Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 1
RUNNING HEAD: Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice
The Relationship between Life Purpose, Spiritual Well-being, and Student Affairs Practice:
Report of Research Findings for the Educational Leadership Foundation of
ACPA College Student Educators International
Submitted by
Tricia Seifert
Noël Harmon
Kathleen Goodman
Sherry Watt
The University of Iowa
January 2009
Please direct questions regarding this report to:
Dr. Tricia Seifert
N491 Lindquist Center
Iowa City, IA 52242
Tricia-Seifert@uiowa.edu
We would like to thank the Educational Leadership Foundation of ACPA for their generous
support of this research.
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 2
Introduction
In the past ten years, a growing body of research has been devoted to examining the role
of spirituality in the lives of college students (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 2003;
Bryant, 2006; Bryant, Choi, & Yasuno, 2003; Lee, 2002; Lindholm, 2006; Love, Bock,
Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005; Magolda & Ebben, 2006; Moran, 2007; Parks, 2000; Tisdell,
2003; Watt, 2003); how student affairs practitioners can best support students in their
development (Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm, 2006; Jablonski, 2001; Love, 2001; Love & Talbot,
1999; Manning, 2001; Parks, 2000; Rogers, & Love, 2007), and how specific demographic
groups of students can best be supported in their spiritual growth and development (Love, Bock,
Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005; Watt, 2003). Recognizing the importance of distinguishing
between religion and spirituality, some have characterized spirituality in terms of students’
journey or quest (see Bryant, 2006) in search of their own answers to the “Big Questions” (Parks,
2000) which deal with identity (“who am I?”), destiny/calling (“where am I going?”), faith
(“what can I believe in?”), wholeness (“how can I be happy?”), and mattering (“will my life
make a difference?”) (Dalton, Eberhardt, Bracken, & Echols, 2006). However, student affairs
practitioners still grapple with how to engage students in discussions about these questions in
ways that promote students’ development, while consciously recognizing the variability of both
students’ and student affairs practitioners’ spiritual/religious practices and beliefs.
Despite well-meaning efforts and intentions to define spirituality in an inclusive manner
(Chickering, 2008; Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm, 2006; Love & Talbot, 1999; Parks, 2000), the
root word, “spirit” conveys a construct that does not resonate with all students or all student
affairs practitioners (Goodman & Teraguchi, 2008; Nash, 2001). For those who the term
“spirituality” does not ring true, higher education’s renewed focus on spiritual development may
leave them without a seat at the table to discuss life’s Big Questions. Moreover, there may be a
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 3
perception that practitioners who identify as religious and/or spiritual are more inclined to
engage in practices previous research has associated with facilitating students’ spiritual
development than those who do not identify as religious and/or spiritual. Our research tested this
notion by examining the effects of student affairs practitioners’ sense of life purpose, spiritual
well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being on their engagement in practices
associated with students’ spiritual development.
Method
Sample
We partnered with ACPA College Student Educators International to conduct this
research. ACPA sent an e-mail to all graduate and professional members within the United
States inviting them to participate. Participants followed a link to a secure website in which they
completed the 20 minute online survey. Twenty-six percent of those invited to participate chose
to do so. The respondent sample (n=1,488) was similar to the overall ACPA membership but was
overrepresented by White and female respondents. We had 1,404 respondents with complete data
on all variables across the regression models. We provide complete descriptive statistics on the
analytic sample in Table 1.
In addition to the demographic, education, and professional experience questions, we
collected information on respondents’ spiritual and religious involvement and orientation. To our
knowledge, this is the only study to date that has asked student affairs practitioners these kinds of
questions. Nearly two-thirds of sample respondents (63.5%) indicated they were involved in an
organized religion. Approximately 20% of respondents stated they participate in religiouslyaffiliated activities a few times a year while 30% stated they participate weekly. A small number
of respondents (less than 2%), who identified as not being part of an organized religion,
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 4
participate in religiously-affiliated activities a few times a year and sometimes with even greater
frequency. Conversely, a small number (less than 1%), who identified as belonging to an
organized religion, do not participate in religiously-affiliated activities. In terms of asking about
respondents’ denominational and religious/spiritual orientation, we augmented the list used by
the Higher Education Research Institute’s Spirituality in Higher Education research project
(HERI, 2003). Despite a broad listing of religious denominations and religious/spiritual
orientations, Other (18.7%) was one of the three most frequently selected categories with
Catholic (22.9%) and Protestant (29.3%) having the greatest percentages. Fourteen percent of
respondents identified as Agnostic, Atheist, or Humanist.
Instrument
In order to measure our independent variables of interest, we intentionally selected preexisting instruments used by psychological and social science researchers for nearly 20 years.
The first section was the fourteen-item Life Purpose scale of psychological well being (Ryff,
1989). We chose this scale because we felt it measured purpose in life in a secular way that did
not reference “God” or spirituality. The scale measures the degree to which an individual has:
1) goals in life and a sense of direction; 2) feels there is a meaning to present and past life; 3)
holds beliefs that give life purpose; and 4) has aims and objectives for living (Ryff, 1989; Ryff &
Keyes, 1995).
The twenty item Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) (Ellison & Paloutzian, 1982;
Ellison, 1983) comprised the second section of the instrument. We chose the SWBS, because it
measures the two dimensions in which spirituality seems to be seated. Specifically, people have a
level of well-being related to their life existence (similar to Ryff’s life purpose scale) but also
have a level of well-being connected to a higher power. The ten item Religious Well-Being
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 5
subscale assesses one’s relationship with God, while the ten-item Existential Well-Being
subscale assesses one’s sense of life purpose and life satisfaction. When the two subscales are
summed, the result is a general indicator of spiritual well-being. The SWBS instrument uses the
term “God” as a focus of the higher power in the religious well-being scale, which did not
resonate with all of our respondents. It is important to note that seventy-two respondents chose
not to complete the Religious Well-Being subscale, leaving those questions pertaining to “God”
blank. In order to have comparable analytic samples, we did not include the respondents who did
not complete the Religious Well-Being scale in our regression models.
The third section of the instrument consisted of items measuring the frequency with
which student affairs practitioners’ engage in various practices with students (see Table 2). These
items are a significant revision of items pilot tested with a convenience sample at a state-wide
conference in the midwest in October 2005. These survey questions were originally created as
part of a survey developed in a doctoral seminar titled “Spirituality and Student Affairs
Practice.” We selected these practices based on previous research indicating they contribute to
students’ spiritual development (Cannister, 1999; Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm, 2006; Daloz,
Keen, Keen, & Parks, 1996; Koth, 2003 Love, 2002; Manning, 2001; Parks, 2000; Tisdell,
2003). The student affairs practitioners’ practice items comprised the dependent variables for the
study.
The survey instrument concluded with demographic questions. We included a number of
these demographic variables as important controls in our analyses. In order to better estimate the
unique effect of the independent variables of interest on student affairs practitioners’ engagement
with students, we controlled for gender (female was the reference group), age, race/ethnicity
(White was the reference group), if the respondent had a graduate degree in higher education or
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 6
student affairs, if the respondent was involved in an organized religion, and if the respondent
worked at a religiously-affiliated institution.
Analysis
We analyzed these data from three perspectives. First, we factor analyzed the student
affairs practice items to see if the individual items suggested the presence of underlying
constructs of student affairs practice. These constructs then comprised our dependent variables.
Next, we examined bivariate correlations among the dependent and independent variables (life
purpose, spiritual well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being). Finally, we ran a
series of ordinary least squares regressions to estimate and compare the magnitude of the unique
effects of our independent variables of interest on each of our dependent measures. For each
dependent measure, we estimated three regression models. The first model estimated the effects
of life purpose and spiritual well-being on student affairs practice; the second model examined
the effects of life purpose and existential well-being; and the third model regressed the student
affairs practice variables on life purpose and religious well-being. All models controlled for
gender, age, race/ethnicity, higher education/student affairs graduate degree, involvement in an
organized religion, and whether the respondent’s institution was religiously-affiliated.
Results
Factor Analysis
We were interested in learning what effect life purpose and spiritual well-being (and the
sub-scale components of existential and religious well-being) had on practices in which student
affairs practitioners engage students. We sought to answer this question by first seeing if
correlations existed between the set of twenty practices. We used principal components factor
analysis to examine if the collection of items tapped any underlying constructs related to student
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 7
affairs practitioners’ engagement with students. Setting an eigenvalue of one as the threshold, we
found the student affairs practice items clustered into three separate constructs: community
building, modeling authenticity, and reflective practice. Community building reflects student
affairs practitioners’ intentional creation of opportunities for students to engage with one another
and their larger community, often with social justice and civic engagement as a centering point
for the activity. Modeling authenticity denotes student affairs practitioners’ willingness to
recognize students’ individuality, engage students in conversations about purpose and balance
and to share their own experience. Reflective practice refers to student affairs practitioners’
deliberate use of time and various modes (e.g., art, music, film, journaling) to think about their
actions, intentions, and values. We present constituent item factor loadings and scale reliabilities
in Table 2.
Correlations
We then examined the correlations between our independent variables of interest (life
purpose, spiritual well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being) and our dependent
variables (community building, modeling authenticity, and reflective practices). We found our
dependent variables related to one another in a modest manner (bivariate correlations ranged
between .504 and .603, p < .01). With the exception of the life purpose and the existential wellbeing scales (r = .715, p < .01), the correlations between the life purpose scale and the
components of the spiritual well-being scale were lower than the correlations between the
dependent variables. We provide correlations between the independent variables of interest and
dependent measures in Table 3.
Regression Analysis
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 8
The focus of this research study was to examine the effect of student affairs practitioners’
sense of life purpose, spiritual well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being on the
extent to which they used community building, modeling authenticity, and reflective practices in
their work with students. We provide beta coefficients for all models in Table 4. Beta
coefficients can be interpreted as a standard deviation increase in X yields a beta standard
deviation increase in Y. Controlling for demographic characteristics, we found student affairs
practitioners’ sense of life purpose had a significantly positive effect on practitioners’
engagement in community building (beta = .165, p < .001), modeling authenticity (beta = .159, p
< .001) and reflective practices (beta = .135, p < .001), whereas practitioners’ spiritual wellbeing (the sum of the existential and religious well-being scales) had no effect on their engaging
in these practices.
We hypothesized student affairs practitioners’ religious well-being may obscure the
relationship between spiritual well-being and engaging in these practices. Specifically, we
considered practitioners’ sense of existential well-being might be more influential in their work
with students than practitioners’ religious well-being. To examine this hypothesis, we compared
the unique effects of life purpose and existential well-being on practitioners’ engagement in
practices. With both life purpose and existential well-being entered into the model, we found
practitioners’ sense of life purpose contributed positively to their engagement in community
building (beta = .119, p < .01), modeling authenticity (beta = .157, p < .001), and reflective
practices (beta = .113, p < .01), but their level of existential well-being had no effect on engaging
in these practices. The non-significant effect of existential well-being is likely due to its fairly
high correlation with the life purpose scale (r = .715, p < .001). Although the tolerance and
variance inflation factor indices were not outside of normal parameters (average tolerance =
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 9
.480) (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), this degree of multicollinearity may have affected
the amount of unique variance the life purpose and existential well-being scales could explain in
the models.
Finally, we investigated the effect of life purpose and religious well-being on student
affairs practitioners’ engagement in community building, modeling authenticity, and reflective
practice. We found religious well-being had no effect on practitioners’ engagement with
practices associated with students’ spiritual development but life purpose positively predicted
practitioners’ engagement in community building (beta = .170, p < .001), modeling authenticity
(beta = .166, p < .001), and reflective practices (beta = .144, p < .001).
In an additional series of analysis, we examined if existential well-being or religious
well-being had a stronger influence on practitioners’ engagement in these practices. We found
practitioners’ existential well-being predicted engaging in practices associated with students’
spiritual development but religious well-being had no effect. These findings were consistent with
our earlier results and clearly demonstrated practitioners’ sense of life purpose and its
commensurate construct, existential well-being, have greater effects than religious well-being on
engaging in practices associated with facilitating students’ spiritual development.
In summary, net of other influences, a practitioners’ life purpose had a statistically larger
positive effect on the extent to which practitioners engage in community building, modeling
authenticity, and reflective practices with students than their levels of spiritual well-being,
existential well-being, and religious well-being. The fact that life purpose clearly yielded the
greatest influence on practitioners’ willingness to engage in practices associated with students’
spiritual development calls on practitioners to rethink the language they use to discuss spiritual
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 10
development and to reconsider their own journey in asking and answering life’s Big Questions.
We discuss what this research means for students affairs practice in subsequent sections.
Discussion and Implications for Practice
Privilege
Those who identify as spiritual (typically with a reference to God or some higher power)
and/or religious may unfairly earn a degree of privilege due to the perception they are more
likely to engage in practices associated with students' spiritual development. This perception,
however, is unfounded. Although those who feel spiritually called to the profession may believe
a higher power gives center to their practice, our findings suggest that it matters little whether
practitioners have a spiritual and/or religious grounding. In engaging in practices associated with
facilitating students’ spiritual development, what matters most is that student affairs practitioners
have a strong sense of meaning or purpose to their life. A strong sense of life purpose, and
similarly a high level of existential well-being, is that which truly influences the way student
affairs practitioners engage with students in community building, modeling authenticity, and
reflective practice.
Change the Discourse
Given that life purpose matters most, we assert higher education’s recent and vociferous
focus on “spirituality” (Astin, 2004; Chickering, 2003; Palmer, 1998) may unwittingly
perpetuate the idea that those who identify as spiritual and/or religious are the only ones prepared
to assist students in wrestling with life’s Big Questions. Student affairs practitioners’ disposition
and understanding of their own life purpose, not their spiritual or religious well-being, makes the
biggest difference in their motivation to engage in practices that build community, model
authenticity, and engage students in reflective ways. If the field is sincerely resolute in using
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 11
inquiry to foster holistic student learning, then it is time to change the discourse to reflect the
evidence.
The term “spirituality” is particularly confusing and synonymous to many with religion
(Nash, 2001) and is often ill-defined. Some participants in our study chose not to respond to
questions on the religious well-being scale because the references to God did not resonate with
them. The discord generated by this set of survey items led us to think about what level of
dissonance is caused when higher education broadly references “spirituality” (and the extent to
which the term spirituality is associated with “God” or a higher power) for students and others
for whom this construct simply does not resonate. For example, how many students may want to
attend a program to discuss living authentically with purpose and meaning but find the
“spirituality” marketing of the program distressing? In an effort to make a space at the table for
all, we offer the term “inner development” to describe this quest or journey. We find “inner
development” to more inclusively invite students, faculty, and student affairs practitioners to the
table to wrestle with life’s Big Questions. In an effort to meet all students where they are, we
encourage student affairs practitioners to refocus their interactions around students’ inner
development instead of spirituality.
Student affairs practitioners may need to clearly delineate (for themselves and students)
when they are discussing inner development and when they are discussing spirituality or religion.
Religion may be one dimension of inner development, spirituality may be another, and the
broader search to live authentically with a sense of purpose and meaning may still be another.
This is not to say, however, that these dimensions are mutually exclusive. For some students (and
practitioners alike), a conversation about inner development may center in a conversation about
religious belief or personal spiritual practice. However, to assume that inner development has
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 12
these connotations for all students removes places at the table for a host of students (particularly
agnostics, atheists, free-thinkers, secular humanists, and others) (Goodman & Teraguchi, 2008;
Nash, 2001). If we are “to know as we are known,” as Parker Palmer (1983) urges, then a
welcoming and inclusive language must serve as our community’s foundation.
In order to be inclusive of all students, student affairs practitioners from either end of the
spectrum (highly religious to atheist) will likely need to re-conceptualize and reconcile how they
support students’ inner development. This may first require student affairs practitioners to
recognize and acknowledge their own stance on religious and spiritual beliefs and practices as
well as their responses to the Big Questions in order to assess how their biases may impact their
work with students. It seems that learning more about one’s beliefs and the beliefs of others,
despite the fact that religion and spirituality are “hot topics” (Nash, Bradley, & Chickering,
2008), is necessary for practitioners to best educate in a holistic manner.
An Examined Life
In order for student affairs practitioners to be personally and professionally available to
journey with students into the land of Big Questions, they must examine their own inner
development and personal journey into student affairs work, asking themselves intentional
questions about their calling as student affairs practitioners. Intentional question to ask could
include: in what ways am I clear about what I do and the purpose behind my commitment to the
student affairs profession? What motivates me personally towards this profession? What
assumptions do I have about inner development or rather, my sense of living authentically with
purpose and meaning? What assumptions do I have about spirituality and religion? What role do
I believe higher education should play in fostering students’ inner development, particularly as
this may relate to spirituality and religion for some students? What is my comfort zone in
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 13
discussing “hot topics” and asking (and struggling to answer) the “Big Questions?” How does
my personal belief structure influence my work with all students? Student affairs practitioners
have to be willing to engage in their own inner development in order to be “good company”
(Baxter Magolda, 2005) on students’ inner development journeys.
A helpful start to unpacking student affairs practitioners’ biases on the topics of religion,
spirituality, and inner development is to create professional development opportunities that focus
on these issues. Student affairs practitioners need occasions to think through their own sense of
life purpose and how they are living an authentic life. They need time to think about and honestly
assess their biases, how they came to those biases, and what they are willing to work on in order
to best meet the needs of students.
Spirituality is the new “buzz” word in higher education and as with issues such as race
and sexual orientation, student affairs professionals often shy away from conducting and
honoring their self-assessments, particularly if their personal values deviate from what they
perceive is the normative expectation of the profession. However, by not unpacking, confronting,
and reconciling one’s feelings about issues such as spirituality, life purpose, and religion, student
affairs practitioners may due unintentional harm, or at the very least negatively influence the
students with whom they work. Facilitating conversations about inner development and
wrestling with Big Questions with students likely comes easier to practitioners who have had the
chance and taken the time to think through and wrestle with these issues themselves.
The inner development work for which we argue requires a big leap for most
practitioners. First, it means setting aside precious time that could otherwise be used on
something tangible, like planning a program, to reflect and think about the far less tangible. It is
difficult to quantify the “outcomes” of time spent thinking about what one’s purpose is in the
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 14
profession or how to act more authentically with students and co-workers. When the profession
rewards only that which can be measured, the inner development of practitioners is devalued.
However, if student affairs practitioners are truly to be “good company” on students’ journeys,
they must take the time to prepare their own provisions. The “outcomes” of this kind of inner
development, while less tangible, will manifest in richer, fuller interactions with not only
students but colleagues.
Even if one takes the time, the inner development work done by practitioners may
languish if a community engaged in similar pursuits does not support and celebrate it. Convening
a mentoring community (Parks, 2000) to provide a place for practitioners to grapple with the Big
Questions and articulate, interrogate, process, and commit to a self-authored purpose is
necessary. This may mean finding or creating different spaces for both practitioners and students
where they feel safe to reflect and converse about difficult issues. It may also mean establishing
or creating a culture where engaging in discussions about inner development is valued and
respected as a worthy pursuit and essential to the lifeblood of the community. This may be a
challenge. Our fast-paced society conditions us that time spent in reflection or in conversation is
wasteful. However, recent research has shown that today’s students crave the chance to explore
these issues (HERI, 2003). Student affairs professionals have long been stewards of holistic
learning, unwavering in their commitment to the development of the “whole” student (Evans &
Reason, 2001), a concept that continues to evolve. As the needs of our students change, so too
must the profession. Student affairs professionals must continue to think broadly and inclusively
about the multitude of facets of student development, finding ways—whether comfortable or
not—to meet that historic edict.
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 15
Conclusion
In order to best facilitate students’ inner development, we need to first change the
discourse to reflect the diverse beliefs and values of today’s college students. Attempting to
repackage spirituality and spiritual development as inclusive terms denies the power and
privilege that they engender for those on the margins. In order to engage in practices that reach
all students, students affairs practitioners must re-commit to questioning, reflecting,
understanding, and where necessary, developing their own sense of meaning and life purpose.
Student affairs practitioners own inner development impacts the degree to which they engage in
community building, modeling authenticity, and reflective practices—all of which have been
shown to positively promote student development. Given the resurgence of interest in
facilitating students’ spiritual development (of which we have renamed inner development),
refocusing student affairs practitioners’ efforts to ask and struggle with their own Big Questions
may be what best serves students. We assert that only then will student affairs practitioners have
the fullest capacity to be good company for students on their inner quest and journey.
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 16
References
Astin, A.W. (2004). Why spirituality deserves a central place in liberal education. Liberal
Education, 90(2), 34-41.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2002). Helping students make their way to adulthood: Good company for
the journey. About Campus, 6(6), 2-9.
Bryant, A.N. (2006). Exploring religious pluralism in higher education: Non-majority religious
perspectives among entering first-year college students. Religion & Education, 33(1), 125.
Bryant, A., Choi, J., & Yasuno, M. (2003). Understanding the religious and spiritual dimensions
of students' lives in the first year of college.” Journal of College Student Development,
44(6), 723-45.
Chickering, A.W. (2003). Reclaiming our soul: Democracy and higher education. Change, 35(1),
38-44.
Chickering, A.W. (2008, March). Curricular content, powerful pedagogy, and student activities
to encourage spiritual growth. Presentation at the Iowa State University’s Conference on
Spirituality, Ames, IA.
Chickering A.W., Dalton, J.C., & Stamm, L. (2006). Encouraging authenticity & spirituality in
higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cannister, M.W. (1999). Mentoring and the spiritual well-being of late adolescents. Adolescence,
34(136), 769-779.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 17
Daloz, L.A., Keen, C. H., Keen, J.P., and Parks, S.D. (1996). Common Fire. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Dalton, J.C., Eberhardt, D., Bracken, J., & Echols, K. (2006). Inward journeys: Forms and
patterns of college student spirituality. Journal of College & Character, 7(8), 1-21.
Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 11, 330-340.
Evans, N. J. & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of student affairs
philosophical statements.” Journal of College Student Development, 42(4), 359-377.
Goodman, K. M., & Teraguchi, D. H. (2008). Beyond spirituality: A new framework for
educators. Diversity & Democracy, 11(1), 10-11.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (2003). The spiritual life of college students: A
national study of college students’ search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles:
Author.
Jablonski, M.A.(Ed.) (2001). The implications of student spirituality for student affairs practice.
New Direction for Student Services, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Koth, K. (2003). Deepening the commitment to serve: Spiritual reflection on service-learning.
About Campus, 7(6), 2-7.
Lee, J.J. (2002). Changing worlds, changing selves: The experience of the religious self among
Catholic collegians. Journal of College Student Development, 43(3), 341-356.
Lindholm, J.A. (2006). The "interior" lives of American college students: Preliminary findings
from a national study.” In J.L. Heft (Ed.), Passing on the faith: Transforming traditions
for the next generation of Jews, Christians, and Muslims (pp. 75-102). New York:
Fordham University Press.
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 18
Love, P.G., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction: Exploring
the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(2), 193-209.
Love, P.G. (2001). Spirituality and student development: Theoretical connections. In M.A.
Jablonski (Ed.), The implications of student spirituality for student affairs practice (pp. 716). New Directions for Student Services, no. 95, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Love, P.G. (2002). Comparing spiritual development and cognitive development. Journal of
College Student Development, 43(3), 357-373.
Love, P.G., & Talbot, D. (1999). Defining spiritual development: A missing consideration for
student affairs. NASPA Journal, 37, 361-375.
Magolda, P., & Ebben, K. (2006). College student involvement and mobilization: An
ethnographic study of a Christian student organization. Journal of College Student
Development, 47(3), 281-298.
Manning, K. (2001). Infusing soul into student affairs: Organizational theory and models. In
M.A. Jablonski (Ed.), The implications of student spirituality for student affairs practice
(pp. 27-35). New Directions for Student Services, no. 95, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moran, C.D. (2007). The public identity work of evangelical Christian students. Journal of
College Student Development, 48(4), 418-434.
Nash, R. (2001). Religious pluralism in the academy: Opening the dialogue. New York: Peter
Lang Publishing.
Nash, R., Bradley, D.L., Chickering, A. (2008). How to talk about hot topics on campus: From
polarization to moral conversation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. J. (1993). To know as we are known. San Francisco: Harper.
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 19
Palmer, P.J. (1998). Evoking the spirit in public education. Educational Leadership, 56(4), 6-11.
Paloutzian, R.F. & Ellison, C.W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and the quality of life.
In L.A. Peplau and D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory,
research and therapy (pp. 224-237). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Parks, S.D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, J.L., & Love, P.G. (2007). Exploring the role of spirituality in the preparation of student
affairs practitioners: Faculty constructions. Journal of College Student Development,
48(1), 90-104.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.
Tisdell, E.J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Watt, S.K. (2003). Come to the river: Using spirituality to cope, resist, and develop identity. In
M.F. Howard-Hamilton (Ed.), Meeting the needs of African American women (pp. 29
40). New Direction in Student Services, no. 104, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 20
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample: N=1,404
Independent Variables of Interest
Life Purpose
Religious Well-being
Existential Well-being
Spiritual Well-being
Dependent Variables
Community Building
Modeling Authenticity
Reflective Practice
Mean
SD
Min Max
5.05
4.18
5.13
4.65
0.59
1.53
0.65
0.9
1.93
1.00
1.60
1.80
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
1.29
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.38
1.00
Percent*
7.00
7.00
7.00
3.80
5.89
3.90
n
Demographic Variables
Gender
Men
Transgendered
Women
Information not available
443
957
3
1
31.6
68.2
0.2
0.1
146
8
42
1112
54
43
20
10.4
0.6
0.6
79.2
3.8
3.1
1.4
280
358
214
172
105
85
190
19.9
25.5
15.2
12.3
7.5
6.1
13.5
Race/Ethnicity**
African American
Native American
Asian Pacific Islander
White
Latino/a
Multiracial
Other
Age
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51 or older
* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. ** N size does not sum to 1,404 as some respondents chose more than one
racial/ethnic category as opposed to marking "Multiracial."
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 21
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample: N=1,404, page 2
Education and Professional Experience
Degree Completed
Associate's
Bachelor's
Master's
Ph.D.
Postdoctoral
Information not available
Higher Education/Student Affairs Graduate Degree
No
Yes
Years in Field
Less than a year to 3 years
4-6 years
7-9 years
10-14 years
15-19 years
20 or more years
Information not available
Institutional Type
2-year Community College
4- year Public Institution
4-year Private Institution
2- or 4-year For-profit
Information not available
Religious Institution
No
Yes
Religious Involvement and Orientation
Involvement in an Organized Religion
No
Yes
Participates in Religiously-affiliated Activities
Does not participate
A few times a year
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
n
Percent
1
256
860
273
13
1
0.1
18.2
61.3
19.4
0.9
0.1
474
930
33.8
66.2
344
289
186
187
149
247
2
24.5
20.6
13.2
13.3
10.6
17.6
0.1
55
822
516
5
6
3.9
58.5
36.8
0.4
0.4
1138
266
81.1
18.9
512
892
36.5
63.5
503
262
154
411
74
35.8
18.7
11
29.3
5.3
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 22
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample: N=1,404, page 3
Religious orientation, regardless of participation
Agnostic
Atheist
Buddhist
Catholic
Evangelical
Hindu
Humanist
Jehovah's Witness
Jewish
Mormon
Muslim
Pagan
Protestant
Quaker
Seventh Day Adventist
Sikh
Wiccan
Other
Information not available
n
Percent
132
49
15
321
58
1
15
0
53
5
5
7
411
5
3
0
1
262
61
9.4
3.5
1.1
22.9
4.1
0.1
1.1
0
3.8
0.4
0.4
0.5
29.3
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
18.7
4.3
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 23
Table 2. Scales of Student Affairs Practice Related to Spiritual Development
α = .877
Community Building
Factor
loadings
Incorporate service learning into programming model
.603
Create opportunities for intercultural interactions
.665
Use outdoor/wilderness environment as learning tool
.486
Conduct ally/social justice training
.686
Discuss rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in a community
.602
Create opportunities for social/political awareness
.746
Include issues of social justice in programming model
.789
Conduct community-building exercises
.622
Provide opportunities for community service/volunteerism
.707
α = .848
Modeling Authenticity
Discuss life purpose
.448
Share relevant personal experiences during conversations w/ students
.654
Discuss balance with students in terms of self care, stress, conflict management
.692
Communicate and interact with students in sincere and genuine ways
.841
Seek to understand the unique individuality of each student
.824
Mentor students in their personal development
.712
Discuss career and future professional life with students
.776
α = .732
Reflective Practices
Provide time to reflect and share during class or meeting
.695
Provide time for written reflections during class meetings
.813
Use art, music, poetry, or film as learning tools
.531
Use and discuss values clarification
.565
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 24
Table 3. Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables in Study
MODELING
AUTHENTICITY
COMMUNITY
BUILDING
REFLECTIVE
PRACTICE
LIFE PURPOSE
RELIGIOUS
WELL-BEING
EXISTENTIAL
WELL-BEING
SPIRITUAL
WELL-BEING
r
Sig. (2tailed)
r
Sig. (2tailed)
r
MODELING
AUTHENTICITY
1
COMMUNITY
BUILDING
.526**
REFLECTIVE
PRACTICE
.504**
LIFE
PURPOSE
.153**
RELIGIOUS
WELLBEING
.034
EXISTENTIAL
WELL-BEING
.120**
SPIRITUAL
WELLBEING
.072**
.000
.000
.000
.206
.000
.007
1
.603**
.144**
-.027
.133**
.025
.000
.000
.308
.000
.351
1
.130**
-.008
.112**
.033
.000
.777
.000
.218
1
.221**
.715**
.446**
.000
.000
.000
1
.247**
.936**
.000
.000
1
.571**
.526**
.000
.504**
.603**
.000
.000
.153**
.144**
.130**
Sig. (2tailed)
r
.000
.000
.000
.034
-.027
-.008
.221**
Sig. (2tailed)
r
.206
.308
.777
.000
.120**
.133**
.112**
.715**
.247**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.072**
.025
.033
.446**
.936**
.571**
.351
.218
.000
.000
.000
Sig. (2tailed)
r
Sig. (2tailed)
r
Sig. (2.007
tailed)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
.000
1
Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 25
Table 4. Beta Coefficients for Regression Modelsa
Life Purpose
Spiritual Well-being
Existential Well-being
Religious Well-being
R2
Community Building
I
II
III
.165** .119* .170**
0.005
0.068
-0.018
0.06
0.062
0.06
Modeling Authenticity
I
II
III
.159** .157** .166**
0.026
0.017
0.021
0.05
0.049
0.05
Reflective Practices
I
II
III
.135** 0.113** .144**
0.031
0.048
0.019
0.034
0.035
0.034
* p < .01; ** p < .001;
a
All models include controls for gender, age, race/ethnicity, whether one has a graduate degree in higher education/student affairs, whether one
belongs to an organized religion, and whether one is employed at a religiously-affiliated institution.