Crack in the Matrix Solutions

Quantitative Assessment of Religious Affiliation, Political Orientation, and Strength of Belief in God on the Spiritual Discernment Scale:  Spiritual Discernment Profiles

Robert L. Benefield                                                             Frederick L. Newman

East Texas Baptist University                   and                 Florida International University

        Abstract

 Two hundred and sixty participants completed the online version of the Spiritual Discernment Survey (SDS), a detailed demographic section, and open-ended questions regarding the participant’s personal spiritual discernment experiences.  In an effort to obtain a suitable confirmatory fit analysis, indicators (survey items) with the least reliability were deleted within each factor, then factor means score for each of the seven factors and an overall SDS score were obtained.  The regression of these seven factor mean scores with the overall score was now found to be .99 (as a result of the four items being dropped).  A MANOVA indicated a significant effect of political orientation on the total SDS score and six of the factors.  Liberals and conservatives were significantly different on the following factors:  1) distinguishing good from evil, 2) God communicating with the participant, 3) the nature of God revealed, 4) God initiating overt behavior, 5) discernment has prerequisites, and 6) new age spiritual concepts.  A MANOVA indicated a significant effect of strength of belief in God on the total SDS scores and five of the factors.  Participants with no/weak vs. strong faith were found to differ on these factors: 1) distinguishing good and evil, 2) God communicating with the participant, 3) nature of God revealed, 4) God initiating overt action, and 5) has prerequisites.  A MANOVA and Between-Subjects ANOVAs indicated a significant effect of religious affiliation on the total SDS scores and six of the factors.  Participants who were not affiliated with any religion (and sometimes Catholics and Other) tended to disagree with these notions regarding spiritual discernment: 1) distinguishing good and evil, 2) God communicating, 3) nature of God revealed, 4) God initiating overt behavior, and 5) has prerequisites.  However, groups with no religious affiliation agreed with idea that (6) New Age concepts are part of spiritual discernment activities. On the other hand, participants who were Baptist (and often Other Protestant) agreed with factors 1-5 above and disagreed with New Age concepts.  It was determined using a factor analysis model, that a suitable model could be generated if one factor was dropped from the analysis.  Hence, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the remaining six factor means.  Two factors resulted from this analysis—Factor 1:  Good versus Evil, How God Communicates, Nature of God revealed, God Initiates Behavior, and Prerequisites to Discernment and Factor 2: New Age Spirits.  Regression analyses were conducted on two demographic measures: political orientation and strength of belief in God.  All six factors related to the Political Orientation measure.  Examination of the Strength of Belief in God factor (higher score indicates stronger belief) revealed that only two factors were correlated with this demographic variable.  The How God Communicates factor produced an r = +.576 and the Nature of God factor produced an r = +.610.  Results are discussed in the framework of spiritual profiles based on choice of religion, political orientation and faith of believe in God or Creative Source.

 Email me @ rbenefield@etbu.edu for a copy of this paper.

Quantitative Assessment of Religious Affiliation, Political Orientation, and Strength of Belief in God on the Spiritual Discernment Scale: Spiritual Discernment Profiles

The topic of spiritual discernment has had a long history--including discernment practices taught by Ignatius Loyola, the 16^th century Spanish founder of the Jesuits (see Harbaugh, 2001; Wolff, 2003; Gallagher, 2005; Brackely; 2004). One notable systematic scientific examination of spiritual discernment was Howards (2000) Affirming the Touch of God: A Psychological and Philosophical Exploration of Christian Discernment, which includes a detailed examination of the concept from the perspective of psychology. Discernment as defined by Howard (2000) is the affectively-rich process and act of coming to identify and know in a given situation, in the light of ones Christian faith tradition, that which is significantly related to God (or significantly not related to God). Discernment is generally thought of as a gift from God that helps you differentiate between good and evil or demonic and Godly things. The Spiritual Discernment Survey (SDS) was developed and constructed based on the commonalities found in a compilation of hundreds of definitions and thousands of characteristics ascribed to the concept of spiritual discernment derived from a variety of sources (Benefield and Newman, 2007). The following represent a sample of the definitions of spiritual discernment by category:

• The affectively-rich process and act of coming to identify and know in a given situation, in the light of ones Christian faith tradition, that which is significantly related to God (or significantly not related to God). {Howard (2000)}
• A gift of the Holy Spirit through which we come to know Gods willfor us. {Pike (2003); Reeves (2001); Wolff (2003)}
  • The gift that allows believers to examine natural or spiritual actions, doctrines, or practices to determine whether they are good or evil. {Cox (2004); Elliott (2002); VanDruff (2005)
  • The prayerful and intentional effort to listen for Gods call to distinguish it from all of the other voices. {Breuer (2005); Brogden (2005); Job (1996)}
  • An innate tool through which people within or outside of any faith tradition can receive inner guidance as to what is theirs to do to demonstrate their highest purpose. {Peterson and Goor (2005); Longman (2004); Proctor (2005);
  • Healing consciousness. {Goldsmith and Sinkler (2003); Purdy (2002)}

The two most common themes in the compilation of definitions were: 1) discernment involves some sort of discrimination or differentiation between good and evil or Gods will and not Gods will and 2) the power or process of being guided or directed by God (or the Holy Spirit) regarding decision-making or personal choices to be made.

Likewise, the following represent a sample of the characteristics ascribed to spiritual discernment by category:

• Intuition/ Internal Clarity/ Intellect/ Decision-making/ Intellectual process of analysis and application of Bible principles/ Inclusion of rational considerations/ Not rational problem solving/ Enables one to make correct decisions
• PrayerLifting our minds and hearts to God/ Hearing with the heart/ Quietness and prayer/ Open communication with God/ Desire to know the will of God/ Receptivity/ Listening--reflection, meditation, and prayer
• Patience/ Peaceful Imagination or Ignatian Discernment/ Humility, inner stillness, and love/ Love/ Gratitude/ / Trust/ Absence of anxiety, uneasiness, and unhappiness/ Longings or Deepest Yearnings/ Sense of harmony
• Distinguishing false spirits from the divine/ Distinguishing good from evil/ Distinguishing truth from error/ Screening out error from our minds/ Commitment to doing the will of God/ Careful listening to the Spirit
• Willingness to participate actively/ Assessment of gifts or talents/ A proactive, co-creative relationship with Source/ De-glorifying the personal sense of self
• Knowing our destination or vocation/calling
• Acute sensitivity to spiritual impressions/ Application of the five senses/6^th sense
• Knowing the thoughts and intents of the hearts of other persons
• Receiving a Word of Knowledge/ Enlightens the Scriptures/ Directs us to Scripture

As described in Benefield and Newman (2007), this compilation of definitions and characteristics resulted in the construction of the original version of the SDS consisting of 65 Likert-scale items. Each item was directly related to the most commonly cited features regarding the nature and definition of spiritual discernment. The Cronbachs alpha for the original SDS 65-item scale was .82. The items were organized into these nine major categories:

1. Spiritual discernment as the ability to discriminate good versus evil5 items
2. The nature of spiritual discernment as a God-given gift or learned ability6 items
3. The nature of evil or Satanic power4 items
4. How God communicates (audible voice vs. non-audible means of communication)12 items
5. The inclusion of new age, extraterrestrials, and other non-religious spiritual issues as components of spiritual discernment7 items
6. Beliefs about God and the nature of God revealed16 items
7. Spiritual discernment as the ability to be aware of the motives and intentions of other persons2 items
8. The role of spiritual discernment regarding God initiating overt verbal and nonverbal behaviors6 items
9. What prerequisites are necessary or what qualifications persons must have in order to utilize spiritual discernment7 items

Pilot testing and exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the major vectors describing the ascribed characteristics of spiritual discernment and the relationship the factors had with each other. This analysis resulted in two factors (numbers 3 and 7 above) and 12 items being dropped from the original scale. This resulted in the production of seven factors which were combined to produce a total SDS score (Benefield and Newman, 2007). In that pilot study, three demographic variables were shown to impact at least five of the factors and the total score: education level, religious affiliation, and political orientation.

Using the revised (7 factor) SDS, Benefield, Newman, and Shaffer (2008) reported further quantitative analyses and additional qualitative analysis of surveys of college students, initial data obtained from the SDS website https://www.etbu.edu/php/sds/survey.html, personal interviews, and content analysis of online recordings of prophecy and messages. In the quantitative portion of this study, factor scores, total scores, and item analyses were examined as a function of the participants self-reported gender, ethnicity, frequency of God communicating, strength of belief in God, religious affiliation, and political orientation. Analysis of variance indicated that these demographic variables significantly impacted several of the factors and total score. Specific effects of these demographic variables were noted in an item analysis of the survey items. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended question on the SDS (asking participants to list the ways God has communicated with them) and content analysis of online recordings of prophecy and messages produced a frequency distribution of the most common spiritual discernment experiences.

Benefield and Belknap (2010) replicated the quantitative findings of the previous studies and continued the qualitative analysis of blogs and websites. It was shown that quantitative analysis could be used to generate spiritual discernment profiles (based on factor scores) as a function of two demographic factors: religious affiliation, and political orientation of the participant. Findings of this study were interpreted in light of Barrett (2009), indicating that rigid beliefs and bias in thinking may serve to limit a persons spiritual discernment experiences. That is, even in the area of spiritual guidance, human bias may limit what humans experience spiritually. The current study utilizes all the data obtained online since 2007. The current study further examines the impact of religious affiliation, political orientation, and strength of belief in God on SDS factors and total scores and uses an exploratory factor analysis to generate a suitable six factor model of spiritual discernment. Furthermore, regression analysis was conducted on demographic measures.

Method

Participants

Participants for this research were 260 members of a convenience sample who voluntarily completed the online Spiritual Discernment Survey (https://www.etbu.edu/php/sds/survey.html) between July 2007 and July 2011.

Instrumentation

The revised version of the SDS (see Benefield and Newman, 2007) consisted of 53 Likert-scale items directly related to commonly cited features regarding the nature and definition of spiritual discernment, a detailed demographic section, and open-ended questions regarding the participants personal spiritual discernment experiences. Appendix one shows the seven factors, standardized alphas and the scale items from which these factors are derived.

Procedure

Surveys were completed anonymously and with the assistance of the Instructional Technology Department were compiled for statistical analysis by the primary researcher. No participants were remunerated for participation. Quantitative analysis was conducted using SPSS 18.0 and AMOS 19.0

to refine the factors and to examine each factor and total scores as a function of several demographic variables.

Results

Reliability coefficients and intracorrelation coefficients were computed for each of the seven SDS factors, resulting in the following:

Factor Name Reliability Coefficient Intracorrelation Coefficient

GVE (Good vs. Evil) .786 .792

GLA (Gift or Learned Ability) .420 .418

HGC (How God Communicates) .811 .822

NAS (New Age Spirits) .804 .805

NOG (Nature of God) .660 .668

IOB (God Initiates Overt Behavior) .727 .724

PTD (Perquisites to Discernment) .699 .695

A confirmatory analysis was conducted on the seven factors on the 53-item scale (see below). However, we were not able to find an admissible fit of the data to the model. When factor PTD was omitted, an admissible fit was obtained but the fit statistics were extremely poor.

In an effort to obtain a suitable confirmatory fit analysis, indicators (survey items) with the least reliability were deleted within each factor. The following revisions to the factors were created:

Factor Items Deleted

GVE (Good vs. Evil) None

GLA (Gift or Learned Ability) None

HGC (How God Communicates) None

NAS (New Age Spirits) None

NOG (Nature of God revealed) Questions 6 and 48

IOB (God Initiates Overt Behavior) Question 31

PTD (Perquisites to Discernment) Question 26

Thus, a factor means score for each of the seven factors and an overall SDS score based on 49 items (of the original 53) were obtained. The regression of these seven factor mean scores with the overall score was now .99 as a result of the four items being dropped. The revised factors are now referred to as NOGA, IOBA, and PTDA in the remaining analyses, but in all instances the initials will be represented by the factor title, e.g., Good vs. Evil, Gift or Learned Ability, How God Communicates, and so forth. The revised total SDS score is now called SDSMEANA representing SDS Mean Score.

A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) examined the impact of the group variable political orientation (very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative, and very conservative on the seven factors and the total SDS Mean score. The Wilks Lambda F-test indicated a significant effect of this factor on the total SDSMEANA scores (F=7.209; p<.001). The partial eta squared value (.167) indicated a moderate effect size.

Tests of Between Subjects Effects noted significant effects for the six factors and total SDS mean:

GVE F= 11.099; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.148)

HGC F= 5.953; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.085)

NAS F= 16.311; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.204)

NOGA F= 25.915; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.289)

IOBA F= 12.794; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.167)

PTDA F= 27.178; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.299)

SDAMEANA F= 10.393; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.140)

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Good vs. Evil (GVE) Factor:

• Very Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Very Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Moderate vs. Very Conservative (p<.01)

In general, the more politically liberal participants disagreed or agreed less with the idea that spiritual discernment allows one to distinguish good from evil. The more politically conservative participants, agreed with the idea that spiritual discernment permits one to differentiate good versus evil.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the How God Communicates (HGC) Factor:

• Very Liberal vs. Moderate (p<.02)
• Very Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.01)
• Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.02)

In general, the more politically liberal participants disagreed or agreed less with statements that exemplify God communicating with the participant and the more conservative participants agreed with the statements.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the New Age Spirits (NAS) Factor:

• Very Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Very Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.01)
• Moderate vs. Conservative (p<.001)

In general, the liberal and moderate participants, agreed with new age spiritual concepts and the more conservative participants, agreed less or disagreed with such concepts.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Nature of God (NOGA) Factor:

• Very Liberal vs. Moderate (p<.001)
• Very liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Very liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Moderate (p<.01)
• Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Moderate vs. Very Conservative (p<.05)

In general, the more politically liberal and moderate participants disagreed or agreed less with statements regarding the nature of God and the more conservative participants agreed with these statements.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the God Initiates Overt Behavior (IOBA) Factor:

• Very Liberal vs. Moderate (p<.01)
• Very Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Very Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Moderate (p<.01)
• Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)

In general, the more politically liberal participants disagreed or agreed less with statements regarding God initiating overt behavior and the moderate and more conservative participants agreed with these statements.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Prerequisites to Discernment (PTDA) Factor:

• Very Liberal vs. Moderate (p<.01)
• Very Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Very Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Moderate vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Moderate vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)

In general, the politically liberal and moderate participants disagreed or agreed less with statements regarding there being prerequisites to discernment and the more conservative participants agreed with these statements.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Total SDS Mean (SDSMEANA) Score:

• Very Liberal vs. Moderate (p<.01)
• Very Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Very Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Conservative (p<.001)
• Liberal vs. Very Conservative (p<.01)

In general, the more politically liberal participants disagreed or agreed less with statements regarding spiritual discernment and the more conservative participants tend to agree with these statements.

In sum, participants with conservative political views tended to differ from participants with more liberal political views regarding these six factors and the total SDS score. Conservative political views are associated with agreement with the characteristics ascribed to spiritual discernment.

A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) examined the impact of the group variable strength of belief in God (very strong, strong, weak, very weak, and none) on the seven factors and the total SDS score. The Wilks Lambda F-test indicated a significant effect of this factor on the total SDS Mean (SDSMEANA) scores (F=4.390; p<.001). The partial eta squared value (.129) indicated a moderate effect size.

Tests of Between Subjects Effects noted significant effects on the following five factors and the total SDS mean:

GVE F= 4.293; p< .002 (Partial Eta Squared =.066)

HGC F= 20.043; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.249)

NOGA F= 25.321; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.295)

IOBA F= 10.853; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.152)

PTDA F= 9.154; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.126)

SDSMEANA F= 18.321; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.232)

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Good vs. Evil (GVE) Factor:

• Very Strong vs. Strong (p<.01)
• Very Strong vs. Weak (p<.03)
• Very Strong vs. Very Weak (p<.05)
• Very Strong vs. None (<.01)

Thus, participants with a very strong belief in God tended to agree with the idea the spiritual discernment involves an ability to differentiate good and evil. Other participants tended to agree less or disagree with this notion.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the How God Communicates (HGC) Factor:

• Very Strong vs. Strong (p<.01)
• Very Strong vs. Weak (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. Very Weak (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. None (p<.001)
• Strong vs. Weak (p<.02)
• Strong vs. Very Weak (p<.01)
• Strong vs. None (p<.001)

In general, participants with very strong and strong belief in God tended to agree with the concept of God communicating, while participants with less belief or no belief in God tended to agree less or disagree.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Nature of God (NOGA) Factor:

• Very Strong vs. Strong (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. Weak (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. Very Weak (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. None (p<.001)
• Strong vs. Very Weak (p<.03)
• Strong vs. None (p<.001)

Generally, participants with very strong and strong belief in God agreed with the nature of God statements, while those participants with less and no belief in God agreed less or disagreed with these statements.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the God Initiates Overt Behavior (IOBA) Factor:

• Very Strong vs. Strong (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. Weak (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. Very Weak (p<.01)
• Very Strong vs. None (p<.001)

Thus, participants with very strong belief in God generally agreed with the ideas that God initiates overt action, while those with strong, weak, very weak or no belief in God generally agreed less or disagreed with these statements.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Prerequisites to Discernment (PTDA) Factor:

• Very Strong vs. Strong (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. Weak (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. None (p<.001)

In general, participants with very strong belief in God tended to agree with the ideas that there are prerequisites to discernment, while those with less strong or no belief in God tended to agree less or disagree.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Total SDS Mean (SDSMEANA) Score:

• Very Strong vs. Strong (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. Weak (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. Very Weak (p<.001)
• Very Strong vs. None (p<.001)

Regarding the Total SDS score, participants with very strong belief in God generally agree with the ascribed characteristics, while those with less strong or no belief in God generally agree less or disagree with these characterizations.

In sum, participants with a very strong belief in God tended to differ from participants with less strong or no belief in God regarding these five factors and the total score. Very strong belief in God was associated with agreement with the characteristics ascribed to spiritual discernment.

Religious affiliation data were pooled into five groups: none, Baptist, Other Protestant, Catholic, and Other (not Protestant or Catholic). Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Between-Subjects ANOVAs examined the effect of these religious affiliation groups on the seven factors and total SDS Mean scores. The Wilks Lambda F-test indicated a significant effect of this factor on the total SDS Mean (SDSMEANA) scores (F=6.718; p<.001). The partial eta squared value (.157) indicated a moderately large effect size.

Tests of Between Subjects Effects noted significant effects on the following six factors and the total SDS mean:

GVE F= 4.838; p< .01 (Partial Eta Squared =.071)

HGC F= 5.997; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.086)

NAS F= 26.476; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.293)

NOGA F= 19.266; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.232)

IOBA F= 6.396; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.091)

PTDA F= 22.285; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.259)

SDSMEANA F= 6.601; p< .001 (Partial Eta Squared =.094)

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Good vs. Evil (GVE) Factor:

• Baptist vs. None (p<.01)
• Baptist vs. Catholic (p<.05)

Examination of the means for this factor indicated that participants who were Baptist, Other Protestant, and Other (not Catholic or Protestant) tended to agree with the idea the spiritual discernment involves an ability to differentiate good and evil. Participants who were not affiliated with any religion and Catholics tended to agree less or disagree with this notion.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the How God Communicates (HGC) Factor:

• Baptist vs. None (p<.001)
• Baptist vs. Other (not Protestant or Catholic) (p<.01)
• None vs. Other Protestant (p<.05)

Examination of the means for this factor indicated that Baptist and Other Protestant participants tended to agree with the concept of God communicating, while participants who were Other (not Protestant or Catholic), Catholic, and had no religious affiliation tended to agree less or disagree with this notion of God communicating.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the New Age Spirits (NAS) Factor:

• Baptist vs. None (p<.001)
• Baptist vs. Other (not Protestant or Catholic) (p<.001)
• Baptist vs. Other Protestant (p<.05)
• Baptist vs. Catholic (p<.05)
• Other Protestant vs. None (p<.001)
• Other Protestant vs. Other (not Protestant or Catholic) (p<.001)

Examination of the means for this factor revealed that None, Other (not Protestant or Catholic), and Catholic participants tended to agree with ideas associated with the New Age Spirits factor, while Baptist and Other Protestant participants tended to agree less or disagree with these ideas.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Nature of God (NOGA) Factor:

• Baptist vs. None (p<.001)
• Baptist vs. Other (not Protestant or Catholic) (p<.001)
• Baptist vs. Catholic (p<.01)
• Other Protestant vs. None (p<.001)
• Other Protestant vs. Other (not Protestant or Catholic) (p<.001)
• Other Protestant vs. Catholic (p<.05)

Examination of the means for this factor indicated that participants who were Baptist and Other Protestant agreed with the nature of God statements, while those participants who were Other (not Protestant and Catholic), Catholic, and had no religious affiliation agreed less or disagreed with these statements.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the God Initiates Overt Behavior (IOBA) Factor:

• Baptist vs. None (p<.001)
• Baptist vs. Catholic (p<.05)
• None vs. Other Protestant (p<.02)

Examination of the means for this factor indicated that Baptist and Other Protestant participants agreed with the ideas that God initiates overt action, while Other (not Protestant or Catholic), Catholic, and no affiliation participants agreed less or disagreed with these statements.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Prerequisites to Discernment (PTDA) Factor:

• Baptist vs. None (p<.001)
• Baptist vs. Other (not Protestant or Catholic) (p<.001)
• Baptist vs. Catholic (p<.001)
• Other Protestant vs. None (p<.001)
• Other Protestant vs. Other (not Protestant or Catholic) (p<.001)
• Other Protestant vs. Catholic (p<.05)

Examination of the means for this factor showed that Baptist and Other Protestant participants tended to agree with the ideas that there are prerequisites to discernment, while those participants who were Other (not Protestant or Catholic), Catholic, or had no religious affiliation agreed less or disagreed with the idea that there are prerequisites to discernment.

Bonferroni Adjusted Multiple Comparison Tests indicated the following significant differences regarding the Total SDS Mean (SDSMEANA) Score:

• Baptist vs. None (p<.01)
• Baptist vs. Other (not Protestant or Catholic) (p<.01)
• Other Protestant vs. None (p<.05)

Regarding the Total Mean SDS score, examination of the means indicated that Baptist and Other Protestant participants generally agree with the ascribed characteristics, while those participants who were Catholic, Other (not Protestant or Catholic) and had no religious affiliation agree less or disagree with these characterizations.

In sum, religious affiliation had a strong impact on all SDS factors and the total Mean SDS scores. Generally, Baptist and Other Protestant participants agreed with the ideas that comprise five of the factors and total SDS score. Likewise, Baptist and Other Protestant participants agreed less or disagreed with statements about New Age Spirits. The opposite trend was found for the participants who had no religious affiliation and who were Other (not Protestant or Catholic) and Catholic participants. Baptist participants were frequently found to differ significantly from the participants who had no religious affiliation and Other (not Protestant and Catholic).

As reported in Benefield and Newman (2007), a review of the spree plots produced by an exploratory factor analysis indicated that six of the seven original factors had produced had generated acceptable standardized alphas. However, the standardized alpha for the factor Gift or Learned Ability (GLA) was low (.297). This factor was maintained in the analysis for theoretical reasons. As reported above, the reliability coefficient (.420) and interreliability coefficient (.418) for this factor (GLA) were well below the other factors. Those findings in the original spree plots coupled with the above findings suggested that a more suitable model may be generated if the factor Gift or Learned Ability (GLA) was dropped from the analysis. Hence, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the remaining six factor means. Two factors resulted from this analysisFactor 1: GVE, HGC, NOGA, IOBA, and PTDA and Factor 2: NAS.

A regression equation of each of the six factor means with the SDSMEANA (Total Mean) produced an R-square value > .98. The following correlation matrix for the six factor means was generated to examine the details of the relationships among the six means. NAS correlated negatively with NOGA (-.235) and PTDA (-.345).

Regression analyses were conducted on two demographic measures political orientation and strength of belief in God. All six factors related to the Political Orientation measure.

Factor New Age Spirits (NAS) was positive and not strong, but the other five factors were strongly negative. That is, the more conservative the political orientation, the stronger these five factor scores.

Examination of the Strength of Belief in God factor (higher score indicates stronger belief) revealed that only two factors were correlated with this demographic variable. As can be seen below, the How God Communicates (HGC) factor produced an r = +.576 and Nature of God (NOGA) factor produced an r = +.610.

Discussion

The current study utilized quantitative data analysis from all online respondents to the SDS since 2007. This analysis confirms previous studies regarding the effects of two demographic variables (religious affiliation and political orientation) on all six of the SDS factors and total SDS scores. Furthermore, a third demographic variable (strength of belief in God) was also found to impact five SDS factors and total SDS scores. It was also found, using factor analysis, that a suitable model could be generated if one of the seven factors (gift versus learned ability) was dropped from the analysis. Regression analyses on this six-factor model indicated that all six factors related to the demographic measure political orientation and that the demographic measure strength of belief in God was correlated with two of the factors (how God communicates and nature of God revealed).

Kahneman (2011), Herbert (2010), and Barrett (2009) suggest that the brain is hardwired to compulsively categorize input using conceptualization tools or cognitive heuristics (mental shortcuts). That is, emotions/feelings, cognitions/thoughts, memories, and perception are all impacted by the brains compulsion to instantly make sense. Kahneman (2011) suggests that studies of brain responses have shown that violations of normality are detected with astonishing speed and subtlety. How does our conceptualization of what spiritual discernment is, affect our experience of spiritual discernment? The current study suggests that spiritual experiences such as episodes of spiritual discernment may be impacted by the brains conceptualization tools. These conceptualization tools include the assumptions, beliefs, and expectations that are the backbone of our personal categorization schema. Specifically, regarding spiritual discernment, there is a clear communality of definition, attribution, and experience of spiritual discernment that can be predicted by the participants political orientation, religious affiliation, and a measure of the participants faith or strength of belief in God. The political orientation variable was found to be related to all six factors in the final model and strength of belief in God was found to be related to two of the factors. Thus, utilizing these factors, it is possible to create a spiritual discernment profile (of generalizations) that characterizes each group. For example, political conservatives who have a strong or very strong belief in God, tend to have similar conceptions of and experiences with spiritual discernment phenomena. That is, this sample of participants (political conservatives with strong faith) demonstrated common attitudes about the ascribed factors that constitute spiritual discernment. Specifically, this group agreed on these factors:

1) Good and evil can be differentiated with discernment;

2) God personally communicates with the participant;

3) Discernment affects God intervening in this world;

4) God initiates overt behavior (such as being a witness or speaking in tongues);

5) There are prerequisites to discernment (such as being saved).

6) New age concepts are NOT part of spiritual discernment.

Likewise, participants who reported being political liberals and who have less faith in God also have similar conceptions of and experiences with spiritual discernment phenomena. That is, this sample of participants (liberal with less or no faith) shares these common attitudes about and experiences with spiritual discernment such as believing:

1) Good and evil can NOT be differentiated with discernment;

2) God does NOT personally communicate with the participant;

3) Discernment does NOT affect God intervening in this world;

4) God does NOT initiate overt behavior (such as being a witness or speaking in tongues);

5) There are NOT prerequisites to discernment (such as being saved).

6) New age concepts are a part of spiritual discernment.

The factor strength of belief in God could also be used to differentiate participants conception and experience of spiritual discernment along two spiritual discernment factors. Those with very strong faith were shown to believe that: 1) God personally communicates with the participant and 2) Discernment affects God intervening in this world. Participants with less or no faith or belief in God were more inclined to disbelieve the notions of God personally communicating and discernment influencing God intervening in this world. Thus, this study, and the previous studies, indicates that it is possible to construct profiles of spiritual discernment episodes as a function of participants religious and political affiliations and that the strength of the participants belief in God impacts their view of God communicating and intervening in this world.

Wilson (2009) suggests that self-knowledge increases as awareness increases, and that ones beliefs may limit ones ability acquire self-knowledge. Thus, it seems possible that participants beliefs about what spiritual discernment is (an ascribed characteristic) can have an impact on what participants experience (reported spiritual discernment episodes). In a similar vein, Milkman, Chugh, and Bazerman (2009) suggest that overcoming bias is a key to behaving optimally. That is, optimal decision-making and optimal behavioral functioning come to those who are able to limit the effects of personal beliefs which are biases. Thus, it is plausible that persons biases about spiritual discernment may function to limit their spiritual discernment experiences. Thus, regarding spiritual discernment, what one knows and believes about spiritual discernment can have impact on what is expected during a spiritual discernment episode. This impact may be indicated by variation in the range of spiritual discernment experiences. When it comes to spiritual discernment, can it be that we get (experience) just what we expect and believe? This idea is pursued in detail in Benefield (2008).

References

Barrett, L. (2009)The Future of Psychology: Connecting Mind to Brain Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 326-339.

Benefield, R. and Newman, F (2007). The ascribed characteristics of spiritual discernment:

Survey construction and analysis of demographic pilot data. Paper presented to the

Southwestern Psychology Association. Fort Worth, Texas.

Benefield, Newman, and Shaffer (2008) A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of the Ascribed Characteristics of Spiritual Discernment. Presentation to the Toward the Science of Consciousness Conference, Tucson, AZ.

Benefield, R. (2008) Mystical Consciousness: Crack in the Matrix. Llumina Press. ISBN: 978-1-60594-190-5

Benefield, R. (2005). Planning with Purpose: Anger and Happiness as Keys to Awareness. Llumina Press. ISBN: 159526-154-0.

Brackley, D. (2004). A Call to Discernment in Troubled Times: New Perspectives on the Transformative Wisdom of Ignatius. Crossroad General Interest Publishers.

Breuer, S. (2005). Introduction: What is(nt) discernment. Retrieved September 14, 2005 from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/recruit_5629

Brogden, C. (2005). Developing your spiritual discernment. Retrieved September 14, 2005 from http://www.watchman.net/audio/ts109.html

Cox, P. (2004). How to understand the true gift of discernment and how to train your senses for it. Retrieved September 15, 2005 from http://www.antiochhouse.net/true_discernment.htm

Elliott, D. (2002). Seeing double: John Gerson, the discernment of spirits, and Joan of Arc. American Historical Review, 40, 26-54.

Gallagher, T. (2005). Discernment of Spirits: The Ignatian Guide for Everyday Living. Crossroad Publishing Company.

Harbaugh, J. (2001). A 12-Step Approach to the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. Franklin, WI: Sheed and Ward Publishers.

Herbert, W. (2010) On Second Thought: Outsmarting Your Minds Hard-Wired Habits. Broadway Publications. ISBN: 978-0-307-46164-3

Howard, E. (2000). Affirming the Touch of God: A Psychological and Philosophical Exploration of Christian Discernment. New York: University Press of America.

Job, R.E. (1996). A Guide to Spiritual Discernment. Nashville,TN: Upper Room Books.

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus, Giroux publishers. www.fsgbooks.com.com

Longman, R. (2004). Discernment: Finding Gods will in a sea of nonsense. Retrieved September 14, 2005 from http://spirithome.com/siscrmnt.html

Milkman, K., Chugh, D., and Bazerman, M (2009) How Can Decision Making Be Improved? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 379-383.

Peterson, A. & Goor, E. (2005). Spiritual Discernment: Getting from Why to What? A workshop presented to The Pryzbyla Center at The Catholic University of America. May 20, 2005, Washington, D.C.

Pike, M. (2003). The Power of Discernment: Helping Your Teens Hear Gods Voice Within. Saint Marys Press.

Proctor, M. (2005). Do You Hear What I Hear? Religious Calling, the Priesthood, and My Father. New York: Penguin Group.

Purdy, W. (2002). Spiritual discernment in palliative care. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 5, 139-141.

Reeves, N. (2001). Id Say Yes God, If I Knew What You Wanted: Spiritual Discernment.Northstone Publishing.

VanDruff, D. (2005). Teaching on the gift of discernment. Retrieved September 14, 2005 from http://www.vandruff.com/dialogs_gift_discernment.html

Wilson, T. (2009) Know Thyself Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 384-389.

Wolff, P. (2003). Discernment: The Art of Choosing Well: Based on Ignatian Spirituality.Liguori,MO: Triumph Books.

Appendix One: Factors, Scale Items and Standardized Alpha Values

GVE: Good vs. Evil (Standardized Alpha = .629)

• Spiritual discernment is the ability or power to distinguish good from evil.
• My spiritual discernment allows me to distinguish righteous people from wicked people.
• I am able to discern unclean spirits and false teachings at times.
• It is a good idea to test the spirits to see whether they are from God
• I can sense the presence of an evil or a demonic force.

GLA: Gift or Learned Ability (Standardized Alpha = .297)

• My spiritual discernment abilities are learned and can be increased by my experiences and training.
• Only I can know Gods will for my lifeno one else can discern for me.
• Spiritual discernment is the same as intuition.
• Spiritual discernment is essentially the same as rational problem-solving.
• Since spiritual discernment is a gift from God, there is nothing I can do to improve my abilities to discern.

HGC: How God Communicates (Standardize Alpha = .763)

• God has communicated with me in ways other than spoken words.
• God has spoken to me in audible voice (outside my head) at times.
• God sometimes reveals his will for me through my dreams as I sleep.
• My feelings are one of the ways that I know Gods will for me.
• God has communicated with me through my senses of smell, taste, or touch.
• I have definitely experienced Gods presence at times.
• God puts thoughts in my mind to show me his will.
• God has spoken to me in an inner voice.
• God has communicated with me through art and music.
• The best way to discern Gods will for me is to ask my minister or someone else that I trust.
• Reading the Bible is one of the ways I discern Gods will for my life.
• I have difficulty distinguishing Gods will from my own personal desires.
• I have a feeling of inner peace when God communicates with me.
• God has communicated with me through nature.
• Gods will for me sometimes appears as my imagination.

NAS: New Age/Spirits (Standardized Alpha = .720)

• Crystals have healing powers
• Psychic powers such ESP, mental telepathy, and clairvoyance are real.
• I have experienced ghosts directly and personally.
• Sometimes people are able to channel people who are dead.

NOG: Nature of God (Standardized Alpha = .662)

• God is a personal being who is vitally interested in every aspect of my being.
• I have sometimes doubted that God really exists.
• God has clearly answered some of my prayers by intervening in this world.
• God never condemnsif I hear a condemning voice, it must NOT be God.
• Spiritual discernment makes it possible for me to become aware of a reality beyond good and evil.
• Everyone who does NOT accept Jesus as their personal Savior will go to hell.
• I sometimes pray for God to help others who are in need.
• God loves me non-contingently because I have accepted Jesus.
• I have experienced Gods healing hand directly in my life.
• I have asked the Holy Spirit to guide me and lead me.
• God does not intervene in this world.
• God is good but not evil.
• God does communicate with me.

IOB: Initiates Overt Behavior (Standardized Alpha = .660)

• At times I have been moved by the Holy Spirit to speak or to take action.
• God has used me to warn others about impending disaster.
• God has called me to a special vocation, ministry, or to serve others.
• The Holy Spirit has moved me to speak in tongues, dance, or lift my hands.
• God would NEVER ask me to kill or harm another person.
• God sometimes tells me when to speak and what to say.

PTD: Perquisites to Discernment (Standardized Alpha = .615)

• Atheists have no spiritual discernment.
• The fear of God is necessary for spiritual discernment.
• It is necessary for me to be silent and listen in order for God to speak to me.
• Unbelievers can NOT experience spiritual discernment.
• I have asked the Holy Spirit to guide me.