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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on my review, the article "Spirituality and religiosity – do they always go hand in hand? The role of spiritual transcendence in predicting centrality of religiosity" appears to be suitable for the journal Religions.

 

The article examines the relationship between spirituality and religiosity, a topic that aligns with the journal's focus on religious beliefs, behaviours, and experiences. The research is based on a relevant theoretical framework, and the methodology is appropriate.

 

Here are some specific points that may need to be improved or strengthened:

• Literature Review:
  • The article mentions that "the controversy over how to define and interrelate spirituality and religiosity continues" and that some authors consider spirituality and religiosity as separate or even opposite phenomena.  
  • To provide a more in-depth discussion, the literature review could expand on this by including various perspectives on the relationship between spirituality and religiosity.
  • For instance, the review could include authors who view spirituality and religiosity as distinct but overlapping constructs, as well as those who argue that spirituality is a broader concept that encompasses religiosity.
  • This would offer a more nuanced understanding of the existing literature and the complexities of defining and differentiating between these two concepts.
• Discussion:
  • The discussion section of the article could be strengthened by providing a more detailed interpretation of the findings, particularly the unexpected negative correlation between spiritual openness and centrality of religiosity (COR).  
  • The authors could elaborate on the implications of this finding for understanding the relationship between spirituality and religiosity.
  • They could explore potential reasons for why spiritual openness, which is considered a component of non-religious transcendence, might be negatively associated with religiosity.
  • Additionally, the authors could discuss how these findings contribute to the ongoing debate about the separateness of spirituality and religiosity and whether spirituality can indeed encompass elements that are opposed to traditional religiosity.  
• Limitations:
  • To elaborate on the limitations of the study, the authors could provide more specific details about the potential impact of the snowball sampling method on the representativeness of the sample.
  • They could also discuss any limitations related to the self-report measures used in the study, such as social desirability bias.
  • Additionally, the authors could acknowledge any limitations in the generalizability of the findings due to the specific demographic characteristics of the participants (e.g., the high percentage of female participants).
  • Finally, they could suggest directions for future research that could address these limitations, such as using more diverse sampling methods or incorporating longitudinal designs to examine the relationship between spirituality and religiosity over time.
• Tables and Figures:
  • To ensure that the tables and figures are clear and easy to understand, the authors could review them to confirm that all labels are accurate and sufficiently descriptive.
  • For example, they could double-check that the table and figure captions provide enough information to interpret the data without referring to the text.
  • They could also verify that the units of measurement are clearly indicated and that any abbreviations used are defined.
• Formatting and Style:
  • The authors should carefully review the journal's guidelines to ensure that the article adheres to the specified formatting and style requirements.
  • This may include checking the formatting of headings and subheadings, the citation format, and the layout of tables and figures.
  • Consistency in formatting and style enhances the readability and professionalism of the article.

 

Overall, this article makes a valuable contribution to the study of religion and would be a good fit for the journal Religions. With some revisions, it could be an even stronger publication.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful reading of the original version of the manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Below, please find your comments in italics and our responses following each one. For clarity, all edits and additions are highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript.

Literature Review:

• The article mentions that "the controversy over how to define and interrelate spirituality and religiosity continues" and that some authors consider spirituality and religiosity as separate or even opposite phenomena.  

To provide a more in-depth discussion, the literature review could expand on this by including various perspectives on the relationship between spirituality and religiosity.

For instance, the review could include authors who view spirituality and religiosity as distinct but overlapping constructs, as well as those who argue that spirituality is a broader concept that encompasses religiosity.

This would offer a more nuanced understanding of the existing literature and the complexities of defining and differentiating between these two concepts.

Reply:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion to elaborate on the conceptual relationship between spirituality and religiosity. In response, we have revised the literature review section of the introduction to offer a more comprehensive and nuanced overview of key positions in the field. The updated section (lines 33–60 and 65–68) now includes a broader range of scholarly perspectives: those who view spirituality and religiosity as overlapping constructs (e.g., Hill et al. 2000; Streib and Hood 2011), those who conceptualize them as distinct or even opposing phenomena (e.g., Emmons and Paloutzian 2003; Tart 1975), and those who consider spirituality to be a broader construct that encompasses religiosity (e.g., Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005; Piedmont 1999; Schnell 2020).

We have made a concerted effort to reference scholars representative of each perspective to reflect the theoretical diversity and conceptual complexity present in the literature. These revisions enhance the conceptual grounding of our study and directly address the definitional ambiguities highlighted by the reviewer. Accordingly, new references have been added to the reference list.

The revised passage reads as follows:

“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, 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 re-lated, 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 (Piedmont 1999; Zinnbauer, Pargament, and Scott 1999), and its essence lies in the human quest for existential meaning, which may take both religious and secular forms (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 over-lapping—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 (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).”

Discussion:

• The discussion section of the article could be strengthened by providing a more detailed interpretation of the findings, particularly the unexpected negative correlation between spiritual openness and centrality of religiosity (COR).

Reply: We have expanded the interpretation of this finding in the second part of the Discussion section (lines 395–451). Specifically, we have provided a more in-depth analysis of the unexpected negative correlation between spiritual openness and the centrality of religiosity (COR), considering possible theoretical explanations and contextual factors.

• The authors could elaborate on the implications of this finding for understanding the relationship between spirituality and religiosity.

Reply: We have elaborated on the broader theoretical implications of our findings and their contribution to ongoing debates on the relationship between spirituality and religiosity. These reflections have been incorporated into both the Discussion section (lines 438–451) and the Conclusions (lines 491–503), where we situate our results within the existing literature and highlight their relevance for future research.

The revised passages read as follows:

„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 per-sonality and strongly associated with religiosity and to the component driven by openness to experience and opposed to traditionally understood religion. Therefore, the investigation pre-sented in this article, based on a different sample and on different operationalizations of spirit-uality 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 human quest for meaning (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). These findings hold 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, Klein, and Büssing 2011), potentially encouraging them to express and devel-op their spiritual interest in their own unique ways.”

“What is more, the tested SEM model turned out to integrate several seemingly in-compatible 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 the 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 (Piedmont et al. 2009). 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).”

• They could explore potential reasons for why spiritual openness, which is considered a component of non-religious transcendence, might be negatively associated with religiosity.

Reply: We have addressed the reviewer’s suggestion by offering three potential explanations for the observed negative association between spiritual openness and the centrality of religiosity (COR). These interpretations have been incorporated into the Discussion section and are grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks and prior research:

1. Personality-Based Interpretation:
   Spiritual openness is closely related to the personality trait of openness to experience, which includes cognitive flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, and a quest-oriented approach to meaning-making. These traits may contrast with psychological characteristics often associated with religiosity, such as a need for closure or a preference for structure and certainty. This perspective is discussed in the paragraph beginning “The unique features of spiritual openness captured in the tested model…” (lines 395–419).
2. Developmental Interpretation:
   Spiritual openness may represent an active and ongoing search for existential or eschatological meaning, while COR reflects a more stable and institutionally anchored spiritual worldview. This contrast may help explain the negative correlation. We elaborate on this in the passage: “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 an active pursuit of meaning that has not yet been discovered or formed in the traditional way. This interpretation is in line with previous findings showing that individuals seeking religious identity status exhibit lower COR” (lines 420–426).
3. Theoretical Framing Based on Piedmont’s Conceptualization:
   The differing relationships with COR also support Piedmont’s (1999) view that spiritual transcendence constitutes a distinct, irreducible dimension beyond the Five-Factor Model of personality. As noted in the manuscript: “Furthermore, the divergent correlations with COR observed for religious transcendence and spiritual openness support 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” (lines 427–431).

 

• Additionally, the authors could discuss how these findings contribute to the ongoing debate about the separateness of spirituality and religiosity and whether spirituality can indeed encompass elements that are opposed to traditional religiosity.

Reply: We conclude the Discussion by situating our findings within the broader academic debate about the relationship between spirituality and religiosity (lines 438 – 451):

• We explicitly reference the view that spirituality is broader than religiosity (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005).
• We relate our findings to the "spiritual but not religious" phenomenon, citing Zwingmann et al. (2011), and argue that spirituality includes both religious and non-religious forms of meaning-making.
• Additionally, in the Conclusions section, we emphasize that our findings help to reconcile several seemingly incompatible conclusions from previous research on the spirituality–religiosity link. This is articulated in the following passage (lines 493–503): “Firstly, assuming that the personality basis of spiritual openness is openness to experience, our findings are in line with the 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 (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)”.

This final synthesis highlights the integrative potential of our findings and reinforces the theoretical contribution of the study to the ongoing discourse on the spirituality–religiosity continuum.
Limitations:

• To elaborate on the limitations of the study, the authors could provide more specific details about the potential impact of the snowball sampling method on the representativeness of the sample.

Reply: We acknowledge the reviewer’s point and have addressed this issue in the second paragraph of the Limitations section (lines 458–467), where we discuss the potential impact of the snowball sampling method on sample representativeness. Specifically, we note: “Second, the 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, Tratner, & McDonald, 2022), making them more interested in the topic, this method likely amplified sample homogeneity and led to an overrepresentation 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 multi-group SEM comparisons between male and female participants”.

This clarification highlights how the chosen sampling method may have influenced the composition of our sample and outlines directions for improving representativeness in future research.

• They could also discuss any limitations related to the self-report measures used in the study, such as social desirability bias.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have added a relevant note to the Limitations section (lines 468-470) to address the potential biases associated with self-report measures. Specifically, we now state: “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”.

• Additionally, the authors could acknowledge any limitations in the generalizability of the findings due to the specific demographic characteristics of the participants (e.g., the high percentage of female participants).

Reply: We have addressed this concern in the second paragraph of the Limitations section (lines 458–467), where we discuss the implications of the snowball sampling method for sample composition and generalizability. Specifically, we acknowledge that: ”…this method likely amplified sample homogeneity and led to an overrepresentation of women. As a result, the findings should be interpreted with caution, as they may not be fully generalizable to the broader population”.

• Finally, they could suggest directions for future research that could address these limitations, such as using more diverse sampling methods or incorporating longitudinal designs to examine the relationship between spirituality and religiosity over time.

Reply: We have incorporated the recommended directions for future research in the Limitations section (lines 471–475).

Tables and Figures:

• To ensure that the tables and figures are clear and easy to understand, the authors could review them to confirm that all labels are accurate and sufficiently descriptive.

For example, they could double-check that the table and figure captions provide enough information to interpret the data without referring to the text.

They could also verify that the units of measurement are clearly indicated and that any abbreviations used are defined.

Reply: We carefully reviewed all tables and figures in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion. We ensured that:

• All table and figure captions are sufficiently descriptive and informative,
• Labels are accurate and unambiguous,
• Units of measurement are clearly indicated,
• All abbreviations are defined either in the table/figure or accompanying note.

Formatting and Style:

• The authors should carefully review the journal's guidelines to ensure that the article adheres to the specified formatting and style requirements.

This may include checking the formatting of headings and subheadings, the citation format, and the layout of tables and figures.

Consistency in formatting and style enhances the readability and professionalism of the article.

Reply: We have thoroughly checked the entire manuscript to ensure full compliance with the journal’s style and formatting requirements. This included:

• Aligning all section and subsection headings with the required format,
• Verifying the citation style and reference list formatting,
• Adjusting table and figure layouts to match the journal’s specifications,
• Ensuring overall consistency and professional appearance throughout the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents well-founded research, with adequate citations. It is offered as a deepening of previous research. It is coherent and has precise results.

The weakness of the article lies in the fact that the sample used includes a much higher number of women (286) than men (56), without substantiating the reason for accepting such an unbalanced sample. Furthermore, it does not analyze the results of the sexes separately, which I understand is an avenue that could provide more specific information and perhaps diverse results.
This calls into question the final results and indeed the analysis and conclusions.
It is suggested to perform a detailed analysis by sex, to substantiate why there are many more women than men, and to detail the dates on which the fieldwork was done. An analysis by age group can also yield substantial information.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful reading of the original version of the manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Below, please find your comments in italics and our responses following each one. For clarity, all edits and additions are highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript.

• The article presents well-founded research, with adequate citations. It is offered as a deepening of previous research. It is coherent and has precise results. The weakness of the article lies in the fact that the sample used includes a much higher number of women (286) than men (56), without substantiating the reason for accepting such an unbalanced sample. Furthermore, it does not analyze the results of the sexes separately, which I understand is an avenue that could provide more specific information and perhaps diverse results. This calls into question the final results and indeed the analysis and conclusions. It is suggested to perform a detailed analysis by sex, to substantiate why there are many more women than men, and to detail the dates on which the fieldwork was done. An analysis by age group can also yield substantial information.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful observations and suggestions. We acknowledge the sex imbalance in our sample (286 women vs. 56 men), and we address this issue both in the Participants section and in detail in the Limitations section of the manuscript. Specifically, we added the following discussion (lines 458–467):

“Second, the 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, Tratner, & McDonald, 2022), making them more interested in the topic, this method likely amplified sample homogeneity and led to an overrepresentation 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 multi-group SEM comparisons between male and female participants.”

We also followed the reviewer’s recommendation to explore sex differences in more depth by implementing the following analytical steps:

• We conducted an analysis of sex differences in the core study variables (lines 282–290).
• Due to the small number of male participants, we did not estimate separate SEM models for each group. However, to test whether our model was applicable across sexes, we conducted measurement invariance tests (lines 292 – 308), which confirmed model equivalence between groups.
• Based on the reviewer's helpful feedback, we also re-estimated the SEM model including sex and age as covariates (lines 324 – 333). The results remained consistent with those from the baseline model, further supporting the robustness of our findings.

All analyses were conducted using R. Additionally; to clarify the study timeline as requested, we have added the following sentence to the Participants section: “Data collection took place between May and July 2022.”

We hope that these clarifications and additional analyses address the reviewer’s concerns and demonstrate our careful attention to the methodological limitations of the study.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your work on this study examining the relationship between spiritual transcendence and centrality of religiosity. Your research makes a valuable contribution to understanding the complex interplay between spirituality and religiosity as distinct but related constructs.

The primary strength of your paper lies in its methodological approach and the clarity of your analysis. By employing structural equation modeling to simultaneously examine both dimensions of spiritual transcendence as predictors of religiosity, you've revealed an important pattern that might have remained hidden with simpler analytical techniques. Your discussion of the net suppression effect is particularly insightful, offering a compelling explanation for why spiritual openness emerged as a negative predictor of centrality of religiosity despite positive bivariate correlations. This finding empirically supports the conceptualization of spirituality as a broader phenomenon than religiosity, with components that can even oppose traditional religious expressions.

However, your study has some limitations that could be addressed in future research. The sample composition, while adequately sized, is predominantly female (83%) and likely homogeneous in terms of religious affiliation given the Polish context. This limits generalizability to other populations. Additionally, the literature review could be strengthened by more thoroughly engaging with diverse theoretical perspectives on spirituality-religiosity relationships beyond Piedmont's framework. Finally, as you acknowledge, the cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences about the relationship between these constructs. Exploring these relationships through longitudinal designs or with more diverse samples would significantly extend the impact of your findings.

 

All the best

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful reading of the original version of the manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Below, please find your comments in italics and our responses following each one. For clarity, all edits and additions are highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript.

• The sample composition, while adequately sized, is predominantly female (83%) and likely homogeneous in terms of religious affiliation given the Polish context. This limits generalizability to other populations.

Reply: We agree that the sample composition presents limitations in terms of representativeness. We now explicitly address these issues in the Limitations section (lines 458–467 and 476–478).

• Additionally, the literature review could be strengthened by more thoroughly engaging with diverse theoretical perspectives on spirituality-religiosity relationships beyond Piedmont's framework.

Reply: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have significantly expanded the Literature Review section to include a broader range of theoretical approaches. The revised section (lines 33–68) outlines major positions within the field, including perspectives that:

• View spirituality and religiosity as overlapping constructs (e.g., Hill et al., 2000; Streib & Hood, 2011),
• Emphasize their oppositional nature (e.g., Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003; Tart, 1975),
• Conceptualize spirituality as a broader phenomenon encompassing religiosity (e.g., Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005; Piedmont, 1999; Schnell, 2020).

The revised passage reads as follows:

“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, 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 (Piedmont 1999; Zinnbauer, Pargament, and Scott 1999), and its essence lies in the human quest for existential meaning, which may take both religious and secular forms (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 (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).

• Finally, as you acknowledge, the cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences about the relationship between these constructs. Exploring these relationships through longitudinal designs or with more diverse samples would significantly extend the impact of your findings.

Reply: We fully agree with this point. In the revised manuscript, we now explicitly address this limitation and suggest appropriate future research directions in the Limitations section (lines 471–478):

“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, the 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.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made the necessary adjustments to address the observations from the previous review, and the article is therefore ready for publication