Keywords

3.1 Introduction

What kind of way of being religious and non-religious can we find in a cross-cultural perspective? This question was at the core of our international project Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective (YARG), and the challenges it posed required us to consider and try out new methods (see Chap. 1 of this volume). Q-methodology was in general rather unknown and mentioned primarily in specialized publications on method (e.g., Newman & Ramlo, 2010; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). It was usually not referred to in volumes on methodology in the study of religions. Nevertheless, when we came into contact with Prof. David Wulff’s (2019) work on the Faith Q-Sort (FQS), we concluded that it met our needs.

The logic behind the FQS is adapted to the need for new approaches that correct the shortcomings and bias of earlier methods in the field. This need has been addressed in the study of religions in conjunction with a growing demand to explore religious subjectivities, and in particular as these are expressed by respondents themselves beyond normative and institutional definitions. Contemporary cultural and social processes have affected how being (non)religious and spiritual is formed and expressed and with people increasingly mixing ideas, practices, and identities in novel ways following the changing organization of religion, secularization, and increasing religious diversity. Against this background, the need for a more differentiated and sensitive approach has been underscored, especially from a cross-cultural perspective (e.g., Bowman & Valk, 2012; Bruce & Voas, 2007; af Burén, 2015; Droogers & van Harskamp, 2014; Gilhus & Sutcliffe, 2013; Lassander, 2012, 2014; McGuire, 2008; Nynäs et al., 2015; Woodhead, 2012, 2013).

When using Q-methodology in research on religiosity, religion can more easily be understood and investigated in light of more than just religious beliefs, institutional belonging, or predefined categories such as extrinsic vs. intrinsic or fundamentalist vs. liberal religiosity. In contrast, Q-methodology puts subjectivity at the center of investigation (see Stephenson, 1993/1994), and enables methodological attentiveness to the many different ways of living, experiencing, and expressing religiosity including contradictory configurations. In this chapter, we show how Q-methodology and FQS open up new possibilities for the assessment of religiosity, and provide a turn away from taken-for-granted ideas and predefined assumptions of religion and spirituality. Still, the focus in this chapter is on the part of our main findings from using FQS in an international study, namely the five global prototypes, or worldview profiles.

When a researcher conducts a study with Q-methodology, he or she presents to the respondents statements that in a significant way reflect a broad enough array of viewpoints on a subject matter (e.g., the domains of personality or religion). The respondents are then required to rank-order these statements, and this process makes it possible to capture patterns of subjective views. The study presented in this chapter is based on FQS-sorts from our total sample with university students (N = 562) from twelve countries, namely Canada, China, Ghana, Finland, India, Israel , Peru, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Turkey and the United States. As a research instrument, the FQS is not a scale or a questionnaire. It is a qualitative procedure that involves and is assisted by quantitative analyses. This makes it an inherently mixed-methods tool (Newman & Ramlo, 2010). A factor analysis is central to extracting what we call prototypes in an FQS-study. Prototypes are general patterns or profiles that are distinct from each other and shared by parts of the respondents, and in our case, they reflect (non-)religious and spiritual worldviews. Prototypes are the final result of both the statistical analysis and the careful investigation, interpretation and presentation of this complex set of data.

FQS and Q-methodology do not require a large number of respondents, but it is important to find enough respondents representing a variety of viewpoints (Watts & Stenner, 2012). For this purpose, our initial survey with a larger sample (total N ≈ 300) in each country contributed to a broad selection of participants for the FQS-study (n ≈ 45 per country) with regard to gender, ethnicity , religious affiliation, language groups, class and field of study. These, in combination with other characteristics (e.g., value priorities based on Schwartz’s PVQ [Schwartz, 1992, 2012; Schwartz et al., 2012]) guaranteed diversity among the participants and their FQS-sorts. Yet, our convenience samples are not representative of populations in respective countries, nor of any specific segment of this. As part of a mixed-method approach, the results from the survey also point to additional differences between prototypes and how they are distinct from each other (cf. Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). These samples include, however, all individuals that are significant to respective prototypes and representative of these ‘snapshots’.

For a more detailed information on the research project Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective, the mixed method design and related issues we refer to the introductory chapter in this volume (Chap. 1).

3.2 The Faith Q-Sort in the Study of Religions

Q-methodology has been used in a variety of fields (Block, 2008; Brown, 1980; Gabor, 2013; Watts & Stenner, 2012) , including studies on worldviews (Nilsson, 2013). McKeown (2001) developed a Q-set for Christian Orthodoxy, but the FQS designed by Wulff (2019) is currently the only tool for assessment of religiosity in cross-cultural research and research not limited or defined by certain traditions or denominations.

The FQS does not limit itself to predefined ideas and assumptions of religion and spirituality. It is rather characterized by flexibility in terms of methodological attentiveness to the many different ways of living, experiencing, and expressing (non-)religiosity, also in the form of contradictory configurations. Wulff (2019) did a thorough work to include elements and aspects from both various religious traditions and academic perspectives on religion when he initially defined the FQS-set consisting of 101 statements. This version of FQS was developed and tested in a North American context, and has also been successfully used in several studies with both religious and non-religious groups in Finland (Terho, 2013; Pennanen, 2013; Lassander & Nynäs, 2016; Kontala, 2016) . In order to validate the instrument for cross-cultural use as well, the FQS was evaluated by our international partners in YARG. With regard to the religious and spiritual views in their respective cultures, they proposed both revisions of statements and suggested new ones. The new version of FQS was thus more attentive to local forms of religiosity, non-religiosity and secular positions.

Validity and reliability of Q-methodology is further discussed in Chap. 1 of this volume, but we need to keep in mind that any method will always be limited in one way or the other. Kontala (2016) illustrates the Q-set’s problem with Lego. The sorting process could be compared to a test, where respondents are given 101 Lego-blocks and a task to build something familiar out of these blocks. The possibilities are endless, yet at the same time constrained by the available blocks; how the Q-set has been determined by the scholar. The respondent cannot suddenly wish to manifest their preferences by constructing a game of softball. The validity of FQS rests on its items being representative of the entire domain (concourse) of the field or discourse being studied.

The prototypes found in a sample can be described with more or less nuance, but they are always an informed interpretation of the preliminary factor analyses that is at the core of every Q-methodology. The outcome from this includes tables with for instance factor loadings, item factor scores, and distinguishing statements for each one of the factors (prototypes). The final reflective part of the analysis is done by the researcher and results in the extraction and labeling of the prototypes. This requires fine-tuned interpretations of the extensive and detailed data output from a Q-study (Wulff, 2019, p. 647). The configuration of items for each prototype has to be interpreted both independently and in relation to the other prototypes. The prototypes are distinguished by particular characteristics, but they may also share characteristics with some of the other prototypes. Because of this, the researchers have to take into account both which statements define a particular prototype, and which statements distinguish one prototype from the other. The aims of a study and the theoretical concerns involved might affect how a prototype is described.

Results from Wulff’s (2019) study in the United States with respondents of various backgrounds are the most relevant previous research we can refer to (except for studies pertaining to very specific samples and research on typologies of religion which is the topic of Chap. 5). Wulff’s (2019) results of initial prototypes can be seen to reflect the religious landscape of North America, but also functioning as good examples of the kinds of results one can obtain from an FQS study. Wulff labeled his main three prototypes as (1) Spiritually Attuned, (2) Secular-Humanistic, and (3) Traditionally Theistic.

The Spiritually Attuned Prototype

Sensing a transcendent or universal luminous element within themselves, persons of this prototype reject religious authorities or exemplars as sources for understanding and direction. Religious faith is conceived of as a never ending quest; the transcendent, as a deep mystery that can be pointed to but never grasped. Indeed, these persons take delight in mystery and paradox, and music, art, or poetry provide sustenance. Moments of profound illumination are familiar, especially in the midst of the natural world. Following a spiritual path that above all is in harmony with the Earth, these persons represent themselves as dedicated to making the world a better place to live. The full realization of human potentialities is seen as the goal of human life, and ultimate truth is thought to be reflected in the qualities of symmetry, harmony, and balance. Being religious in the conventional sense is not considered a prerequisite for being a deeply moral and compassionate person. (Wulff, 2019, p. 656)

The Secular-Humanistic Prototype

Representatives of this prototype view the religious traditions as illusory creations of human fears and desires, their scriptures as mythic and metaphoric, the products of human authorship rather than divine inspiration. All religious ideas that conflict with scientific and rational principles are rejected. Whereas no higher purpose or ultimate destiny is discerned for the human species, there is nevertheless hope for human progress on a worldwide scale. Indeed, persons of this prototype report that they are actively working to relieve the suffering of others and to making the world a better place to live. A fundamental affirmation of a core of values and moral principles undergirds this perspective, according to which being religious is not a prerequisite for being deeply moral and compassionate. Music, art, or poetry, not scriptural passages or religious convictions, are important sources of sustenance. (Wulff, 2019, p. 656)

The Traditionally Theistic Prototype

Firmly grounded in the religious values taught in childhood, persons of this prototype feel personally protected and guided by a spiritual being who is turned to with joy and thanksgiving and from whom is received forgiveness for earlier thoughts and deeds. Guided and sustained by familiar religious scriptures and private spiritual practices, these individuals are at the same time active, contributing members of some religious community . A fundamental core of values and a well-defined set of moral principles are embraced. Self-described as caring and compassionate, these persons express their faith by reaching out to those in need. They feel at home in the universe and a sense of peace, even in the face of life difficulties. (Wulff, 2019, p. 657)

The fact that FQS-sorts from only a small number of individuals have contributed forming a specific prototype is not a problem in Q-methodology. Rather, it shows the strength of the method to empirically bring to the surface distinct viewpoints that might not otherwise become known (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Besides the three main prototypes above, Wulff (2019) found five smaller prototypes within the same sample named Reluctantly Skeptical, The Religiously Extraverted, Situationally Religious, Religious-Humanistic, and Institutionally Anchored. Already this exemplifies that contemporary religiosity should be seen in terms of a continuum of which we can capture only temporary snapshots. These follow from the many diverse configurations of religious and secular ideas, practices, notions, attitudes, and emotions that are possible today. We continue this discussion in Chap. 4, where we look closer at how prototypes differ across countries.

3.3 Five Global Prototypes

In our global sample (N = 562) based on respondents from twelve countries, we could identify five distinct prototypes. We have labelled the five global prototypes in a conventional way with regards to the most central elements at play. These are: (1) Secular Humanist; (2) Active Confident Believer; (3) Noncommitted Traditionalist; (4) Spiritually Attuned; and (5) The Disengaged Liberal. The fact that the descriptions below can be defined as short narrative descriptions means that many nuances have been disregarded in this presentation, yet they catch the most defining and distinguishing elements.

  • Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 1, Secular Humanist

The Secular Humanist takes a clear distance to all religious ideas and practices . One is critical of the religious tradition of one’s people, and one actively seeks to change societal structures and values, believing that human progress is possible on a worldwide scale. Individual freedom of choice in matters of faith and morality is an important value, and one believes that one can be deeply moral without being religious. Consequently, the thought of dedicating one’s life to serving the divine is a very foreign idea. One cannot identify with those who rely on religious authorities , who observe prescribed religious practices and laws, whose sexuality is strongly guided by a religious or spiritual outlook, and who experience the presence of the divine. In contrast, one views religion as the illusory creation of human fears and desires, and rejects religious ideas that conflict with scientific and rational principles. One views religious content as metaphoric, rather than literally true. The Secular Humanist feels spiritually moved and sustained by music, art, or poetry.

  • Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 2, Active Confident Believer

The Active Confident Believer centers life on religion. One believes in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship, experiences the divine as a sheltering and nurturing parent who guides and protects. One is an active, contributing member of a religious or a spiritual community , and engages regularly in religious or spiritual practices also in private. One views religion as a central means for becoming a better and more moral person. Longing for a deeper, more confident faith is an essential part of one’s life, and the idea of having a vague and shifting religious outlook feels foreign. One feels different from people who see no higher purpose or ultimate destiny for the human species. Neither can one identify with people who take no interest in religious or spiritual matters, or who feel distant, uncomfortable or fearful in turning to the divine. One feels foreign to consider all religious scriptures to be outdated or misguided, or to experience the idea of divinity empty of significance or meaning. One would not participate in religious practices chiefly to meet others’ wishes or expectations: being religious or spiritual is central to whom the Active Confident Believer is.

  • Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 3, Noncommitted Traditionalist

The Noncommitted Traditionalist values the cultural and societal role of religion. One feels the importance of remaining loyal to the religion of one’s nation and of maintaining continuity of the religious traditions of family and ancestors. Personally, one prefers to claim that one believes in some way, but would not identify as religious. One is moved by the atmosphere of sacred or venerated places. One thinks that the world’s religious traditions point to a common truth, perhaps that the ultimate is a life force or creative energy, rather than a supernatural being. Accordingly, one views religious faith as a never-ending quest. Yet, there is no place in one’s life for frequent doubts about long-held religious convictions, nor does one feel adrift, without direction, purpose, or goal. One does not identify with people who consider all religious scriptures to be outdated, misguided and of human authorship, who view religion as the illusory creation of human fears and desires, or who feel contempt for all religious institutions, ideas and practices . One feels very foreign to thinking that the idea of divinity is empty of significance or meaning, or to relate to the divine as feminine . One also takes comfort in thinking that those who do not live righteously will face suffering or punishment, and the Noncommitted Traditionalist values purity and strives to safeguard it.

  • Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 4, Spiritually Attuned

For the Spiritually Attuned religion and spirituality are important sources of life. One believes in some way, but does not view oneself as religious and has not dedicated one’s life to serving the divine. Nevertheless, one sees personal self-realization as a primary spiritual goal in life. One feels spiritually moved and deeply sustained by music, art, or poetry, but can also sense a spiritual or higher order of reality in the midst of nature. One is positively engaged by and interested in other peoples’ religious traditions and inclined to embrace elements from various religious and spiritual traditions. One thinks about the ultimate as a life force or creative energy rather than as a supernatural being. One does not rely on religious authorities for understanding and direction, and takes a clear distance to ideas about certain beliefs being crucial for salvation and to claims that regular attendance at places of worship are essential expressions of faith. One does not take part in religious activities to form or maintain social relationships. Rather, one embraces an outlook that actively seeks to change societal structures and values, and actively works towards making the world a better place to live. The Spiritually Attuned cannot identify with notions about men and women being by nature intended for different roles, and is committed to following a spiritual path that is in harmony with the environment.

  • Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 5, Disengaged Liberal

The life of the Disengaged Liberal does not center on a religious or spiritual quest. One does not identify as an active, contributing member of a religious or a spiritual community , nor as having thorough knowledge of religious scriptures or texts. Rather, one participates in religious activities chiefly on special occasions. One believes in some way, but does not view oneself as religious. The divine is viewed as a deep mystery that can be pointed to but never fully understood, but still also as a sheltering and nurturing parent with whom one can have a personal relationship. One becomes more religious or spiritual in times of crisis or need, and prays chiefly for solace and personal protection. One is profoundly touched by the suffering of others, and charitable acts or social action are the primary expressions of one’s religiosity. One does not identify with claims that religion should play the central role in the ruling of the nation, or that one should remain loyal to the religion of one’s nation. The Disengaged Liberal stresses that one can be deeply moral without being religious. One cannot see oneself letting a religious or spiritual outlook guide one’s sexuality or giving up worldly or bodily pleasures for religious or spiritual reasons.

These findings confirm that some religious subjectivities can be seen as universal categories and represent main ways of being religious, non-religious and spiritual, and configurations of these. They can also be considered prominent to varying degrees. The cumulative variance of the global prototypes accounted for 43% with rather significant differences between single prototypes. Prototype 1 accounted for 17% of the variance, prototype 2 for 10%, prototype 3 for 5%, prototype 4 for 6% and prototype 5 for 5%.

The given categories secular, religious and spiritual are well reflected in these results, but two more factors have emerged that are distinct enough to present material for defining prototypes. One of these, global prototype 3, Noncommitted Traditionalist, seems to be a ‘religious’ prototype, yet in a different way than prototype 2, Active Confident Believer. A brief look at factor score correlations provide a good measure of how distinct the global prototypes are and how they are related to each other. This is presented in Table 3.1. The table confirms that global prototype 2 Active Confident Believer and global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist are close to each other and present a strong correlation (r = .54). Yet, the highest correlation is found between the global prototype 1 Secular Humanist and global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned (r = .59). The correlation between global prototype 5, Disengaged Liberal and both global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist and 4 Spiritually Attuned are also high (r = .47; r = .54). Do these three represent a secular trio?

Table 3.1 Factor score correlations for global prototypes
Full size table

The correlation between global prototype 2 Active Confident Believer and global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned, by contrast, is low (r = .17). This is also the case for the correlation between 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist and 1 Secular Humanist (r = .03). Yet, not until we compare global prototype 1 Secular Humanist and global prototype 2 Active Confident Believer, do we find a negative correlation (r = −.27). The negative correlation between these two comes as no surprise, but it is still noteworthy that they are the only two that are negatively correlated in this sample and among these prototypes.

Here we still need to underscore the difference between the global prototype 1 Secular Humanist and global prototype 2 Active Confident Believer. This divide stands out as one polarizing and organizing aspect for the prototypes, and makes it meaningful to group them into two main overarching categories. Among the main distinguishing differences we find the statement about believing “in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship” (FQS53) and the statement on viewing “religion as the illusory creation of human fears and desires” (FQS60). Participants in our study are also mostly represented by these two opposite prototypes reflecting the secular versus the religious ones: the Secular Humanist prototype represents the largest group, followed in size by the Active Confident Believer (see Table 3.3). This further indicates that the extent to which people see themselves as either religious or secular is still a meaningful distinction.

Yet, the FQS presents a much more nuanced picture on how internal differentiations can be made within these categories and the other worldview profiles that exist alongside these. In a separate chapter (Chap. 5) we look in more detail into how the prototypes are distinct from each other in terms of the sorting of statements. However, already here we need to address what seem to be relevant issues. The two ‘religious’ global prototypes, 2 Active Confident Believer and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist, are divided on issues such as the relevance of personal belief and practice (positively emphasized by global prototype 2) and the relevance of religious identity in terms of one’s tradition and nation (positively emphasized by prototype 3) (cf. Saroglou, 2011). In comparison, even though prototype 4, Spiritually Attuned and prototype 1, Secular Humanist are strongly correlated, they still differ on certain issues. This is mainly about to what extent one “rejects religious ideas that conflict with scientific and rational principles” (FQS70) and “views religion as the illusory creation of human fears and desires” (FQS60), like prototype 1 in contrast to the relevance one attributes in prototype 4 to experiences of a higher or spiritual reality or presence (FQS10; FQS44; FQS68).

3.4 Some Descriptive Characteristics of the Global Prototypes

For all persons of a specific prototype in the YARG study, we have additional data from our mixed method design. For a closer investigation of the prototypes, we selected all participants that were marked by the software tool for Q-analysis (KenQ) for having a high correlation with only one specific prototype and can be seen as representative of this prototype. This provided us with a subsample (N = 427) of our total sample (N = 562), since 24% of our participants (N = 135) were not representative of only one prototype. These presented a rather low similarity with several prototypes. How to comprehend the worldviews of these individuals that escape our effort to categorize them is further explored in Chap. 6. Table 3.2 presents the number of individuals representative of each prototype. Naturally the lowest correlation is different between the prototypes.

Table 3.2 Global prototypes subsamples
Full size table

The distinct characters of these five prototypes are well reflected in our different measures of religiosity. We asked questions in the survey about belonging to religious groups, how religious people experience themselves to be, how religious their family had been, and how often they take part in religious services or engage in private religious or spiritual practices. Table 3.3 presents these results, and we can see that the difference between the secular prototype 1 and the religious prototype 2 is replicated over all measures including how the religiosity of one’s family is assessed. This validates the power of the FQS as a methodology to distinguish between religious and secular tendencies. Moreover, the nuanced variations on the religious-secular scale are captured by the scores of the other prototypes which represent the middle range, interestingly, not too far from each other. The global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist provides in this respect an interesting example.

Table 3.3 Global prototypes and measures of religiosity
Full size table

Close to 50% of the global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist report a form of belonging, and in comparison with 1 Secular Humanist they stand out as religious in this survey primarily based on their self-evaluation and the fact that they quite often view the family they come from as rather religious. In contrast, they cannot be said to practice religion very actively. The identification they present with certain aspects of religion is something that we can put into context with the help of the FQS-results. When we look at the survey measures, the global prototype 3, Noncommitted Traditionalist is rather similar to 5 Disengaged Liberal who presents a more situational form of religiosity in the sense that persons of this prototype tend to become “more religious or spiritual at times of crisis or need” (FQS17). However, as we shall learn below, their forms of religiosity comes with rather different attitudes and values, which in practice positions them very differently.

With the help of conventional measures of religiosity, we can confirm some of the main dividers between the prototypes. Yet, the strength of the FQS appears clearly in the nuances that are difficult to pinpoint with regular surveys, such as the difference between the 2 Active Confident Believer and the 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist, and the liquidity of how religious, spiritual and secular can be configured in practice and in ways that frustrates our taken-for-granted categories and concepts. The relevance of this is amplified in a cross-cultural perspective when we can account also for the relevance and influence of cultural contexts. Table 3.4 describes how the prototypes are distributed over the countries in which we conducted case studies. From this we can, on the one hand, see that specific prototypes might be strongly anchored in certain contexts, and one the other, that they are still, in general, built from individuals across the whole sample and country cases.

Table 3.4 Global prototypes and their distribution across countries, N
Full size table

Table 3.4 shows that cross-cultural and international differences are apparent especially in how clusters of countries are represented in the various prototypes. The table indicates a dominant secular cluster that includes Sweden, Russia and Canada, with at least two-thirds of respondents represented in prototype 1. The religious cluster, in contrast, is dominated by Ghana and Israel , with a smaller but relevant influence also from Finland and Poland. The table also reminds us that our samples are not representative, and how we should read and reflect on our results. From the fact, for instance, that there are no individuals of 2 Active Confident Believer coming from Canada says nothing about the relevance of this worldview in Canada, only about the Canadian sample. Including more participants could have changed this, but that does not necessarily affect our results. The important question is to what extent the current samples together have entailed variety and richness enough in order to be able to bring to the surface the most relevant distinctions.

Also, some gender differences between the samples can be observed. From Fig. 3.1 we can see that male participants are over-represented in global prototype 1, the Secular Humanist, while females are over-represented in 5, the Disengaged Liberal. Women are usually more religious (see de Vaus & McAllister, 1987; Francis & Penny, 2014; Stark, 2002; Miller & Stark, 2002), which is not very obvious in our study based on prototypes. In contrast, females are most clearly over-represented in prototype 5, which might partly explain why prototype 5 is the one where we find the lowest number that see themselves as not being members of a group that is discriminated against (40%), even though also prototype 3 stands out in this respect (43%). As a contrast 61% of the Active Confident Believer and 64% of the Spiritually Attuned do not at all see themselves as members of a group that is discriminated against in their country. Both prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist and 5 Disengaged Liberal present a stronger identification with experiences of being discriminated against. One can maybe raise the questions of whether experiences and awareness of aspects of gendered identities – and perhaps also about national and ethnic identities – bring in more discrimination.

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

Global prototypes and gender

Full size image

Participants in this study reflect the proclivities of digital-age millennials worldwide (see Moberg & Sjö, 2020) . Regardless of their religious or secular orientations, they consume social media and online news sources, as seen in the small variations between the prototypes in the frequencies of the respondents (see Fig. 3.2). There are differences, however, in the consumption of newspaper and radio, which are more prevalent among prototypes 1 and 4, Secular Humanist and Spiritually Attuned. Figure 3.2 also indicates that persons of global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist in general use these sources less.

Fig. 3.2
figure 2

Global prototypes and sources of information, % yes

Note. Percentage yes on the question: “From where do you get information about news or current affairs? Please, select all that apply”

Full size image

Table 3.5 shows some interesting differences regarding to whom persons of different prototypes turn for guidance for how to live their life and make decisions. Overall sources such as their family, their own intuition or feelings, and own reason and judgement stand out as important to persons of all five prototypes, even though not to the same extent for global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist, and 4 Spiritually Attuned. Instead, global prototype 1 Secular Humanist rely more on their friends. In terms of the item own intuition or feelings we can see that only 65% of persons of prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist rely on this in comparison with the other prototypes for which the same number is between 80% and 93%. We naturally find that persons of global prototype 2 Active Confident Believer rely on many of the sources associated with religion such as God or ’higher power’, different religious leaders and groups, and the teachings of their religion, and it is important to note that again global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist takes on a different route. For persons of this prototype, religiosity is to some extent manifest in how they rely on teachings of their religion. Persons of the global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned tend to share a trust in science with 1 Secular Humanist, for which this source is still much more relevant than all the other ones. In comparison with the other prototypes, also great literature and art are somewhat more important to both of them. After the common sources that most share such as family, friends, own reason and intuition, it is difficult to find anything that is markedly characteristic to the global prototypes 5 Disengaged Liberal and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist, even though God or ’higher power’ is somewhat relevant in these cases, and 5 Disengaged Liberal is the one prototype that relies the most on a school or university teachers (50%).

Table 3.5 Global prototypes and sources of guidance in life
Full size table

3.5 Attitudes, Values and Aspects of Well-Being

In order to assess moral attitudes, participants in our study were asked to rate how much they agreed on statements on abortion, same-sex relationships and euthanasia on a scale from 1 to 5. From Table 3.6 we see that the least support for liberal social values – same sex marriage and legal abortion – is consistently found in prototype 2, the Active Confident Believer even though persons of this prototype present somewhat more liberal attitudes towards abortion issues. Noteworthy are therefore also similar variations among the other prototypes with regard to legalizing abortion. As for attitudes towards same-sex marriage, prototype 3, the Noncommitted Traditionalist, is quite similar to the more religiously traditional prototype 2. We addressed earlier the differences and similarities between the global prototype 5, Disengaged Liberal and prototype 3, the Noncommitted Traditionalist, especially on measures of religiosity. With regard to attitudes towards abortion, same-sex relationships and euthanasia we can see that they are quite different and prototype 3, the Noncommitted Traditionalist, is positioned closer to prototype 2, the Active Confident Believer especially in conforming to heteronormative values.

Table 3.6 Means and standard deviations on liberal social values per prototype
Full size table

When we further compare how persons of different prototypes think that other people in general can be trusted and if they feel safe where they live, we find that the aspect of trust divides them. The three global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist, 2 Active Confident Believer, and 4 Spiritually Attuned express more trust in other people than 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist and 5 Disengaged Liberal who present lower mean values. Table 3.7 further shows in contrast no obvious differences regarding the feeling of safety.

Table 3.7 Global prototypes and social trust
Full size table

The above observations confirm that values and attitudes are often intertwined with worldviews. Previous studies have also demonstrated that value systems are related to religiosity (e.g. Krok, 2015; Saroglou et al., 2004; Schwartz & Huismans, 1995). Next we also examined if there were differences in values between the five prototypes based on Schwartz’s theory of basic human values (Schwartz, 1992; see also Maio, 2017). In Schwartz’s theory , values are seen as motivational goals, i.e. a set of beliefs about what is desirable and what means are appropriate for pursuing the desires. In a later refined theory of basic values (Schwartz et al., 2012; Schwartz, 2017), a more nuanced categorization of values and a model based on 19 value types in contrast to the initial ten is provided. Figure 3.3 does not include new values, but the new categorization was present already in the definition of the ten values. In the refined model, the benevolence value is divided into caring and dependability, security into societal and personal etc.

Fig. 3.3
figure 3

Schwartz (1992) value structure. See also Lassander (2014) and Lassander and Nynäs (2016)

Full size image

Schwartz’s theory of basic values are consequently organized along a motivational continuum forming a circular value structure (Schwartz, 2017) as depicted in Fig. 3.3. Values close to each other are complementary or compatible motivational goals, such as the conformity and tradition values. Value types opposite to each other are seen as incompatible, such as conformity and self-direction. An important aspect of the theory is that the relative order between the values is stable. Value priorities change from group to group, but due to the associations between values in groups (e.g. conformity opposes self-direction), the relationship between them remains more or less stable.

Table 3.8 displays centered means for each value per prototype. An overall mean was calculated for all 19 values, and centered means represent the distance from this overall mean. Thus, positive centered means indicate that persons of a certain prototype scored this value higher than the overall mean and vice versa for negative centered means. Global prototype 1 Secular Humanist scores lowest on tradition (−1.78) and has the second highest score on self-direction (thoughts and action) (0.91 and 0.86). This is similar to the scores of global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned (0.93 and 0.97). Global prototype 2 Active Confident Believer, not surprisingly, scores highest on conformity, both interpersonal conformity and rules.

Table 3.8 Centered means for values per prototype
Full size table

Figure 3.4 vividly illustrates where the five prototypes converge and where they diverge. In their study, Schwartz and Huismans (1995) showed that religion was positively associated with tradition and conformity, and to a lesser extent or negatively with values such as security, benevolence, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction, achievement, power and universalism. We find unison on opposite sides of the values circle—small differences in power as well as in benevolence-caring. Gaps logically emerge in values relating to tradition. The religious prototypes, global prototypes 2 Active Confident Believer and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist, score high on tradition, on conformity and societal security. In contrast, global prototype 1 Secular Humanist scores the lowest on tradition, followed by the global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned and 5 Disengaged Liberal . How the global prototypes 2 the Active Confident Believer and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist are conflated in many respects is evident here from how these in relation to most of the basic values follow each other. Prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist scores the lowest on the various aspects of universalism (tolerance, nature and concern), and aspects of benevolence (dependability and caring). Overall, the relevance of the secular-religious divide is reflected also in measures of basic values, and also with regards to how global prototype 5 Disengaged Liberal, is not necessarily associated with only one side, and also here presents a ‘situational’ pattern. In terms of self-direction, for instance, this prototype aligns closer to the religious prototypes, whereas the opposite happens when we compare how the prototype is positioned in relation to tradition and conformity, and we find an affinity to the global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist and 4 Spiritually Attuned.

Fig. 3.4
figure 4

Global prototypes and Schwartz values

Full size image

Satisfaction with one’s life is an indicator of an individual’s well-being. Findings on the relationship between life satisfaction and measures of religiosity have been seen as relevant but not found to be consistent (see Ellison & Lee 2010; Koenig and Larson 2001), and the relationship between deprivation, subjective well-being and religiosity is even more complex (Hoverd & Sibley, 2013). Yet, among the participants in this study, prototype 2 Active Confident Believer consistently exhibits higher satisfaction with their life as a whole, are happier, and are more satisfied with their standard of living. The lowest levels of satisfaction are exhibited among the small group of persons of the global prototype 5 Disengaged Liberal and the larger group of persons of the prototype 1 Secular Humanist as shown in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Life satisfaction by global prototype
Full size table

Persons of prototype 2 Active Confident Believer are also the most likely to feel optimistic about their future, to feel positively about themselves and about their success. They are followed by prototype 2 Noncommitted Traditionalist. Persons of prototype 1 Secular Humanist are the least positive about themselves and the least likely to be optimistic about their future. In short, young ‘believers’, regardless of their religious affiliation, express satisfaction with their life and feel optimistic about their future (see Fig. 3.5). Berthold and Rush (2014) looked at respondents from Germany, Austria and Switzerland and found higher satisfaction with life amongst those individuals who practiced their religion, explaining their findings by the benefits gained from the social support that a religious community provides, by the healthy lifestyle recommended in various religious systems, and by the growth in self-fulfillment amongst those who frequently use their strengths and thus bring to the fore their satisfaction with life (Seligman et al., 2005). In the World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2012), religion was found to be an external community-based factor with a positive effect on well-being; religion can have a buffering and protective function.

Fig. 3.5
figure 5

Global prototype by optimism

Note. Global Prototype: 1 Secular Humanist; 2 Active Confident Believer; 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist; 4 Spiritually Attuned; 5 Disengaged Liberal. “How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?” On the scale 1–5, 1 indicating “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly agree.” The numbers inside the bars refer to the percentage of each of the five global prototypes who strongly agreed with the first two statements and strongly disagreed with the third statement. *p < .05; ***p < .001

Full size image

In this study, we can corroborate and expand these findings to include various cultures globally – not only in other Western cultures, but also across Eastern ones, such as India and China. Overall, those who participated frequently in religious ceremonies or services scored higher than those who never participated on the positive-life orientation 5-point scale. Apart from religious ceremonies or services, YARG participants, who were engaged in daily private religious or spiritual practices, such as worship, prayer, or meditation, also scored higher on the positive life orientation: 3.8 versus 3.3 among those who were engaged in private religious or spiritual practices. Specific items on that scale are also revealing. For instance, among persons of prototype 2 Active Confident Believer, feeling very positive about yourself and optimism about your future are more prevalent the more frequent the attendance in religious services as well as with more frequent engagement in private religious or spiritual practices similar to the findings of Berthold and Rush (2014). Self-assessment of well-being splits respondents in this study. There are gaps among the prototypes in who feels happy most of the time; does not feel sad or depressed; feels really rested when waking up most mornings; or on the contrary, whose sleep was restless. Again and again, persons of prototype 2 Active Confident Believer report feeling happy most of the time, more so than persons of prototype 1 Secular Humanist, 70% and 62% respectively, and they are more likely to feel rested upon waking up – 43% and 28% respectively. At the time, 2 Active Confident Believer reports less depression and less sadness compared with prototype 1.

3.6 Concluding Summary

In this chapter we presented the five global worldview prototypes that we identified with the FQS : the Secular Humanist; the Active Confident Believer; the Noncommitted Traditionalist, the Spiritually Attuned, the Disengaged Liberal. These findings clearly reflect the categories secular, religious and spiritual, and a polarizing and organizing function of the religious-secular divide on an overarching level. Nonetheless, correlation analyses validated both this general pattern as well as the distinctiveness of these five separate prototypes. Also, our survey measures of religiosity basically indicated similar patterns. They pointed to a significant affinity between the global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist and 2 Spiritually Attuned, as well as between global prototype 2 Active Confident Believer and global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist. Global prototype 5 Disengaged Liberal presents more situational and varying identifications.

Our findings with the FQS also point to a greater diversity between these prototypes and important nuances in contemporary forms of religious, spiritual and secular worldviews. These prototypes are also clearly differentiated in how they rely on and give authority to, for instance science, independent agency, personal experience , in-group affiliations etc. Differences are also reflected in which sources persons of different prototypes turn to for both information and guidance in life. Nevertheless, the impact of social media was more of a rule in our sample of university students, and it should not be neglected that despite obvious differences, all prototypes tend to view e.g. family, their own intuition, reason and judgement as important to the making of their lives.

In addition, we found notable differences between the prototypes across multiple characteristics. Our results indicated that both gender and cross-cultural contextual differences influence how different worldview configurations are formed. In this complex equation we also need to account for aspects of personality, such as levels of openness, trust and well-being. The three global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist, 2 Active Confident Believer, and 4 Spiritually Attuned stand out in how they trust other people. Persons of prototype 2 Active Confident Believer are the most likely to feel positively about themselves and their future.

Social moral attitudes and basic human values also play a relevant role. The global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist, and 4 Spiritually Attuned clearly express liberal social values in contrast to in particular prototypes 2 Active Confident Believer and prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist. The global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist and 4 Spiritually Attuned also tend to feel that other people can be trusted, but in this case they are accompanied by persons of prototype 2 Active Confident Believer. A similar pattern emerges from our analyses of differences between global prototypes and basic human values. The global prototypes are especially divided along an axis consisting of universalism and self-direction versus tradition and conformity. It is apparent that there is a close affinity between the value types of 2 Active Confident Believer and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist.

In conclusion, our findings showed that our mixed method approach provided an added value for our aim to assess contemporary forms of worldviews with regard to how religious, spiritual and secular elements are on the one hand combined into distinct subjectivities and, on the other hand, determined by significant fluidity. FQS showed a methodological strength for assessing these worldviews with relevant levels of nuances. It allows for distinguishing differences related to cross-cultural diversity, gender, attitudes and values to emerge and surface. The mixed method approach built around the FQS frustrates our taken-for-granted categories and concepts, but also opens up new outlooks on current religiosity in an international perspective. This investigation continues over the following chapter on the cross-cultural variation and typologies.