Keywords

Take a moment to think of the most virtuous person you know. Ask yourself: What virtues do they possess? What makes them virtuous? How did they become virtuous? How religious or spiritual is this virtuous person? What role does religion/spirituality seem to play in the embodiment, expression, and enhancement of their virtuous character?

The purpose of this chapter is to explore such questions by reviewing and synthesizing virtue theory and research from two fields of study—positive psychology and the psychology of religion and spirituality (R/S). Historically, both fields have aimed to promote scientific understanding and practical cultivation of virtues (Schnitker & Emmons, 2017). However, as shown in Chap. 1 (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2), since positive psychology’s inception in 1998, virtues have received considerably less scholarly attention than other key concepts (such as well-being or happiness), and journals have been reluctant to publish research on the intersections between positive psychology and R/S. In the current chapter, we first discuss reasons why virtues represent an optimal hub for integrating positive psychology and the psychology of R/S. Next, we explore places of intersection between the two fields in relation to the study of virtue. Finally, we discuss practical applications and implications of integrating virtue research and practice. Throughout the chapter, we summarize theories and research on virtues.

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Positive Psychology, and Virtue

Following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the psychology of R/S garnered major research attention, as seen in the six-fold increase in the frequency of “religion” or “spirituality” being used in article titles and abstracts from 2005 to 2014, compared to prior decades (Paloutzian, 2017a). The study of R/S now spans multiple subdisciplines and countries, as researchers worldwide investigate the continued importance of R/S across cultures (Paloutzian, 2017b). But interest in the psychological study of virtues and religion did not originate in recent decades. For example, during his 1906 presidential address to the American Psychological Association, William James (the father of American psychology who investigated religious beliefs and conversion experiences throughout his career) proposed two empirical questions: “(a) What were the limits of human energy? and (b) How could this energy be stimulated and released so it could be put to optimal use?” (Rathunde, 2001, p. 136).

Psychological interest in virtue and R/S waned in the mid-1920s and 1930s. For the study of virtue, this lack of interest was catalyzed by Hartshorne and May’s (1928–1930) empirical studies, which found a dearth in consistent truth-telling across different honesty-relevant situations and thereby launched the person–situation debate. This debate involved a situationist critique that challenged the assumption enduring personality characteristics actually exist and thus led to a relative stalemate in virtue research until the latter part of the twentieth century. That stalemate coincided with the waning study of R/S until the 1960s, influenced by such factors as the separation of psychology and philosophy departments, the scientific model of psychology being based on positivist scientific principles, and the fears of “taboo” topics that veered into philosophical or theological directions (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003).

The co-occurring sporadic research histories of virtue and R/S suggest that researchers might associate the two constructs to some degree. Indeed, much of the literature that examines the benefits and detriments of R/S considers virtue as an outcome of interest (Ratchford et al., 2021a). Likewise, the scientific study of virtues has regularly consulted philosophical and religious writings to inform construct creation, definition articulation, and theory development (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Hence, this chapter explores virtues from both positive psychological and religious/spiritual lenses. In fact, we argue that virtues are an optimal hub for integrating the positive psychology and psychology of R/S fields.

Virtues: An Optimal Hub for Integration

Virtues can be generally defined as “dispositional deep-seated habits that contribute to flourishing and that occur in activities with the following three features: they are done well, not done poorly, and in accordance with the right motivation and reason” (Ratchford et al., 2021b, p. 8).Footnote 1 Virtues provide a unique context for integrating psychology of R/S and positive psychology. Religious texts from Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic traditions are replete with references to virtues such as courage, justice, humanity, temperance, wisdom, and transcendence (Wade, 2010). Also, positive psychology’s conceptualizations of virtue often derived from religious traditions. For example, the virtue of the Protestant work ethic—emphasizing hard work, discipline, and thrift—has become increasingly secularized and universal (Kalemci & Tuzun, 2019), but it was historically rooted in the specific faith tradition of Protestant Christianity.

Many virtues studied in positive psychology are pulled directly from religious/spiritual teachings. For instance, gratitude to God (Rosmarin et al., 2011) and grace (Graves, 2017) are explicitly religious constructs and have received growing empirical attention. Other examples, which probably include both religious/spiritual and secular influences, include chastity (Hardy & Willoughby, 2017), hope (King et al., 2020), humility (Davis et al., 2017), and forgiveness (Worthington & Wade, 1999). Considering the historical enmeshment between R/S and virtues, a serious inclusion of religious/spiritual understandings of virtue would profit the broader scholarly study of virtues. Pluralistic multidisciplinary work among theologians, psychologists, anthropologists, and philosophers may provide a more accurate “thick” contextual understanding of R/S and virtue, as each discipline brings a unique perspective to the narrative (Graves, 2017).

Even after considering the many converging points, the psychology of R/S and positive psychology have hesitated to cooperate fully in virtue research. For various reasons, each has resisted drawing upon the rich knowledge and perspectives the other has to offer. Perhaps researchers in these fields have hesitated to cooperate due to concerns about pathologizing the human condition, worries about forcing R/S on secular individuals, or assumptions that one field might begin to subsume the other. At times this hesitation may even be based in mistrust and prejudice. Regardless of the reasons, these fields have much to offer one another, and researchers have thus begun integrating R/S into their work with virtues (e.g., Schnitker & Emmons, 2017). Our aim is to highlight key intersections between positive psychology and the psychology of R/S, within the context of virtues research. Given that virtues are a component of the personality system, we organize these intersections around commonly held, virtue-relevant components of personality and context: trait taxonomies, cultural ideals, cultural practices, goal pursuits, context-specific emotions, and narrative identities (McAdams & Pals, 2006).

Intersection on Trait Taxonomies

Examination of virtues as personality traits is a common point of intersection between positive psychology and psychology of R/S. Perhaps the most salient example of integration is Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS). Seligman, widely considered the father of positive psychology, oversaw a massive project to classify human strengths and virtues into a cohesive taxonomy of flourishing that could be used as a companion to extant taxonomies of languishing (e.g., the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM]). To do so, Peterson and Seligman delved into Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu religious texts and thought. McGrath (2015) followed up on their work by taking millions of globally representative responses to the VIA-IS and using factor analytic methods to organize the virtues into three categories: caring, inquisitiveness, and self-control. However, some scholars have raised concerns about the VIA-IS’s viability as a virtue measure (Snow, 2019), arguing it has not yet demonstrated adequate construct equivalence (measurement invariance) to verify its assumption that its assessed virtues hold universal meanings within and across cultures.

Additionally, in the HEXACO honesty–humility factor (Lee & Ashton, 2004), R/S and virtue-related concepts have been proposed as potential sixth factors of personality, unique from other well-established high order Big 5 personality traits (i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness; McCrae & Costa, 2008). The HEXACO measure only considers the virtues of honesty and humility; it is by no means an exhaustive measure of all virtues, nor was it intended to be. However, because the HEXACO assesses specific virtues, it is useful to consider how R/S is associated with the HEXACO. Indeed, researchers consistently find that trait honesty-humility is moderately associated with R/S (Aghababaei et al., 2014).

Psychology of R/S research in the late 1990s created trait conceptualizations of spirituality orthogonal to Big Five traits (Piedmont, 1999). Trait spirituality has also been reliably linked with virtues like forgiveness (Leach & Lark, 2004), humility (Davis et al., 2017), patience (Schnitker et al., 2017), and thrift (Ratchford et al., 2021a). As research continues to develop in the realm of spirituality, the definition of spirituality has broadened to encompass secular, nonreligious people who engage in self-transcendent practices (Koenig, 2008). This may pose an issue in conducting research on R/S and virtue, because under this broader definition, spirituality may overlap entirely with virtue. Further empirical inquiry is necessary to determine the extent of conflation between trait spirituality and specific trait virtues.

Intersection on Cultural Ideals

Although it is tempting to consider virtues as universal, Snow (2019) has argued that virtues are culturally dependent, and researchers ought to be more sensitive to cross-cultural variability in the development, composition, and expression of virtues. This possibility is evidenced when assessments validated with Western populations do not generalize to non-Western cultures. For example, after failing to authenticate the six-factor VIA-IS structure in a Chinese sample, Duan et al. (2012) created a three-factor Chinese Virtues Questionnaire that more validly assessed virtues in Chinese culture. Likewise, virtues can be understood differently within a single nation. For example, in the U.S., humility is related to more liberal transcendent values (e.g., benevolence; universalism) or more conservative conformity values (e.g., conformity; tradition), depending on whom you ask (Schwartz et al., 2012). Indeed, scholars are finding that virtue conceptualization depends heavily on person–context relations (Fowers et al., 2021), and the influence of culture on virtue development and expression cannot be ignored.

Community, family, and culture—especially religious culture—are major players in virtue development. Religious institutions are influential cultural settings, and differences among religious cultures lead people to prize some values over others. For example, predominantly Hindu cultures such as India value thrift—the wise use and distribution of resources—more so than other cultures (e.g., in North America and Europe; Choenni, 2011). Additionally, social support from one’s religious/spiritual context (such as being involved in a religious community) can be influential in virtue development as well. For instance, King and Furrow (2004) found that involvement in religious activities led to increased empathy and altruism among adolescents who had relationships with coreligionists (who shared beliefs and values in common with them).

Intersection on Practices and Interventions

Although not the only contexts to do so, religious traditions and communities offer some of the most readily accessible, shared sacred practices and meaning-making frameworks (Park, 2005) that are regularly coupled with opportunities to develop virtue (Schnitker et al., 2019a). Many activities that promote virtue development are religious/spiritual and transcendent in nature, including religious/spiritual practices such as prayer, meditation, and service attendance. However, not all practices or strivings are created equal (King, 2008). Sanctified strivings—practices or goals imbued with sacred significance (such as sanctifying one’s marriage)—lead to greater goal pursuit and social support for goals (Mahoney et al., 2005). Indeed, when otherwise ordinary habits or earthly relationships are imbued with sacred meaning (e.g., deciding to spend more time with one’s partner because your relationship is perceived as sacred), they tend to bolster virtue development (e.g., commitment, love, and fidelity; see Chap. 28, this volume).

Religious communities are particularly good at encouraging individuals to engage in behavioral practices (King, 2008) that regularly foster virtues. For example, prayer has been shown to increase gratitude (Lambert et al., 2009), meditation can increase compassion (Boellinghaus et al., 2013), and diet regulation—a behavior similar to religious fasting—can improve self-regulation (Muraven, 2010), a capacity some researchers consider the underlying mechanism of all virtues (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; Root Luna et al., 2017). In fact, some argue that R/S leads to virtues, which in turn lead to well-being (see Krause et al., 2019).

Unfortunately, in a review of positive psychological interventions, Rye et al. (2013) found that very few positive psychology interventions explicitly incorporated R/S, even when doing so would have been relatively easy. Although some positive psychology interventions overlap with R/S practices in their activation of meaning-making, it is still unclear whether religious, spiritual, moral, or instrumental forms of meaning change the impact of the interventions (Schnitker et al., 2021). However, research has found that meaning that is self-transcendent (i.e., beyond-the-self) increases the efficacy of interventions (Yeager et al., 2014).

Intersection on Self-Transcendent Positive Emotions

Self-transcendent positive emotions (e.g., awe, gratitude, and love) are associated with both positive psychology and the psychology of R/S and may serve as a bridge between R/S and virtue. They tend to activate and increase spirituality (Van Cappellen et al., 2013). For example, in one study, church attendance activated the emotion of love, which in turn activated spontaneous generosity, as participants were more willing to share a hypothetical lottery prize with others (Van Cappellen et al., 2016). Gratitude, perhaps the most often studied virtue in positive psychology, is also a historically religious construct. In longitudinal and experimental studies, Lambert et al. (2009) found the religious practice of prayer activated gratitude, and more frequent prayer led to subsequently increased gratitude. But self-transcendent positive emotions are not limited to activating warmth-based virtues like compassion and generosity. For example, higher levels of daily gratitude as a self-transcendent positive emotion (but not happiness) have been associated with higher self-control and patience (i.e., being able to wait well when necessary), likely by helping people recognize the benefits and benefactors in their lives (Dickens & DeSteno, 2016). Likewise, experimental manipulations to induce gratitude in comparison to neutral or happy emotions increase financial patience (DeSteno et al., 2014).

Self-transcendent positive emotions may also serve to motivate a person to engage both in spirituality and virtuous behavior, which may be why many positive psychology interventions seek to activate self-transcendent positive emotions. For example, loving-kindness meditation increases daily positive emotions, which in turn increase meditation practices in an upward spiral (Fredrickson et al., 2017; see Van Cappellen et al., Chap. 20, this volume). This upward spiral of both the intervention and the experience of positive emotions is also found in gratitude interventions (Lambert et al., 2009). Interventions framed in a R/S context (e.g., prayer) have demonstrated greater effect in eliciting experiences of gratitude than interventions not framed in that context (Lambert et al., 2009), suggesting that contextualizing interventions as religious/spiritual may be particularly advantageous to virtue development (see Captari et al., Chap. 26, this volume).

Intersection on Goal Pursuits

Goals—what people habitually are trying to do or want to accomplish—have been assessed in research in both subfields. In the psychology of R/S, much of the research regarding goals has focused on ultimate concerns, which are goals that in some fashion are concerned with R/S (goals such as deepening one’s relationship with God or spending more time reading religious texts; Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003). The presence of explicitly religious/spiritual goals is associated with greater well-being and adaptive goal pursuit (Emmons & Schnitker, 2013). However, goals need not be explicitly religious/spiritual to be imbued with religious/spiritual significance, which is referred to as sanctification. For example, people regularly imbue parenting, marriage, and work with sacred significance. Research suggests that both theistic and nontheistic sanctification of goals produces better goal outcomes and higher well-being when the goal pursuit is successful (Kusner et al., 2014; Mahoney & Pargament, 2005), but in goal failure, sanctification can lead to greater decrements in well-being because the loss is perceived as a desecration (Pargament et al., 2005).

Examining the relative conflict and harmony among a person’s various goals has proven fruitful in predicting the incidence of religious/spiritual transformation and change; in a longitudinal study on adolescents who were involved in a week-long religious service trip, goals were assessed prior to attending the trip. Researchers found that adolescents who ascribed less meaning to their goals and experienced conflict amongst their goals before the trip were more likely to have a religious/spiritual transformation experience (e.g., conversion or recommitment) during the trip than adolescents who found their existing goals more meaningful (Schnitker et al., 2019b). This finding suggests that R/S functions to organize the meaning-making system and offer a sense of meaning to people who do not have it already (Park & Van Tongeren, Chap. 6, this volume).

In much the same way, positive psychologists have recently investigated virtues through the lens of goal pursuit. A longitudinal study on university students found that people who are more virtuous (specifically patient) in the pursuit of their goals tend to exert more effort in that pursuit and find the goals more meaningful (Thomas & Schnitker, 2017). Additionally, goals that were more meaningful to people predicted subsequent virtuous goal pursuit. This finding suggests that, as people engage strivings, meaning and virtue have an upward spiral effect on each other, similar to self-transcendent positive emotions. These findings regarding virtue, R/S, and meaning suggest the importance of meaning and meaning-making for both the study of virtue and of R/S. Additional work is needed to integrate goal-based approaches to assessing R/S and virtues. For example, experimental studies could test how manipulations to imbue the goal of developing virtues with sacred meaning affect virtue outcomes (Williams et al., 2021).

Intersection on Narrative Identities

Narrative identities often undergird virtue development and expression as well. Narrative identity is an individual’s ever-evolving life story about who they are and how they came to be who they are becoming (McAdams, 2006). Although not all narrative identities are religious in nature, narrative identities linked to religious traditions provide unique virtue-promoting, meaning-making frameworks (Park, 2005), wherein individuals are motivated to behave morally, transcend themselves, and find meaning (King et al., 2020). Although all narrative identities provide some sort of meaning structure for characteristic adaptations, religious/spiritual narrative identities (i.e., stories people have in their minds about the sacred meaning and formative transcendent experiences of their lives) provide people with sacred meaning and lead to the sanctification of their actions (Bronk, 2014). An identity shaped by transcendence, ultimacy, or sacredness is an especially powerful motivator for activities that are perceived to be virtuous in the moral framework of the person’s religious tradition. Moreover, life narratives with redemptive arcs, which are promoted by many faith traditions, are related to higher levels of generativity in older adults (McAdams, 2006). Thus, when individuals embed their narrative identity into a religious tradition, it can take on a powerful transcendent component that is supported by that community.

Applications for Clinicians and Practitioners in Secular and Religious/Spiritual Settings

Identifying points of convergence and divergence between the scientific study of virtues in the psychology of R/S and positive psychology is a useful scholarly exercise. This sort of targeted comparison also reveals potential applications in both secular and religious/spiritual settings.

Applications in Secular Settings

As clinicians and practitioners (e.g., educators, therapists, and youth workers) integrate virtues into their methods, they must be strategic about where they attempt to intervene. Should practitioners try to influence the development of the traits that support virtues, focus on cultivating self-transcendent positive emotions, or help people construct virtue-supportive narrative identities? It is likely that interventions will be most successful when they attend to all three (although the efficacy of this is yet to be empirically tested). Interventions at the trait level of personality are perhaps the most difficult because of high trait stability (even though trait-level changes are potentially long-lasting and deeply rewarding; see Roberts et al., 2017), whereas interventions at other levels of personality (such as narrative identity) are more readily accessible. For example, forgiveness and hope interventions tend to focus on changing emotion-regulation strategies and relational schemas at the level of what people are doing (e.g., specific behaviors, feelings, and thoughts; Wade et al., 2014).

Many current virtue interventions avoid discussion or use of R/S. This approach may stem from positive psychology’s humanistic grounding (Waterman, 2013), but it may result in users’ inability to integrate the intervention into their meaning systems, which could limit the longevity of the intervention’s effects. It is hard for an intervention to be effective if it does not fit into a user’s meaning-making and identity systems. Virtue interventions do not need to prescribe a meaning system, but they should attempt to map readily onto people’s evolving narrative identities and already existing meaning systems. By doing so, these interventions could have more potent and persistence effects. Connecting virtue-relevant habits to a person’s narrative identity can foster a purpose for motivating that habit, which may thereby promote virtue development (Schnitker et al., 2019a; see Davis et al., Chap. 18, this volume). Of course, certain cultures will value some virtues over others, so what constitutes virtue in one culture may not be considered moral or virtuous in another culture (see Mattis, Chap. 9, this volume).

Hence, when working with individuals, practitioners should keep in mind that virtues are culturally derived and culturally embedded. Accordingly, clinicians and practitioners utilizing positive psychology interventions in a secular setting need to consider their patients’ cultural and religious/spiritual background. Clients may value certain virtues over others, depending on their cultural background and religious perspectives. Biases toward certain virtues may also differ from the clinician’s views. Furthermore, it is important to reiterate that most of the research on positive psychology interventions has been conducted in Western populations, so the cross-cultural effectiveness of them often has not yet been demonstrated. In short, virtue-focused clinical practice must be culturally sensitive and responsive. Let us take the case of the virtue of forgiveness and R/S. If a fictitious client Mark does not highly value forgiveness as a virtue, but his clinician Judy is of a Judeo-Christian faith that places great emphasis on forgiveness, then there may be conflict between Judy and Mark in cases where Mark has been wronged by someone in his life. To be culturally sensitive and responsive, Judy should ask Mark what his cultural values are and let those values take precedence in the clinical relationship and goals.

Applications in Religious/Spiritual Settings

In their work with people, religious leaders (clergy, religious educators, etc.) may also find that positive psychology interventions are helpful tools. Religious leaders might find it helpful to tailor positive psychological interventions to their congregation’s needs (see Chaps. 26 and 29, this volume). For example, a gratitude intervention that asks individuals to list three positive things that went well during the day could be tailored to ask congregants to write down three positive things for which they are grateful to God. Indeed, experimental research suggests framing gratitude journaling as a prayer leads to more potent effects among religious people (Schnitker & Richardson, 2019). Similarly, praying for a romantic partner or friend (in comparison to describing the partner to a parent or thinking positive thoughts about a friend) leads to greater forgiveness across time (Lambert et al., 2010). Ideally, additional research will test these sorts of virtue-development activity modifications for other virtues and religious/spiritual activities beyond prayer for efficacy and provide support for their use.

Many positive psychology interventions overlap with religious/spiritual practices, and leaders can look to the science to see what has been efficacious for most people. However, long-standing, effective religious/spiritual practices (e.g., prayer and meditation) should not be misappropriated for their virtue intervention functions. For religious leaders and adherents, religious/spiritual practices have religious/spiritual functions that extend well beyond their psychological effects. Science can help inform religious/spiritual practitioner choices but should not replace them. How to intervene is dependent on the values and goals of the intervention participant, which must be discussed within the context of the person’s holistic needs and the relationship between the practitioner and participant.

Moreover, caution should be exercised to avoid common pitfalls, such as assuming all interventions can be used into a new setting without contextualization or culturally needed adaptation (Hendriks et al., 2019). Likewise, practitioners should be aware that positive psychology interventions touted to build virtue may have unintended and undesirable side effects. For example, mindfulness interventions sometimes reduce caring moral responses to harmful behaviors (Schindler et al., 2019) and can increase self-focus and self-enhancement bias (Gebauer et al., 2018). Despite these pitfalls, positive psychology interventions that are properly understood and tailored to fit meaning systems can become powerful aids for cultivating growth.

Conclusion

As demonstrated throughout this chapter, the study of virtue in positive psychology and the psychology of R/S run parallel to each other and often converge. Points of convergence and divergence provide numerous applications to clinical and applied work regarding the ways to intervene, the integration of virtue and R/S in interventions, the application of interventions to an individual’s meaning system, and the overlap between R/S and virtue interventions. The research presented throughout this chapter shows a rich history of virtue research and highlights a fruitful line of integrative research to come. We found multiple areas of intersection for R/S and positive psychology on virtue, including trait taxonomies, cultural ideals, cultural practices, goal pursuits, context-specific emotions, and narrative identities. Our hope is that the work presented within this chapter may illuminate conversations for individuals, families, and communities around the questions we posed at the beginning of the chapter, such as: What makes a person virtuous, and what role can R/S play in the embodiment, expression, and enhancement of virtuous character?