosity is portrayed as organized, traditional, and static, whereas spirituality is seen as subjective, individual, and dynamic (Emmons and Paloutzian 2003; Miller and Thoresen 2003). In its most extreme form, this perspective casts religiosity in a negative light and spirituality in a positive one (Tart 1975).

Between these extremes, some researchers propose that the two are distinct but related, potentially in a hierarchical relationship. For instance, in the same chapter, Pargament suggests that religiosity is broader than spirituality, while Zinnbauer contends the opposite—arguing that spirituality encompasses a wide range of practices and behaviors directed toward the search for ultimate meaning, with traditional religiosity being one of them (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). This latter view is increasingly common among contemporary scholars. According to this perspective, spirituality is a phenomenon superior to religiosity (R. L. Piedmont 1999; Zinnbauer et al. 1999), and its essence lies in the human quest for existential meaning, which may take both religious and secular forms (R. L. Piedmont 1999). Schnell (2020), for example, argues that traditional religiosity and its manifestations—such as institutional beliefs and practices—constitute just one dimension of a broader spiritual quest for meaning.

This understanding of spirituality and religiosity as interrelated and partially overlapping—rather than identical or entirely separate—aligns with the growing number of individuals worldwide who describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious” or “more spiritual than religious” (Carey 2018; Tong and Yang 2018). In other words, people are increasingly aware that an interest in spirituality can, and often does, extend beyond traditional rituals and ceremonies. In the current study, we decided to look into the interrelations between these two phenomena by drawing on Piedmont’s conceptualization of spiritual transcendence (R. L. Piedmont 1999, 2004), which takes into account both religious and non-religious forms of spirituality. We therefore set out to examine if, with both religious and non-religious components of spiritual transcendence statistically controlled for, religiosity would be explained only by the former. This would provide further arguments to support the view that the two constructs, though interrelated, differ from each other, and that spirituality (i.e., spiritual transcendence) is a broader construct than religiosity (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005).

1.1. Spirituality

Spirituality used to be discussed solely in the context of religious practices (Koenig 2008); however, the situation has reversed, and it is religiosity that is currently regarded as one of the manifestations of spiritual interests arising from man’s awareness of ultimate concerns (R. L. Piedmont 1999). This means spirituality can go beyond institutional religious practices and include values associated with humanism, existentialism, or even esoteric views of man’s place in the universe (Zwingmann et al. 2011). Thus, spirituality is considered to be a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, whose characteristic feature is an open and individualized approach to the search for the meaning of life (Büssing et al. 2005; R. L. Piedmont 1999).

Typically, this search manifests itself in the individual’s efforts to transcend his or her own self but does not necessarily have to include the realm of the sacred. These efforts may just as well express a desire to connect to the moment, to others, or to nature (Puchalski et al. 2009). Accordingly, Demmrich and Huber (2019) link spirituality to the realization of ultimate concerns, which, unlike proximate concerns (i.e., daily goals and the demands of life related to work and family), trigger motivation for self-transcendence. This motivation can be expressed in several ways: through a desire to make important changes within one’s self, by turning to other objects important from the perspective of the individual’s values (connectedness to other people or nature), or by turning to the non-material sphere or a transcendent being (i.e., God or the divine). Similar ways of transcending one’s self were discussed by Bucher (2014), who distinguished three dimensions of spirituality: the vertical dimension, reflecting connectedness to a higher spiritual being or God; the horizontal dimension, which reflects the striving to connect with the social environment, the universe, or nature; and the depth dimension, reflecting the striving to develop one’s self (e.g., a greater awareness of the self and one’s body).

Another widely held view of spirituality is the one proposed by R. L. Piedmont (1999), with spiritual transcendence as the key concept. According to this author, spiritual transcendence represents a primary human need and “refers to the capacity of individuals to stand outside of their immediate sense of time and place to view life from a larger, more objective perspective. This transcendent perspective is one in which a person sees a fundamental unity underlying the diverse strivings of nature and finds a bonding with others that cannot be severed, not even by death” (R. L. Piedmont 1999, p. 988). Central to Piedmont’s approach is the fact that he considers transcendence as a personality trait and, consequently, as a primary motivation for transcending the self in the spiritual and psychosocial domains, having a genetic basis and present from birth. More specifically, R. L. Piedmont (1999) sees spiritual transcendence as a basic personality disposition independent of the traits described in Costa and McCrae’s five-factor personality theory (Costa and McCrae 1992)—the sixth major trait, termed the Numinous, cannot be reduced to any combination of the other factors (Piedmont and Fox 2023). According to Piedmont, while spiritual transcendence is primary in nature, religiosity is what he calls a sentiment—a socialized emotional tendency arising as a result of social interactions and educational experiences based on transcendence. Thus, religiosity or other expressions of spirituality are specific outlets for transcendence as the basic motivation (R. L. Piedmont 2014). Spiritual transcendence can therefore be viewed as spirituality in a broad sense, a personality predictor of both religious and non-religious manifestations of a person’s search for eschatological meaning. Although culture and society offer individuals a range of religious practices as natural instruments for expressing and realizing spirituality understood in this way, Piedmont argues that these are not the only possible forms that the expression and realization of spirituality can take. For example, spirituality can also inspire self-sacrificing altruism and devotion to patriotic values. Accordingly, the measures that operationalize the construct of spiritual transcendence clearly distinguish factors reflecting their two basic forms: religious and non-religious (Piotrowski 2018). For example, in the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments Scale (ASPIRES; Piedmont and Toscano 2016), religious transcendence corresponds to a factor called prayer fulfillment, while non-religious transcendence is covered by the universality and connectedness factors. Likewise, in the Scale of Spiritual Transcendence (Piotrowski et al. 2013), religious transcendence is represented by transcendence proper, while non-religious transcendence is measured as spiritual openness.

1.2. Religiosity

Even if religiosity as theorized by Piedmont is only one of the possible ways of expressing spirituality, it occupies a special place in the repertoire of means that satisfy the human need for transcendence. When explaining the phenomenon of religion, scholars highlight its capacity not only to address spiritual needs but also to regulate emotions and satisfy the need for affiliation (Mueller et al. 2001). While it is generally recognized that spirituality can take individualized forms, including secular ones, religiosity is predominantly understood as an institutionalized and culturally influenced approach, characterized by a prescribed set of beliefs and practices (Mueller et al. 2001). At the same time, it is acknowledged that religiosity can also reflect individuals’ personal values and be driven by intrinsic motivation.

This latter perspective underlies Huber’s concept of centrality of religiosity (COR; Huber 2003). Drawing on Kelly’s (1955) framework, Huber conceptualized religiosity as a personal construct, postulating that the more central the place it occupied in an individual’s personality, the more important the regulatory functions it performed in his or her life by determining views, decisions, and behavior. On the one hand, this concept refers to the subjective evaluation of religion as more or less important or central in the individual’s life; on the other, it essentially presupposes that religiosity is expressed through the acceptance of beliefs professed and proposed by religious institutions.

The centrality of religiosity in the system of personal constructs translates into the activation of its specific dimensions as identified by Glock (1962), rooted in social regulations and expectations regarding religion (Demmrich and Huber 2019; Huber and Huber 2012). The Intellect dimension is rooted in the assumption that a religious person has knowledge of the basic articles of faith, their dogmas, and the sacred scriptures. The ideology dimension reflects the expectation that a religious person has a formed system of beliefs that allows him or her to transcend the surrounding world and connect with God or the divine (Huber and Huber 2012). Two other dimensions—public and private practice—reflect the view that religious people belong to communities and participate in rituals and formalized religious activities together with others and at the same time show a tendency to express their faith in spontaneous and individualized acts, such as prayer or meditation. Finally, the experience dimension is rooted in the assumption that religious people make more or less direct contact with the ultimate reality, which enriches their lives emotionally (Demmrich and Huber 2019; Huber and Huber 2012). The activation of these five dimensions, however, does not depend only on the position of the religious construct system itself, but also on the position of alternative systems (Huber 2003). The religious construct system can have an overarching regulatory role relative to others, in which case religiosity is autonomous. Alternatively, the religious construct system can be subordinated to other systems, in which case religiosity is heteronomous.

1.3. Present Study

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between spiritual transcendence and religiosity operationalized as centrality of religiosity (COR). In designing this study, we operated under the assumption that spirituality encompassed a broader domain than religiosity. We were also inspired by previous research conducted by Piotrowski et al. (2013), which revealed an intriguing pattern of relationships between spiritual transcendence and various measures of religiosity. Specifically, Piotrowski et al. (2013) demonstrated that the transcendence proper component of spiritual transcendence exhibited positive correlations with all measures of religiosity included in this study, namely, religious practices, intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, religious fundamentalism, and quest religiosity. The other component, spiritual openness, correlated positively, albeit weakly, with quest religiosity only. These findings indicate the distinct nature of spiritual transcendence and religiosity. In our study, we sought to re-examine the relationship between these two constructs by relating them to a third one, pivotal and influential in the field of psychology of religion: centrality of religiosity (COR). Additionally, unlike Piotrowski et al. (2013), who employed bivariate correlations, we advanced the analysis by statistically controlling for both transcendence proper and spiritual openness when exploring the relationship between spiritual transcendence and centrality of religiosity. Based on the outcomes reported by Piotrowski and colleagues, we hypothesized that, of the two separate dimensions of spiritual transcendence, namely, transcendence proper and spiritual openness, only the former would emerge as a significant positive predictor of COR.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study included 343 participants: 286 women (83%), 56 men (16%), and 1 nonbinary person (0.3%). Their age ranged from 18 to 82 years (M = 32.18, SD = 10.84). Regarding place of residence, 7.3% of the participants resided in cities with a population exceeding 250,000, 53.6% lived in cities with up to 250,000 inhabitants, and 39.1% were from rural areas. More than half of the sample (51.3%) had higher education, 46.4% had secondary education, and 2.3% had elementary education. Regarding relationship status, 49.6% of the respondents were in a formal relationship, 24.8% were in an informal relationship, and 25.6% reported being in no relationship. Employment and education status indicated that 54.8% of the participants engaged in both work and education, 23.9% were pursuing solely education, 18.7% were employed but no longer engaged in educational pursuits, and 2.6% were unemployed.

2.2. Procedure

Participants were recruited using a snowball sampling method, involving distribution through Facebook and email as well as paper-and-pencil administration. Some potential participants were directed to an online survey through a URL, while others completed the same survey in a paper-and-pencil format, administered by trained assistants. Prior to participation, respondents were informed that confidentiality would be ensured, that their participation was voluntary, and that they were free to withdraw at any time. They were then provided with questionnaires to be completed either online or on paper. No financial compensation was provided for participation. The protocol for this study was approved by the Bioethics Committee for Research at Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce (resolution no. 4/2022). Data collection took place between May and July 2022. Data obtained through online and paper-pencil surveys were combined, as no significant differences were found in the variables between the two data collection techniques (all t-test results significant at p > 0.05; see Table S1 in Supplementary Materials).

2.3. Measures

This study employed two measures along with questions about sociodemographic information. The sociodemographic questions covered age, place of residence, education level, relationship status, and employment status.

To assess spirituality, we used the Scale of Spiritual Transcendence developed by Piotrowski et al. (2013). Based on R. L. Piedmont’s (1999, 2001) spiritual transcendence theory, this scale consists of two 11-item subscales, namely, transcendence proper (e.g., “I pray or meditate to attain a higher level of spiritual consciousness”) and spiritual openness (e.g., “Engaging in meaningful causes provides me with a sense of purpose in life”). An overall spiritual transcendence score can also be calculated. Participants rate their agreement with each item on a 4-point Likert scale, from definitely not to definitely yes. The measure demonstrates high internal consistency; Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in the present study were 0.92 for both total score and the transcendence proper subscale and 0.84 for the spiritual openness subscale.

To assess religiosity, we used the Centrality of Religiosity Scale, developed by Huber (2003) and adapted into Polish by Zarzycka (2007). The measure comprises five subscales, each consisting of three items: intellect (e.g., “How often do you think about religious issues?”), ideology (e.g., “To what extent do you believe that God or something exists?”), public practice (e.g., “How often do you take part in religious services?”), private practice (e.g., “How often do you pray?”), and experience (e.g., “How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine is present?”). Respondents rate their agreement with each statement on a Likert scale, with the range of response options varying across the subscales: a 5-point scale from not at all/never (1) to very/very often (5), a 7-point scale ranging from never (1) to several times a week (7), and a 9-point scale ranging from never (1) to several times a day (9). It is also possible to compute a total score as the sum of subscale scores. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for individual subscales and for the total score ranged from 0.85 to 0.97 (see

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Variable	N	Min.	Max.	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	α
Intellect	343	3.00	15.00	7.27	2.94	0.49	−0.393	0.85
Ideology	343	3.00	15.00	10.48	3.71	−0.54	−0.796	0.92
Private practice	343	3.00	15.00	8.78	3.85	0.001	−1.254	0.94
Experience	343	3.00	15.00	7.48	3.25	0.34	−0.59	0.93
Public practice	343	3.00	15.00	7.92	3.75	0.351	−1.11	0.91
Centrality (total score)	343	15.00	75.00	41.93	15.57	0.019	−0.93	0.96
Transcendence proper	343	11.00	44.00	27.89	8.14	−0.169	−0.78	0.92
Spiritual openness	343	16.00	44.00	34.66	5.66	−0.659	0.27	0.84
Spiritual transcendence (total score)	343	28.00	88.00	62.54	12.39	−0.35	−0.32	0.92

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation, α = Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient.

for detailed results).

2.4. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted in R (version 4.4.2), using the lavaan (Rosseel 2012), semTools, and tidyverse packages. Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and independent samples t-tests for gender differences were computed first. Due to observed differences between men and women on spiritual and religiosity dimensions, measurement invariance across sex was assessed via multigroup confirmatory factor analyses (configural → metric → scalar → structural) using robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation. Model comparisons were based on chi-square difference tests (Satorra–Bentler scaled) and differences in fit indices (CFI, RMSEA, SRMR), following guidelines by Chen (2007).

Next, we estimated the full structural equation model (SEM) using latent variables for transcendence proper (TP) and spiritual openness (SO) as predictors of five COR subdimensions. While the latent variables corresponding to subscales of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale were represented by their original items (three per subscale), in the case of the Scale of Spiritual Transcendence, we created three parcels using the item-to-construct balance approach (Little et al. 2002) to ensure content balance and reduce idiosyncratic item variance. The model was first estimated in the full sample (N = 343) and subsequently re-estimated with standardized age (z-score) and sex (coded as binary: 0 = male, 1 = female) included as covariates. One participant identifying as nonbinary was excluded from the SEM analyses involving sex as a covariate to enable binary comparisons. Confidence intervals (95%) for parameter estimates were computed and reported for all regression paths. We evaluated model fit using multiple indices: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR), following commonly accepted cutoffs (Hu and Bentler 1999; Kline 2016).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the study variables. As the obsolete values of skewness and kurtosis did not exceed 1.5, the distribution of the variables can be considered reasonably normal (Hair et al. 2022). All dimensions of COR were positively correlated with both transcendence proper and spiritual openness. However, as can be seen in

Table 2. Pearson’s zero-order correlations between study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Intellect	—
2. Ideology	0.66	—
3. Private practice	0.69	0.78	—
4. Experience	0.70	0.75	0.82	—
5. Public practice	0.71	0.72	0.79	0.73	—
6. Centrality (total score)	0.83	0.89	0.92	0.90	0.89	—
7. Transcendence proper	0.61	0.62	0.63	0.68	0.61	0.71	—
8. Spiritual openness	0.19	0.19	0.19	0.22	0.16	0.21	0.60	—
9. Spiritual transcendence (total score)	0.48	0.50	0.50	0.55	0.47	0.56	0.93	0.85	—

Note. All correlation coefficients are significant at p < 0.001 (two-tailed).

, the relationships were much stronger in the case of transcendence proper. Accordingly, the total score for the Scale of Spiritual Transcendence and COR were also positively correlated.

3.2. Sex Differences

The independent samples t-tests indicated that women scored significantly higher than men on nearly all spiritual and religiosity variables. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) ranged from small to moderate (see

Table 3. Sex differences in core variables.

Variable	t	df	p	Mean Difference	SE Difference	Cohen’s d	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
Intellect	−0.72	340	0.47	0.31	0.43	−0.11	−1.16	0.53
Ideology	−2.28	340	0.023	1.22	0.54	−0.33	−2.28	−0.17
Private practice	−2.52	340	0.012	1.4	0.56	−0.37	−2.5	−0.31
Experience	−2.61	340	0.009	1.23	0.47	−0.38	−2.15	−0.3
Public practice	−1.83	340	0.068	1.0	0.55	−0.27	−2.08	0.07
Centrality (total score)	−2.29	340	0.023	5.17	2.26	−0.33	−9.61	−0.73
Transcendence proper	−3.51	340	0.001	4.09	1.17	−0.51	−6.38	−1.79
Spiritual openness	−1.75	340	0.081	1.44	0.82	−0.26	−3.06	0.18
Spiritual transcendence (total score)	−3.11	340	0.002	5.53	1.78	−0.45	−9.03	−2.03

and Figure 1). These gender differences prompted a closer examination of measurement invariance to evaluate whether the SEM structure could be meaningfully compared across sexes.

3.3. Measurement Invariance

We conducted measurement invariance analyses within a multigroup SEM framework, testing for configural, metric, scalar, and structural invariance across sex (see

Table 4. Measurement invariance across sex.

Model	Χ2	df	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Without age control
Configural	800.56	336	0.936	0.09	0.046	—	—
Metric	812.69	350	0.936	0.088	0.048	0	−0.002
Scalar	825.55	364	0.936	0.086	0.049	0	−0.002
Structural	841.46	374	0.936	0.085	0.064	−0.001	−0.001
With age control
Configural (with age)	875.09	368	0.931	0.09	0.056	—	—
Metric (with age)	887.39	382	0.931	0.088	0.057	0	−0.002
Scalar (with age)	900.11	396	0.931	0.086	0.057	0	−0.002
Structural (with age)	924.18	411	0.93	0.085	0.069	−0.001	−0.001

). The results supported all levels of invariance, indicating that both the measurement properties and structural regression paths were statistically equivalent for men and women. Specifically, chi-square difference tests comparing the scalar and structural models were nonsignificant, both without age as a covariate (Δχ²(10) = 16.43, p = 0.088) and with age controlled for (Δχ²(15) = 23.69, p = 0.071). Changes in model fit indices were minimal (ΔCFI = −0.001; ΔRMSEA = −0.001), falling below established thresholds. This invariance justifies analyzing the model at the full-sample level. Given this invariance and considering the limited size of the male subgroup (n = 56), we opted not to interpret the regression results separately by sex. This decision reflects standard recommendations in structural equation modeling, which advise a minimum of 10 participants per estimated parameter to ensure stable and reliable estimates (Kline 2016). The male sample did not meet this threshold, raising concerns about the interpretability of group-specific parameter estimates.

In the next step, we estimated a full structural equation model (SEM) using latent variables for transcendence proper (TP) and spiritual openness (SO) as predictors of the five COR subdimensions (see Figure 2 and

Table 5. Standardized regression weights for the tested SEM in the baseline model.

Predictor	Outcome	β	SE	CR	p	95% CI	95% CI
						Lower	Upper
TP	Intellect	0.96	0.11	13.139	<0.001	1.225	1.655
SO	Intellect	−0.41	0.17	−5.965	<0.001	−1.327	−0.671
TP	Ideology	0.94	0.12	13.318	<0.001	1.423	1.914
SO	Ideology	−0.42	0.23	−5.127	<0.001	−1.643	−0.734
TP	Private practice	0.95	0.12	14.327	<0.001	1.54	2.029
SO	Private practice	−0.40	0.22	−5.527	<0.001	−1.661	−0.791
TP	Experience	0.99	0.1	14.607	<0.001	1.23	1.612
SO	Experience	−0.41	0.15	−6.013	<0.001	−1.238	−0.629
TP	Public practice	0.95	0.19	13.082	<0.001	1.533	2.074
SO	Public practice	−0.42	0.22	−5.796	<0.001	−1.746	−0.864

). All indicator variables had standardized regression weights of 0.7 or higher on the latent variable they represented. The tested model demonstrated a good fit: CFI = 0.955, TLI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.075 [90% CI: 0.067, 0.083], SRMR = 0.041. As expected, transcendence proper was a significant positive predictor of each domain of COR (β = 0.95, p < 0.001 for intellect; β = 0.94, p < 0.001 for ideology; β = 0.95, p < 0.001 for private practice; β = 0.99, p < 0.001 for experience; β = 0.95, p < 0.001 for public practice). Unexpectedly and contrary to both the results of bivariate correlation analysis and our predictions, when the relationships between transcendence proper and COR were controlled for in the model, spiritual openness turned out to be a significant yet negative predictor of all domains of COR (β = −0.41, p < 0.001 for both intellect and experience; β = −0.42, p < 0.001 for ideology, β = −0.40, p < 0.001 for private practice; β = −0.42, p < 0.001 for public practice).

We then re-estimated the SEM including age and sex as covariates. This extended model also showed acceptable fit: CFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.074 [90% CI: 0.067, 0.081], SRMR = 0.059. The pattern of results remained consistent: TP maintained strong positive associations with all CRS dimensions, while SO continued to predict them negatively. Age was a significant positive predictor of private practice (β = 0.13, p = 0.003) andpublic practice (β = 0.14, p = 0.001). Sex was not a significant predictor of any CRS subdimension (see

Table 6. Standardized regression weights in the model including age and sex as covariates.

Predictor	Outcome	β	SE	CR	p	95% CI	95% CI
						Lower	Upper
TP	Intellect	0.96	0.106	13.8	< 0.001	1.25	1.67
SO	Intellect	−0.41	0.162	−6.19	< 0.001	−1.32	−0.687
Age	Intellect	0.04	0.046	0.96	0.337	−0.046	0.134
Sex	Intellect	−0.09	0.146	−1.81	0.071	−0.549	0.022
TP	Ideology	0.93	0.13	12.7	< 0.001	1.39	1.89
SO	Ideology	−0.42	0.23	−5.16	< 0.001	−1.64	−0.736
Age	Ideology	0.05	0.052	1.23	0.217	−0.038	0.168
Sex	Ideology	0.004	0.164	0.074	0.941	−0.309	0.333
TP	Private practice	0.93	0.124	13.9	< 0.001	1.48	1.97
SO	Private practice	−0.40	0.217	−5.57	< 0.001	−1.63	−0.782
Age	Private practice	0.13	0.054	3	0.003	0.056	0.268
Sex	Private practice	0.02	0.141	0.463	0.644	−0.211	0.341
TP	Experience	0.98	0.101	13.9	< 0.001	1.21	1.6
SO	Experience	−0.40	0.155	−6.00	< 0.001	−1.23	−0.625
Age	Experience	0.05	0.041	1.11	0.268	−0.035	0.125
Sex	Experience	0.01	0.114	0.324	0.746	−0.187	0.261
TP	Public practice	0.93	0.138	12.7	< 0.001	1.48	2.02
SO	Public practice	−0.42	0.221	−5.83	< 0.001	−1.72	−0.853
Age	Public practice	0.14	0.055	3.2	0.001	0.068	0.285
Sex	Public practice	−0.009	0.145	−0.222	0.824	−0.316	0.251

). Detailed standardized factor loadings and covariances between latent variables for both the original model and the model including age and sex as covariates are presented in Tables S2–S5 in Supplementary Materials.

4. Discussion

In the current study, drawing on previous research findings and building upon the assumption that spirituality is a construct broader than and encompassing religiosity, we tested the hypothesis that, of the two distinct dimensions of spiritual transcendence, namely, transcendence proper and spiritual openness, only transcendence proper would significantly predict centrality of religiosity. This hypothesis was derived from earlier research, conducted by Piotrowski et al. (2013). However, in contrast to previous studies, we utilized a different operationalization of religiosity, known as COR, and controlled for both dimensions of spirituality as simultaneous predictors of religiosity.

The results of the correlation analysis revealed that both dimensions of spirituality displayed positive associations with COR; associations with various aspects of COR were stronger in the case of transcendence proper than in the case of spiritual openness. Although the significant relationship between spiritual openness and COR may appear surprising given our hypothesis, it can be explained by the fact that, when analyzed separately, transcendence proper and spiritual openness share common variance, resulting in positive correlations with religiosity measured as COR. However, considering the weaker correlations in the case of spiritual openness, we still expected that controlling for both dimensions in SEM would result in significant associations only for transcendence proper. Contrary to our predictions, the SEM results indicated that, when transcendence proper and spiritual openness were simultaneously controlled for, both predictors turned out to be significant. What is more, there were notable differences in their associations with COR. The associations of transcendence proper with COR remained strong and positive. For spiritual openness, by contrast, the directions of associations with centrality of religiosity were reversed, indicating a significant but negative relationship with each aspect of COR.

This finding suggests that examining and statistically controlling for the two dimensions of spiritual transcendence as predictors helps to highlight their differences in scope. Within the construct of spiritual openness, certain aspects of spirituality that are distinct from transcendence proper emerged as the opposite of religiosity operationalized as COR. From a statistical standpoint, this phenomenon is a case of net suppression, a concept discussed in the literature. Net suppression has been observed in studies examining the relationship between self-esteem and aggression, as demonstrated by Paulhus et al. (2004). In one particular study, they found an initial significant and positive relationship between self-esteem and aggression. However, the relationship was reversed when researchers simultaneously controlled for narcissism, a variable encompassing defensive and maladaptive aspects of self-esteem. Self-esteem itself became a negative predictor of aggression, while its immature aspects associated with narcissism became positively related to aggression.

Following a similar pattern, the results of our study suggest that while transcendence proper is strictly religious in nature, spiritual openness is distinctly different from traditional religiosity and can therefore be expressed in non-religious forms of spirituality, such as social engagement, aesthetic sensitivity, or a generalized sense of oneness with the universe. This dissimilarity is supported by data from Piotrowski et al. (2013), which demonstrates that spiritual openness does not exhibit significant correlations with most measures of religiosity. However, our results, revealing significant yet opposing patterns of relationships between the two dimensions of spiritual transcendence and religiosity, provide even stronger evidence that spiritual openness represents a non-traditional way of pursuing eschatological meaning.

The unique features of spiritual openness captured in the tested model, contrasting with transcendence proper, can be interpreted as consequences of openness to experience as a basic personality trait. What may support this interpretation is the fact that, unlike transcendence proper, spiritual openness is significantly and positively associated with openness to experience (Piotrowski et al. 2013). Moreover, its characteristics, as mentioned by scholars, include tolerance of paradoxes, ambiguity, and diverse perspectives—cognitive characteristics typical of high openness to experience (Jach and Smillie 2019). Additionally, the only aspect of religiosity correlating with spiritual openness was quest religiosity (Piotrowski et al. 2013), a variable strictly related to openness to experience (Simpson et al. 2010). Interestingly, previous research using a different operationalization of spiritual openness also revealed positive associations of this construct with openness to experience (R. Piedmont 2005) and with related characteristics, namely, tolerance of ambiguity and quest religiosity (Genia 1997). It can therefore be assumed that, by simultaneously controlling for both dimensions of spirituality, the presented model highlights, on the one hand, transcendence decontaminated from openness to experience (i.e., transcendence proper) and, on the other hand, the characteristics resulting from openness to experience (i.e., spiritual openness). Viewed from this perspective, our results are not only consistent with the positive relationships between the conventional forms of spirituality and religiosity, found in earlier research (Genia 1997; R. L. Piedmont 2004; Piotrowski et al. 2013), but also in line with previous studies regarding the relationships between openness to experience and religiosity. Numerous studies showed that, while spirituality was positively correlated with openness to experience, religiosity was negatively correlated with this dimension of personality (Saroglou and Muñoz-García 2008; Schnell 2012; Saucier and Skrzypińska 2006; Lace et al. 2020).

Additionally, it is worth considering the possibility that the differences between spiritual openness and COR may stem from the fact that, while COR reflects a spirituality that is already established and defined within traditional religiosity, spiritual openness represents the active pursuit of meaning that has not yet been discovered or formed in the traditional way. This interpretation is in line with the findings of previous studies, which found that individuals seeking religious identity status exhibited low COR (Rydz and Wieradzka-Pilarczyk 2017).

Furthermore, the divergent correlations with COR observed for religious transcendence and spiritual openness support R. L. Piedmont’s (1999) proposition that spiritual transcendence constitutes a distinct, irreducible dimension beyond the scope of the Five-Factor Model. This independence is underscored by its differentiation from spiritual openness, which is itself highly saturated with openness to experience. It should be noted, however, that despite the discriminant validity of both dimensions of spirituality, in the tested model they are weakly, though positively, correlated with each other, which in turn corresponds with the data showing positive relations between openness to experience and spirituality (Saucier and Skrzypińska 2006). As a result, transcendence proper correlates positively both with religiosity and with non-religious forms of spirituality represented by spiritual openness.

The satisfactory fit of the tested model to the data suggests that what is needed to achieve complete knowledge of spirituality as such and to understand its unobvious associations with religiosity is a reference both to its component described by Piedmont as independent of personality and strongly associated with religiosity and to the component driven by openness to experience and opposed to traditionally understood religion. Therefore, the investigation presented in this article, based on a different sample and on different operationalizations of spirituality and religiosity than previous studies, provides further empirical support for the thesis that spirituality is a broader term than religiosity and that it encompasses both religious and non-religious forms of the human quest for meaning (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). These findings hold particular relevance within the context of the phenomenon known as being “spiritual but not religious”. They may have particular significance for individuals who perceive themselves as non-religious and actively distance themselves from organized religious practices (Zwingmann et al. 2011), potentially encouraging them to express and develop their spiritual interest in their own unique ways.

4.1. Limitations

Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, due to the lack of alternative validated Polish-language instruments at the time of data collection, the assessment of religious and non-religious spirituality relied on a relatively unknown and limitedly distributed tool. Replication with widely recognized measures, such as the ASPIRES (R. L. Piedmont 2012), is recommended.

Second, this study relied on a convenience sample recruited via snowball sampling through social media. Given that women are generally more willing to participate in scientific surveys (Becker 2022) and tend to report higher levels of religiosity (Moon et al. 2022), making them more interested in the topic, this method likely amplified sample homogeneity and led to an over-representation of women. As a result, the findings should be interpreted with caution, as they may not be fully generalizable to the broader population. Future studies should strive for greater demographic balance and diversity in sampling strategies. Given the unequal distribution of sex in the sample, a more proportionate representation would additionally allow for subgroup analyses, such as multigroup SEM comparisons between male and female participants.

Third, reliance on self-report measures introduces potential bias, particularly social desirability effects, which may affect responses concerning personal beliefs. Multi-method approaches could strengthen future research.

Fourth, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. While spirituality was hypothesized to predict religiosity, reverse or bidirectional effects are also plausible. Longitudinal studies across different developmental stages are needed to clarify the dynamics of this relationship over time, especially given known age-related changes in openness to experience and religiosity (Schwaba and Bleidorn 2018; Krause 2008).

Fifth, this study did not assess participants’ religious affiliation, limiting generalizability beyond the culturally dominant Roman Catholic context in Poland. Future research should include more religiously diverse samples and assess denominational background explicitly.

Finally, future studies should investigate moderating variables—such as reflexivity, tolerance for ambiguity, and need for closure—to better understand why some expressions of spirituality align with religiosity, while others diverge from it.

4.2. Conclusions

The primary aim of our investigation was to extend the research by Piotrowski et al. (2013) and check if, within spiritual transcendence, it was transcendence proper rather than spiritual openness that predicted the level of COR. As expected, it turned out that, in the tested SEM model, transcendence proper was positively associated with COR. However, it also turned out that spiritual openness was a significant, though negative, predictor of COR. Although it seems surprising, this result provides even stronger evidence that spirituality and religiosity, though interrelated, are not equivalent phenomena.

What is more, the tested SEM model turned out to integrate several seemingly incompatible findings from previous studies on the link between spirituality and religiosity. Firstly, assuming that the personality basis of spiritual openness is openness to experience, our findings are in line with studies showing that openness to experience promotes the development of spirituality on the one hand (Wink et al. 2007) and is a negative predictor of religiosity on the other (Schnell 2012). Secondly, based on the same assumption about the nature of spiritual openness, our results showing the discriminant validity of transcendence proper and spiritual openness reaffirm Piedmont’s thesis that spiritual transcendence is independent of basic personality traits (R. L. Piedmont 1999). Finally, given that transcendence proper is positively correlated both with spiritual openness and with centrality of religiosity, our results support the thesis that spirituality is a semantically broader construct that comprises both religious and non-religious forms of human beings’ quest to satisfy the desire to connect with some larger being (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005).