Interpersonal Skills, Moral Intelligence and Readiness to Engage in Interreligious Dialogue in Poland

Abstract

In the face of advancing globalisation processes and intensified contacts between representatives of different cultures and religions, interreligious dialogue is becoming an important component of contemporary social coexistence. This article aims to establish a relationship between interpersonal skills, moral intelligence, and readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue among adult Poles. A total of 519 people aged 18 to 75 (M = 48.44; SD = 15.55) were surveyed. This study used the Readiness to Engage in Interreligious Dialogue Scale (TGDMVE), the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ-R) and the Moral Intelligence Quotient (MIQ). The results of the analyses indicated that, in terms of interpersonal competence, the strongest significant predictor of all five dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue was active concern for others. In terms of moral intelligence, it was the ability to recognise spiritual needs. The results may have significant practical implications for the areas of intercultural education, the prevention of xenophobic attitudes, and the building of social capital based on dialogue, trust, and respect.

1. Introduction

Poland constitutes a particularly compelling context for research on readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue. Roman Catholicism has a dominant role in shaping Polish moral frameworks and collective identity, often functioning as a key point of reference in periods of political in stability and social threat. The country’s historical experience is marked by successive and profoundly disruptive episodes, including the partitions in 1795–1918, the trauma of World War II and the Holocaust, and several decades of communist rule, each of which reconfigured relations between religious communities and reinforced boundary-making processes between “us” and “others.”

These historically embedded dynamics intersect today with new challenges related to religious and cultural diversity. In recent years, Polish society has faced intensified encounters with religious difference as a result of geopolitical processes, including the influx of refugees from Ukraine following Russia’s military aggression and the arrival of migrants at the Polish–Belarusian border, often framed in public discourse through the lens of security and threat. At the same time, this social and scape has also given rise to selected ecumenical and interfaith initiatives, including efforts aimed at Christian–Jewish dialogue, which provide an important, though not exhaustive, background for examining individual-level readiness to engage in interreligious encounters (Forum for Dialogue 2019).

In the context of advancing globalisation and intensifying contacts between representatives of different worldviews, interreligious dialogue is becoming an essential element in building a society based on mutual respect, cooperation and tolerance (Habermas 2020; Küng 1997). Apart from cultural, theological and political factors (Cornille 2008; Patel 2012), interreligious dialogue is also determined by individual predispositions, such as moral intelligence and interpersonal skills. However, relatively few attempts have been made to empirically examine the psychosocial predictors of an individual’s willingness to engage in this type of dialogue. Meanwhile, interpersonal skills and moral intelligence are two mutually reinforcing levels of social functioning, relating to relational and reflective-axiological aspects.

In the context of interreligious dialogue, interpersonal skills and moral intelligence are key resources that enable a constructive approach to differences, promote attitudes of openness and respect, and allow individuals not only to want to engage in dialogue but also to do so effectively (Abu-Nimer 1999; Borba 2001; Lennick and Kiel 2005).

Therefore, this article aims to examine the relationship between interpersonal skills, moral intelligence, and readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue. The study of these relationships enables us to fill the knowledge gap and provide valuable insights in areas such as intercultural education, preventive measures against radicalisation, and the design of effective social and moral development programmes.

2. Theoretical Assumptions

2.1. Interreligious Dialogue

The majority of Polish society identifies with the Catholic Church, resulting in a largely monolithic religious community. At the same time, it is undergoing intense sociocultural transformations, such as progressive globalisation, the development of cyberspace, educational and economic migration, secularisation, and, in recent months, the opening of the border to refugees from Ukraine, among many others. Psychologists empirically confirm the important role of positive experiences in intercultural social interactions in shaping interreligious openness and the ability to engage in interreligious dialogue.

According to Buber (1954) and Rogers ([1961]2002), a subjective approach to the other person, recognising their goals and treating them as a subject are key to establishing dialogue.

This approach relies on self-awareness, non-judgemental openness, and the ability to show emotional closeness. Researchers such as Feller and Ryan (2012) identify eight characteristics of dialogue that take into account cultural integrity and social cohesion, including: movement, encounters with others, holism, sharing, multigenerationality, assumption, coexistence, creativity and flexibility. According to Feller and Ryan (2012), the basic elements of dialogue are coexistence through shared creative and flexible thinking, encountering the ‘other,’ jointly exploring assumptions, and sharing experiences. The basic elements of entering into interreligious dialogue with other groups include understanding the customs, religion, culture and history of other groups, as well as mutual interest in the interaction partner (Rydz and Stawarz 2022). According to Gorsky and Caspi (2005, p. 140), this type of dialogue is ‘a discursive relationship between two participants, characterised by thought-provoking activities such as hypothesising, questioning, interpreting, explaining, evaluating and reconsidering the issues or problems at hand’. At the same time, it is important to respect the right to one’s own views, freedom and dignity (Łukaszyk 1979).

Taking into account the psycholinguistic definition of dialogue proposed by Clark (1996), Rydz and Bartczuk (Rydz et al. 2020) developed a definition of the construct of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue, understood as an individual’s mental readiness to initiate a conversation with a person of a different faith on religious matters. Four elements are key to this definition: (1) dyadicity, associated with a certain level of general interest in religion, (2) symmetry, related to tolerance and respect for others, acceptance of the rights of others and one’s own right to express and hold one’s own views, (3) understanding, taking into account the interests of others, the desire to understand and get to know them, (4) commitment, associated with positive motivation to work with people of other religions and reflecting a willingness to pursue common goals and take conscious action to achieve agreement (Rydz et al. 2020; Rydz and Stawarz 2022).

Research findings indicate that openness to religious diversity is linked to various social and subjective factors. Cognitive correlates of tolerance and religious openness are linked to openness and cognitive need (Watson et al. 2015), intellectual humility (Hook et al. 2017), and flexibility and open-mindedness (Gawali and Khattar 2016).

Research on the links between personal religiosity and openness to religious diversity has shown positive associations between quest-type religiosity, i.e., religiosity perceived as searching, reflective and open to doubt, and positive attitudes towards people outside one’s own religion and towards non-religious people (Van Tongeren et al. 2016).

A link was also found between religious complexity and positive attitudes towards members of foreign religious groups, reduced fear of such individuals, and decreased in-group preference (Sharp et al. 2019). The authors of the study employed two measures of religious complexity: integrative complexity (a way of thinking) and social identity complexity (a multithreaded social identity).

A study on the tolerance of young, educated Poles, conducted seven years apart (2009, 2016), noted an increase in the level of religious tolerance (Szczęch and Rostek 2016). Age and level of education were factors strongly correlated with religious tolerance. It was found that young, educated Poles are characterised by growing tolerance in all analysed dimensions: religious, ethnic, personal, as well as in terms of acceptance or indifference towards different views.

To summarise the review of research on interreligious openness and willingness to engage in dialogue with people of other faiths, it can be noted that previous analyses have focused mainly on subjective factors such as the cognitive abilities of the respondents, personality traits, identity structure, and level of personal religiosity. However, a research gap has been noted in the measurement of moral competence as a potential determinant of the ability to engage in interreligious dialogue.

To date, no research has been conducted on the role of interpersonal competence as a potential determinant of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue.

2.2. Interpersonal Competence and Moral Intelligence

Competence, regardless of the field, is usually defined as a set of three key elements: knowledge, skills, and attitudes that give human behaviour meaning and predictability in specific contexts. Interpersonal competence refers to the abilities related to effective communication and cooperation with others (Bobik 2020; Klinkosz et al. 2021). These include, among other things, knowledge of the principles of non-verbal communication, listening techniques, and group process psychology, as well as the ability to listen, build relationships with openness and respect for others. Interpersonal skills are not static but a dynamic combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Their definition emphasises the combination of theory and practice, which distinguishes them from mere knowledge or personality traits (Frania and Correia 2022). Interpersonal skills can be developed throughout one’s life, enabling individuals to succeed in both personal and professional development (Guzmán-Simón et al. 2017; Klinkosz et al. 2017).

Three main dimensions of interpersonal skills can be identified: effectiveness in dealing with specific interpersonal challenges and the ability to take appropriate action in a given situation, the range of interpersonal challenges that a person can effectively deal with, and satisfaction derived from interpersonal contacts and relationships and from social position (Frania and Correia 2022; Klinkosz et al. 2021).

Moral intelligence is defined as a person’s internal ‘compass’, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, to act in accordance with specific moral principles and norms, and to take responsibility for ethical decisions, and is becoming increasingly important (Dur et al. 2022; Fair and Fasko 2025; Matsimbe 2017). According to Lennick and Kiel (2005, p. 7), moral intelligence is ‘the mental capacity to determine how universal human principles should be applied to our personal values, goals, and actions.’ The uniqueness of this type of intelligence lies in its focus on values, ethical principles, and universal truths (Bezanjani et al. 2019; Mohammadi et al. 2020). According to Tanner and Christen (2014), important elements of moral intelligence include a moral compass, commitment, moral sensitivity, moral problem-solving, and moral assertiveness. The moral compass is sometimes described as a system of references relating to moral norms, beliefs, and values that form the basis for moral judgement and behaviour regulation. Moral commitment is associated with the ability to set priorities and achieve goals in accordance with moral norms. Moral sensitivity is sometimes defined as the ability to recognise and identify moral issues.

Solving moral problems involves the ability to develop and plan actions that lead to the resolution of conflicting dilemmas. Moral resolve refers to the ability to cultivate moral behaviour through consistent and courageous action in accordance with moral standards. Lennick and Kiel (2005) assume in their model that the key elements of moral intelligence are honesty, responsibility, forgiveness, and compassion. Honesty is associated with keeping promises, meeting deadlines, and fulfilling commitments. Responsibility is sometimes equated with taking responsibility for oneself and for one’s choices and decisions. Forgiveness is linked to tolerance of one’s mistakes and those of others (Lennick and Kiel 2011). Compassion means caring for others, their choices and goals, and showing them respect.

The psychological literature suggests a strong and positive correlation between interpersonal skills and moral intelligence (Staub 2013; Tanner and Christen 2014). Although both are distinct constructs, they are shaped throughout an individual’s life (Staub 2013). Although no model clearly indicates the relationship between them, it can be assumed that the relationship between interpersonal skills and moral intelligence may be bidirectional (da Silva dos Santos et al. 2024; Daud et al. 2023).

Moral intelligence can be shaped through lifelong, often ingrained experiences in interactions with others. It can be considered a form of cognitive representation of human experiences in relationships with other people. It has been noted that the relationship between interpersonal skills and moral intelligence may, however, be reversed in individuals at later stages of development (da Silva dos Santos et al. 2024; Schillinger 2006). Throughout an individual’s life, an increasingly better understanding of moral principles and social rules, which are the basis of moral intelligence, can help develop interpersonal skills in an ever-wider range of social situations (Prasertsin et al. 2024). Both adolescents and adults learn to use moral intelligence through school education and contact with peers (Clarken 2009; da Silva dos Santos et al. 2024; Jahandideh et al. 2023, at work (Załoga et al. 2019), or when fulfilling family responsibilities related to, among other things, raising children (Dacka 2025; Millum 2017).

Research indicates that moral intelligence promotes better social skills, such as empathy, conflict resolution, and interpersonal communication (Lapsley and Narvaez 2004), including students (Jahandideh et al. 2023. People with high levels of moral intelligence are more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviour and are able to cooperate effectively in social groups, which is crucial for functioning in various social environments (Hoffman 2000; Lapsley and Narvaez 2004; Prasertsin et al. 2024).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Gaps in the Literature and the Present Study

To date, no research has been conducted in Poland that would allow us to identify the relationships between social competence, moral intelligence, and readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue. Previous analyses have focused on the relationships between this readiness and cognitive openness, cognitive needs (Watson et al. 2015), open-mindedness (Gawali and Khattar 2016), intellectual humility (Hook et al. 2017), and identity styles (Rydz and Romaneczko 2022). The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between interpersonal competence, moral intelligence, and readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue among adults in Poland. The analyses examined which elements of interpersonal competence and which dimensions of moral intelligence are related to the readiness to engage in dialogue, taking into account the age of the respondents.

3.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses

In this context, the following research questions and corresponding hypotheses were formulated:

1a. Is there a statistically significant relationship between interpersonal skills and the dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue among adult Poles?

1b. Is there a statistically significant relationship between moral intelligence and the dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue among adult Poles?

2a. Are interpersonal skills a significant predictor of the dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue among adult Poles?

2b. Is moral intelligence a significant predictor of the dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue among adult Poles?

H1a: 

There is a significant relationship between interpersonal competence and its dimensions and the dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue.

H1b: 

There is a significant relationship between moral intelligence and its dimensions and the dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue.

H2a: 

Interpersonal skills are a significant predictor of the dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue among adult Poles.

H2b: 

Moral intelligence is a significant predictor of the dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue among adult Poles.

4. Procedure and Respondents

4.1. Participants

This study involved 519 participants aged 18 to 75 (M = 48.44; SD = 15.55); in almost equal age groups representing early adulthood (18–40 years; N = 172; 33%); middle adulthood (41–60 years; N = 173; 33.3%), and late adulthood (61–75 years; N = 174; 33.5%). Other socio-demographic variables are presented in

Table 1. Socio-demographic variables.

		N = 519
		n	%
Gender	Women	260	50.1
	Men	259	49.9
Marital status	Married	269	51.8
	Informal relationship	86	16.6
	Divorced/Single	30	5.8
	Divorced/Informal relationship	13	2.5
	Single	92	17.7
	Widowed	27	5.2
Education	Primary	3	0.6
	Lower secondary	2	0.4
	Vocational	55	10.6
	Secondary/Technical secondary	154	29.7
	Post-secondary	51	9.8
	Bachelor’s degree	61	11.8
	Master’s degree	187	36.0
	Doctoral degree	4	0.8
Place of residence	Rural	112	21.6
	Town with up to 10,000 inhabitants	28	5.4
	Town with over 10,000 inhabitants	136	26.2
	City with a population between 100,000 and 300,000 inhabitants	123	23.7
Religion	Roman Catholic	397	76.5
	None	52	10.0
	Atheist	41	7.9
	Agnostic	14	2.7
	Orthodox	5	1.0
	Buddhist	2	0.4
	Other	2	0.4

.

4.2. Data Collection

In June 2025, this study was conducted using a research panel. The sample consisted of individuals aged 18 to 75, in accordance with the assumption of purposive selection. The respondents received invitations to participate in this study, which included information about the research purpose, anonymity, and voluntary participation. The respondents completed individual online tests via the platform. The Research Ethics Committee of the Institute of Psychology at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin (KEBN_41/2025) approved the research project.

4.3. Research Methods

The Readiness to Engage in Interreligious Dialogue Test (REIDT-V, Rydz et al. 2020). The short version of the Readiness to Engage in Interreligious Dialogue Scale (TGDMVE) (Rydz and Bartczuk, forthcoming) consists of 25 items. Respondents provide answers on a scale from −3 (definitely not) to 3 (definitely yes). Dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue include: Readiness to Communicate on Religious Topics (RCRT), Readiness to Seek Mutual Understanding (RSMU), Personal Barriers to Dialogue Symmetry (PBSD), Readiness to Communicate with Followers of Other Religions (RCFO), and Involvement in Social Actions for Dialogue (ISAD). Readiness to Communicate on Religious Topics includes, among other things, initiating conversations and being open to religious issues. Readiness to Seek Mutual Understanding involves understanding the religious views of others. Personal Barriers to Dialogue Symmetry include difficulties in accepting views that differ from one’s own. Readiness to Communicate with Followers of Other Religions involves an interest in talking to people with different views. Involvement in Social Activities for Dialogue includes initiatives undertaken to promote dialogue with people of different faiths. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the scale is 0.87. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the individual subscales are: RCRT (0.87), RSMU (0.87), PBSD (0.85), RCFO (0.85), and ISAD (0.92).

The Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ-R) (Buhrmester et al. 1988, adapted in Polish by Klinkosz et al. 2017) was used in this study. Version A, a 40-item scale that incorporates the individual’s perspective, measures competence in terms of effective functioning in interpersonal relationships, particularly close relationships based on friendship or love. The questionnaire consists of five subscales: Relationship Initiation (RI) related to initiating interactions and interpersonal relationships; Assertive Influence (AI) related to asserting rights and assertive dissatisfaction; Self-Disclosure (SD) related to personal information about oneself; Emotional Support (ES) related to providing personal support to others; Conflict Resolution (CR) related to constructive resolution of interpersonal conflicts without criticism.

Respondents provide answers on a five-point scale, where 1 means ‘poor’ = they would feel very awkward and be unable to function in this situation; 5 means ‘excellent’ = they would feel very comfortable and be able to function very well in this situation. The questionnaire consists of five dimensions: initiating relationships, assertive influence, self-disclosure, emotional support, and conflict resolution. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0.84 to 0.92.

The Moral Intelligence Quotient (MIQ) (Code of Ethics, Lennick and Kiel 2005; adapted into Polish by Noworol 2021) consists of 40 items. Respondents provide answers on a five-point scale, where 0 means ‘never’ and 4 means ‘always’; the MIQ examines 10 moral intelligence factors: Integrity (consistent actions), Honesty (telling the truth), Courage (defending what is right), Trustworthiness (keeping promises, being trustworthy), Responsibility (taking responsibility for choices), Self-control and restraint (discipline, discretion, prudence), Helpfulness (helping others), Kindness (active concern for others), Empathy (recognizing other people’s feelings), Faith and Respect (recognizing spiritual needs). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the scale is0.94. For the individual subscales the reliability coefficient paraconsistent action are integrity (0.63), honesty (0.76), courage (0.70), trustworthiness (0.77), responsibility (0.77), self-control and restraint (0.58), helpfulness (0.70), kindness (0.70), empathy (0.51), and faith and respect (0.64).

The research metrics included data on socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, place of residence, and religion.

The analytical strategy presented below is based on the assumption that readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue is a complex, multidimensional construct, dependent on various psychological and social factors. Therefore, it was decided to apply multivariate analysis and regression sequentially to capture both the overall effects and the specific structure of the predictors for each of the TGDMVE dimensions. A particular emphasis was therefore placed on identifying the links between various aspects of psychosocial functioning, represented by the 10-dimensional moral intelligence (MIQ) and the five areas of interpersonal competence (ICQ-R), and the readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue (TGDMVE), as understood through its five dimensions.

The analyses began by examining the correlation between the TGDMVE dimensions and the MIQ and ICQ-R to identify which variables are generally related. The multivariate analysis (GLM) performed in the next step assesses the global significance of the set of predictors thus constructed, and the table of inter-object tests reveals which specific dimensions of TGDMVE are susceptible to a given predictor. The final linear regressions allow the unique significance of individual predictors to be extracted for each dimension.

5. Results

5.1. Preliminary Analyses

Student’s t-tests for independent samples were carried out to determine means and standard deviations, and to examine gender differences on individual dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue and on the dimensions of moral intelligence and social competence (the results are presented in

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for all respondents and for men and women separately (subscales calculated as item sums; TGDMVE: 6-point scale/−3; 3/, MIQ: 5-point scale/1; 5/, ICQ-R: 5-point scale /1; 5/).

			Gender
			Women		Men
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	p
TGDMVE*-RCRT	−3.1291	7.55474	−3.82	7.50	−2.44	7.56	−2.092	517	0.037 *
TGDMVE-RSMU	2.3487	7.40941	2.40	7.25	2.30	7.58	0.158	517	0.875
TGDMVE-PBSD	−6.6320	6.41137	−7.29	6.22	−5.97	6.54	−2.361	517	0.019 *
TGDMVE-RCFO	−1.6724	6.88268	−1.93	6.87	−1.41	6.90	−0.869	517	0.385
TGDMVE-ISAD	−6.3198	7.01170	−6.92	6.73	−5.72	7.24	−1.957	517	0.051
MIQ**-INT	14.2447	2.51326	14.53	2.38	13.96	2.62	2.613	517	0.005 **
MIQ-HON	15.1137	2.56284	15.49	2.42	14.73	2.64	3.407	517	0.001 ***
MIQ-COU	13.7649	2.78555	13.99	2.67	13.54	2.88	1.836	517	0.067
MIQ-REL	15.5453	2.69301	15.98	2.50	15.11	2.81	3.703	517	0.001 ***
MIQ-RES	15.0944	2.60841	15.37	2.46	14.81	2.72	2.450	517	0.015 *
MIQ-SCT	14.2794	2.35157	14.60	2.32	13.95	2.34	3.215	517	0.001 ***
MIQ-HLP	14.0135	2.64024	14.42	2.46	13.60	2.76	3.581	517	0.001 ***
MIQ-ACO	14.3873	2.65782	14.90	2.42	13.87	2.79	4.519	517	0.001 ***
MIQ-EMP	12.5453	2.15727	12.60	2.04	12.49	2.27	0.538	517	0.591
MIQ-SPN	13.7206	3.01300	13.99	2.91	13.45	3.10	2.065	517	0.039 *
ICQ-R***-IR	23.7264	6.38367	23.66	6.87	23.80	5.86	−0.246	505.08	0.806
ICQ-R-AS	26.5356	5.33856	26.70	5.28	26.37	5.40	0.702	517	0.483
ICQ-R-SD	22.1638	5.77056	22.11	5.98	22.22	5.56	−0.222	517	0.825
ICQ-R-ES	26.2563	5.66315	27.18	5.59	25.33	5.59	3.757	517	0.001 ***
ICQ-R-CR	25.6879	5.39187	26.05	5.24	25.33	5.52	1.519	517	0.129

TGDMVE*—Readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue; TGDMVE-RCRT—Readiness to communicate on religious topics; TGDMVE-RSMU—Readiness to seek mutual understanding; TGDMVE-PBSD—Personal barriers to symmetry in dialogue; TGDMVE–RCFO—Readiness to communicate with followers of other religions; TGDMVE-ISAD—Involvement in social activities promoting dialogue; MIQ**—Moral Intelligence Quotient; MIQ-INT—Consistent action (integrity, righteousness); MIQ-HON—Honesty (telling the truth); MIQ-COU—Courage (defending what is right); MIQ-REL—Reliability (keeping promises, trustworthiness); MIQ-RES—Responsibility (taking responsibility for choices); MIQ-SCT—Self-control and restraint (discipline, discretion, prudence); MIQ-HLP—Helpfulness (helping others); MIQ-ACO—Active concern for others (kindness and friendliness); MIQ-EMP—Recognising others’ feelings (politeness, courtesy, humility, courtesy, empathy); MIQ-SPN—Recognising spiritual needs (faith and respect); ICQ-R***—Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire; ICQ-R-IR—Initiating relationships; ICQ-R-AS—Assertive influence; ICQ-R-SD—Self-disclosure; ICQ-R-ES—Emotional support; ICQ-R-CR—Conflict resolution. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). Within the TGDMVE subscales, it can be seen that women scored significantly lower than men on the willingness to communicate about religious topics (M = −3.82 vs. −2.44, t(517) = −2.092, p = 0.037) and on personal barriers to symmetrical dialogue (M = −7.29 vs. −5.97, t(517) = −2.361, p = 0.019). For the MIQ, women scored higher on most subscales, including integrity, honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility, self-control and self-restraint, helpfulness, active concern for others, and recognition of spiritual needs—all with p values <0.05 and some with high levels of significance (p < 0.001). The differences were not found exclusively in the recognition of others’ feelings and courage. In terms of social competence (ICQ-R), the only significant difference was a higher degree of emotional support in women (M = 27.18 vs. 25.33), t(517) = 3.76, p < 0.001. The results enabled the preliminary identification of potential differences relevant for further analysis and informed the decision to include gender as a control variable. In view of the literature (Rydz et al. 2020; Rydz and Romaneczko 2022; Lubis and Sianipar 2022; Pasek et al. 2023), it was also decided to use a variable that determines the age of the respondents in a similar role.

This was followed by the calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients between all TGDMVE subscales and the dimensions of each scale, specifically the MIQ and ICQ-R. These analyses aimed to identify variables potentially related to different aspects of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue.

The results in

Table 3. Correlations between dimensions of TGDMVE and MIQ.

	MIQ-INT	MIQ-HON	MIQ-COU	MIQ-REL	MIQ-RES	MIQ-SCT	MIQ-HLP	MIQ-ACO	MIQ-EMP	MIQ-SPN
RCRT	0.274 ***	0.124 **	0.202 ***	0.045	0.063	0.111 *	0.194 ***	0.136 **	0.357 ***	0.255 ***
RSMU	0.310 ***	0.302 ***	0.192 ***	0.265 ***	0.260 ***	0.321 ***	0.297	0.244 ***	0.293 ***	0.358 ***
PBSD	−0.099	−0.238	−0.072	−0.260 ***	−0.214 ***	−0.111 *	−0.092 *	−0.161 ***	0.150 ***	−0.057
RCFO	0.284	0.216	0.219	0.120 **	0.175 ***	0.209 ***	0.234 ***	0.188 ***	0.307 ***	0.295 ***
ISAD	0.08	−0.059	0.118 **	−0.137 **	−0.03	0.052	0.139 ***	0.07	0.349 ***	0.211 ***

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

and

Table 4. Correlations between dimensions of TGDMVE and ICQ-R.

	ICQ-R-IR	ICQ-R-AS	ICQ-R-SD	ICQ-R-ES	ICQ-R-CR
RCRT	0.292 ***	0.314 ***	0.366 ***	0.292 ***	0.310 ***
RSMU	0.127 **	0.191 ***	0.114 *	0.221 ***	0.224 ***
PBSD	0.106 *	−0.019	0.236 ***	−0.032	0.002
RCFO	0.265 ***	0.252 ***	0.267 ***	0.304 ***	0.315 ***
ISAD	0.269 ***	0.141 **	0.311 ***	0.210 ***	0.231 ***

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

show statistically significant relations between the components of the different measures, demonstrating the variation in these relationships at the level of the different dimensions of the phenomena under study. The readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue appears here as a complex, multidimensional construct, indeed linked to numerous psychosocial factors. At the level of individual correlations, it can be seen that, with the MIQ, none of the TGDMVE dimensions achieved significant associations with all 10 MIQ components. However, one MIQ component, specifically EMP (i.e., recognition of others’ feelings), achieved statistically significant associations across the 5 TGDMVE subscales. The correlation table of the TGDMVE and ICQ-R dimensions is very clear in this respect, with four of the five components of the former scale having a statistically significant relationship with all five ICQ-R subscales (mostly at p < 0.001), and two ICQ-R subscales (IR—initiating relationships; SD—self-disclosure) being correlated with all TGDMVE dimensions.

5.2. Results of Multivariate GLM Analysis

The multivariate general linear model (GLM) was employed to examine the impact of the selected predictors on the five dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue as measured by the TGDMVE. The model was statistically significant (Pillai’s trace = 0.149; F(5, 497) = 17.388; p < 0.001), with a partial coefficient of determination η² = 0.149 for the whole model. The predictors explained between 16.7% and 26.3% of the variance in the individual dependent variables. The highest value of adjusted R² was obtained for the subscale of ‘Involvement in social dialogue activities’ [ISAD] (26.3%), the lowest for ‘Willingness to seek mutual understanding’ [RSMU] (16.7%).

Analysis of multivariate tests (

Table 5. Multivariate analysis for predictor effects in the GLM (dependent variables: RCRT, RSMU, PBSD, RCFO, ISAD).

Predictor	Pillai’s Trace	F	p	η2Partial
Stable	0.149	170.39	<0.001	0.149
Gender	0.008	0.83	0.532	0.008
MIQ-INT	0.038	30.90	0.002 **	0.038
MIQ-HON	0.043	40.51	<0.001 ***	0.043
MIQ-COU	0.039	40.07	0.001 **	0.039
MIQ-REL	0.041	40.28	<0.001 ***	0.041
MIQ-RES	0.024	20.40	0.036 *	0.024
MIQ-SCT	0.027	20.78	0.017 *	0.027
MIQ-HLP	0.006	0.63	0.680	0.006
MIQ-ACO	0.038	30.86	0.002 **	0.038
MIQ-EMP	0.076	80.19	<0.001 ***	0.076
MIQ-SPN	0.054	50.65	<0.001 ***	0.054
ICQ-R-IR	0.019	10.90	0.093	0.019
ICQ-R-AS	0.030	30.10	0.009 **	0.030
ICQ-R-SD	0.060	60.34	<0.001 ***	0.060
ICQ-R-ES	0.015	10.54	0.175	0.015
ICQ-R-CR	0.005	0.46	0.780	0.005
Age	0.017	10.71	0.130	0.017

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

) revealed that statistically significant effects were shown for 9 of the 10 MIQ components as predictors, including with the strongest effect: recognition of others’ feelings, MIQ-EMP (η²partial = 0.076, p < 0.001), recognition of spiritual needs, MIQ-SPN (η²partial = 0.054, p < 0.001), honesty/telling the truth, MIQ-HON (η²partial = 0.043, p < 0.001), and trustworthiness MIQ-REL (η²partial = 0.041, p < 0.001). Among the components of the interpersonal competence scale, a significant effect was obtained for the variable related to self-disclosure, ICQ-R-SD (η²partial = 0.060, p < 0.001) and assertive interaction, ICQ-R-AS (η²partial = 0.030, p = 0.000). Other variables, including gender and age, did not reach sufficient statistical significance.

Further analysis of between-subject effects (

Table 6. Between-subjects effects tests—impact of independent variables on each dependent variable separately.

Dependent Variable	Predictor	F	p	η2Partial
RCRT	MIQ-INT	10.87	0.001	0.021
	MIQ-RES	4.48	0.035	0.009
	MIQ-ACO	13.22	<0.001	0.026
	MIQ-EMP	16.39	<0.001	0.032
	MIQ-SPN	4.87	0.028	0.010
	ICQ-R-SD	10.92	0.001	0.021
RSMU	MIQ-HON	5.13	0.024	0.010
	MIQ-COU	7.58	0.006	0.015
	MIQ-SCT	6.86	0.009	0.014
	MIQ-ACO	6.57	0.011	0.013
	MIQ-SPN	15.70	<0.001	0.030
PBSD	MIQ-HON	6.54	0.011	0.013
	MIQ-ACO	10.46	0.001	0.020
	MIQ-EMP	24.43	<0.001	0.047
	ICQ-R-SD	20.56	<0.001	0.039
RCFO	MIQ-ACO	11.78	<0.001	0.023
	MIQ-HON	4.20	0.041	0.008
	MIQ-SPN	10.98	<0.001	0.021
	Age	6.77	0.010	0.013
ISAD	MIQ-REL	15.20	<0.001	0.029
	MIQ-EMP	21.41	<0.001	0.041
	MIQ-SPN	13.01	<0.001	0.025
	MIQ-ACO	8.56	0.004	0.017
	ICQ-R-IR	4.20	0.041	0.008
	Age	4.37	0.037	0.009

The table includes only predictors that reached p < 0.05 in the between-subjects effects analysis.

) identified which dependent variables were sensitive to which predictors. It is noteworthy that all areas of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue of the TGDMVE were found to have predictors in a minimum of three and a maximum of six areas of MIQ. Active concern for others (MIQ-ACO) showed significant effects in all, and the recognition of spiritual needs (MIQ-SPN) in four of the five dependent variables analysed, which may suggest their particular importance in shaping attitudes related to willingness to engage in interreligious dialogue. The same was true for honesty (MIQ-HON) and recognising the feelings of others (MIQ-EMP), with which significant effects were recorded for the three TGDMVE dimensions. The only area of moral intelligence that did not demonstrate any significant effect with any of the TGDMVE dimensions is helpfulness (MIQ-HLP).

5.3. Results of Regression Analyses

To confirm and refine the results of the GLM analyses, linear regression analyses were performed for each of the five dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue (TGDMVE). The results of the regression analysis (show in

Table 7. Linear regression—aggregated results for predictors of individual dimensions of TGDMVE.

Variable	B	SE	β	T	p
RCRT F(17.501) = 10.951, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.271, adjusted R2 = 0.246
MIQ-INT	0.664	0.201	0.221	3.297	0.001
MIQ-RES	−0.475	0.224	−0.164	−2.117	0.035
MIQ-ACO	−0.775	0.213	−0.273	−3.636	<0.001
MIQ-EMP	0.795	0.196	0.227	4.048	<0.001
MIQ-SPN	0.313	0.142	0.125	2.207	0.028
ICQ-R-SD	0.258	0.078	0.197	3.305	0.001
RSMU F(17.501) = 7.113, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.194, adjusted R2 = 0.167
MIQ-HON	0.521	0.230	0.180	2.266	0.024
MIQ-COU	−0.478	0.174	−0.180	−2.752	0.006
MIQ-SCT	0.529	0.202	0.168	2.619	0.009
MIQ-ACO	−0.563	0.220	−0.202	−2.563	0.011
MIQ-SPN	0.579	0.146	0.236	3.962	<0.001
PBSD F(17.501) = 8.448, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.223, adjusted R2 = 0.196
MIQ-HON	−0.500	0.195	−0.200	−2.557	0.011
MIQ-ACO	−0.604	0.187	−0.250	−3.235	0.001
MIQ-EMP	0.851	0.172	0.286	4.943	<0.001
Age	0.310	0.068	0.279	4.535	<0.001
RCFO F(17.501) = 7.825, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.210, adjusted R2 = 0.183
MIQ-HON	0.434	0.212	0.161	2.049	0.041
MIQ-ACO	−0.694	0.202	−0.268	−3.432	<0.001
MIQ-SPN	0.446	0.135	0.195	3.314	<0.001
Age	−0.051	0.020	−0.115	−2.602	0.010
ISAD F(17.501) = 11.883, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.287, adjusted R2 = 0.263
MIQ-REL	−0.852	0.219	−0.327	−3.899	<0.001
MIQ-ACO	−0.572	0.195	−0.217	−2.926	0.004
MIQ-EMP	0.834	0.180	0.257	4.627	<0.001
MIQ-SPN	0.470	0.130	0.202	3.607	<0.001
ICQ-R-IR	0.158	0.077	0.143	2.048	0.041
Age	−0.040	0.019	−0.088	−2.091	0.037

The table includes only predictors that reached p < 0.05 in linear regression analysis.

) enabled the unique contribution of individual predictors to be extracted for each dimension.

The linear regression analyses conducted for the individual TGDMVE dimensions treated as dependent and the MIQ and ICQ-R dimensions (as independent) indicate that the most frequent significant predictor of the individual dimensions of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue was the MIQ-ACO variable (active concern for others), present as a predictor in all five TGDMVE dimensions, with its effect always being negative. This means that the stronger the kindness and friendliness, the lower the level of willingness to engage in dialogue, and the lower the personal barriers to symmetrical dialogue. Among the important positive predictors were also MIQ-SPN (the recognition of spiritual needs, in 4 out of 5 dimensions) and MIQ-EMP (the recognition of feelings in others, in 3 out of 5 dimensions). MIQ is also a predictor. MIQ-HON (honesty, in 3 out of 5 dimensions) and ICQ-R-SD trend towards lower willingness to dialogue as age increases.

6. Discussion

This study aimed to determine which interpersonal skills and moral intelligence domains predict readiness for interreligious dialogue. Based on the existing literature (Pasek et al. 2023; Rydz et al. 2020; Szczęch and Rostek 2016), it was hypothesised that these factors would be associated with interreligious dialogue readiness, although research specifically addressing these linkages, particularly considering the age of the participants, has been lacking. This study was designed to address this gap. Initial correlation analyses indicated that these variables are indeed interconnected. More detailed analyses utilising linear regression demonstrated that selected interpersonal skills and specific domains of moral intelligence contribute most to interreligious dialogue readiness.

The relationships between interpersonal competence and all aspects of readiness for interreligious dialogue were from low to moderate. Notably, initiating and self-disclosure were correlated with all measured aspects of readiness for interreligious dialogue. Readiness for dialogue, including interreligious dialogue, presupposes the ability to initiate relationships with others and to disclose one’s views and feelings in those interactions (Kakarla 2025). This result suggests that interpersonal competence forms a universal, foundational platform for engaging in dialogue, a symmetrical relationship that requires basic skills in initiating and maintaining contact (Kakarla 2025; Sarwari et al. 2018). Associations between readiness for interreligious dialogue and various aspects of moral intelligence were fewer in number and fell within the low to moderate correlation range.

Further analysis using linear regression revealed a surprising and paradoxical result: active concern for others, treated as an indicator of interpersonal kindness and friendliness, was the strongest significant negative predictor of all five dimensions of readiness for interreligious dialogue within the domain of interpersonal competence. To better understand this outcome, attention must be drawn to the content of the subscale items (Lennick and Kiel 2005). The majority of these items (three out of four) pertain to relationships with emotionally close individuals within the participant’s affiliative space. This focus may favour the measurement of particularistic empathy rather than sociocentric empathy, i.e., sensitivity centred on maintaining the quality of bonds with emotionally significant people, rather than openness toward strangers or other groups (Brugeron et al. 2023; Han 2022). This can be interpreted through the lens of the parochial empathy concept (Bruneau et al. 2015), which describes the selective tendency to direct empathy, understood as vicariously feeling or understanding others’ emotions primarily toward in-group members, coupled with a simultaneous reduction in empathic sensitivity towards out-group individuals. This concept highlights a specific stance where individuals may be empathetic and caring, but the scope of their empathy is restricted to a social circle perceived as ‘us’, emotionally close, and limited (Bruneau et al. 2015; Cikara et al. 2017).

In situations where the boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ have a strong moral dimension, as in the context of religious differences, empathy towards strangers may be inhibited by the motive to protect the in-group’s moral identity. Research indicates that strong group identification is associated with empathy asymmetry, where the emotional response to the suffering of an in-group member is more intense than that towards an out-group representative (Bruneau et al. 2015; Han 2022; Zaki 2014). Consequently, it is not the mere presence of empathy, but the difference between in-group and out-group empathy (the parochial empathy gap effect) that best predicts attitudes towards out-groups (Behler and Berry 2022; Bruneau et al. 2015; Han 2022).

From this perspective, the negative association between active concern and readiness for interreligious dialogue can be interpreted as an indicator of the empathy gap effect. Therefore, active concern for others is not a sufficient predictor of dialogue; the key lies in extending the reach of empathy beyond the circle of close relationships and one’s own group, which can be viewed as an element of human moral and social development (Arceneaux 2017; Fuchs 2019).

Within the domain of moral intelligence, the most important predictor of interreligious dialogue readiness was the ability to recognise spiritual needs. This aspect of moral intelligence was linked to most of the dimensions of readiness for interreligious dialogue. Although specific religious practices differ, fundamental spiritual needs (e.g., the pursuit of peace, justice, meaning, love) are universal across all doctrines (Andrabi 2020; Khalid and Lopez 2023). Interreligious dialogue, therefore, is not just about comparing doctrines, but primarily about the encounter of individuals, each striving to satisfy basic spiritual needs such as the need for meaning in life, hope, belonging, transcendence, value, or peace. Recognising these universal needs in another person, regardless of their specific religious tradition, allows one to see them not as the ‘other’ with different beliefs, but as a human being seeking similar fundamental values. This perspective establishes common ground for conversation, transcending dogmatic differences, and enables the dialogue to focus on shared goals (e.g., cooperation for peace, social justice, and human rights) (Andrabi 2020; Widiyanto 2023).

Other predictors for three out of five dimensions of readiness for interreligious dialogue included recognising the feelings of others and honesty. The ability to recognise the feelings of others, as a key component of empathy, fosters attitudes based on understanding and openness towards individuals representing different religious beliefs (Davis 1994; Hoffman 2000). Honesty, a core element of moral intelligence, supports authenticity and consistency of attitudes, which is fundamental to constructive participation in interreligious dialogue (Borba 2001; Lennick and Kiel 2005). Both traits support the ability to build relationships based on trust and respect, which are essential in the context of intercultural exchange and are important elements of moral intelligence. Self-disclosure was a predictor for two out of five dimensions of readiness for interreligious dialogue. It is a key element in building trust and closeness in relationships, and a resource that motivates individuals to overcome religious barriers and differences. A willingness to discuss differences first requires a readiness to discuss oneself and disclose one’s views (Matera and Catania 2021).

Including age in the regression analysis indicated a significant, though small, association with readiness for interreligious dialogue. The strength of this effect was negative, meaning that readiness for interreligious dialogue decreases with age. At least two mechanisms can explain this. The first hypothesis pertains to changes in cognitive development, specifically a decline in cognitive flexibility over time, in relation to the need to maintain a sense of personal identity. In the last decade of life, cognitive flexibility resources significantly decrease, which is associated with cognitive ageing. These changes may lead to increased rigidity in thinking and a tendency to perceive religion and the world in black-and-white terms, which is contradictory to the nature of dialogue, requiring the acknowledgement of multiple perspectives (Amelchenko et al. 2023; Gainski 2022; Gopnik et al. 2017; Lubis and Sianipar 2022; Rydz et al. 2020). With age, people consolidate their cognitive schemas, including those about faith and their religious identity, making their views more resistant to change and external information. Interreligious dialogue, conversely, requires a temporary suspension of one’s schemas to adopt another person’s perspective (Cornille 2008; Rydz et al. 2020). Another explanation for this finding is the assumption of terror management theory (Routledge and Vess 2018), which posits that the motivation to defend one’s identity and beliefs increases with age. If religious affiliation is central to some people’s identity, interreligious dialogue may be perceived not as an exchange but as an attempt to undermine the foundations of one’s identity (Vail et al. 2010). It should, however, be emphasised that, despite the association between older age and lower readiness for interreligious dialogue, the effect size of this influence was not strong.

This study has several limitations. This study was cross-sectional and based on regression analyses, which allow for the identification of significant predictors but do not enable causal inferences. While the sample was not weighted to reflect the demographic structure of the Polish population, the generalizability of the results is limited. The use of self-report methods alone carries the risk of common method variance and the influence of social desirability. Furthermore, limiting the sample to adult Poles narrows the possibility of generalising the results to other cultural and religious contexts. One limitation of this study is that the sample was not weighted to match the demographic structure of the Polish population. As the aim was to analyze relationships between psychosocial constructs rather than population estimates, post-stratification weighting was not applied. Therefore, the generalizability of the findings may be limited. The use of a quantitative approach alone does not allow for a deeper understanding of the meanings attributed to interreligious dialogue and the individual motivations of the respondents.

The special role of active concern for others as a predictor of all dimensions of readiness for dialogue emphasises the importance of empathy, prosocial motivation and the ability to regulate interpersonal relationships. In turn, the importance of the ability to recognize spiritual needs points to the role of a reflective and cognitively sensitive approach to the existential and worldview experiences of others.

7. Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that interpersonal skills and aspects of moral intelligence play a significant role in predicting the readiness of adult Poles for interreligious dialogue, whereas the influence of age was small. This means that readiness for interreligious dialogue is more closely related to psychological competencies than to demographic factors. Knowing the psychological underpinnings of readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue may help to develop sensitivity to cultural and religious diversity in the pluralistic world through workshops and discussions on moral dilemmas, social initiatives like discussion panels and cultural events in local communities. The skills related to dialogue readiness are particularly useful in the era of military and religious conflicts. Therefore, developing skills which underlie readiness to engage in interreligious dialogue from the very beginning of schooling could become one of the most important educational goals. The necessity of fostering openness to other viewpoints, interpersonal skills and intercultural competences beginning in early childhood is widely affirmed by various authors and scientific organizations, both in Poland and globally (Linka 2025; Smoter 2018; Nikitorowicz 2019; Kochanowska 2023; UNESCO 2013), as it contributes to reducing prejudice and strengthening prosocial forms of social functioning.