Copyright 2015 by Rosemead School of Psychology
JO URNAL OF PSYCHOLO GY & TH EOL OG Y
2 0 1 5 , V ol . 4 3 , N o . 1 , 3 4 4 6
Spiritual Maturity as a Moderator of
the Relationship Between Christian
Fundamentalism and Shame
Kathryn H. Keller, Debra Mollen, and Lisa H. Rosen
Texas Womans University
The current study examined spiritual maturity as a mod-
erator of the relation between Christian fundamentalism
and shame. One hundred sixty four Christian-identified
participants (141 women) were recruited through social
networking sites. Participants completed the following
measures through a secured website: the Revised Religious
Fundamentalism Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004),
Spiritual Assessment Inventory (Hall & Edwards, 1996),
and The Shame Inventory (Rizvi, 2010). Hierarchical re-
gressions were used to examine the moderation effects of
spiritual maturity on shame for Christians who scored both
high and low on the fundamentalist spectrum. Results re-
vealed that two components of spiritual maturityaware-
ness of God and realistic acceptancemoderated the rela-
tionship between Christian fundamentalism and shame.
Christians scoring high on fundamentalism and high on
these dimensions of spiritual maturity experienced low
shame. Conversely, Christians scoring high on fundamen-
talism and low on these dimensions of spiritual maturity
experienced high shame. Implications for mental health
clinicians and clergy are discussed.
Psychologists and religious clergy serve individuals
from a variety of cultures and diverse religious back-
grounds. Considering that nearly 80% of Americans
identify as religious (Kosmin & Keysary, 2009) and
88% report being spiritual (Idler et al., 2003), spiritual-
Author Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Kathryn H. Keller, Department of Psychology and Phi-
losophy, Texas Womans University, Denton, TX 76204. Email:
klamar@twu.edu
34
Biola University, 0091-6471/410-730
ity and religiosity are critical concepts to explore and
understand in order for psychologists and clergy to
better serve individuals with mental health concerns.
In consideration of the more than three-quarters of
Americans who identify as Christian (Kosmin & Key-
sary, 2009; Meacham & Gray, 2009), the focus of the
current study was on exploring how Christian beliefs
impact the emotion of shame. The relationship be-
tween religion and shame has historically been con-
fusing and complex, needing further study (Luyten,
Corveleyn, & Fontaine, 1998). The research goal was
to describe a pathway relationship between religious
beliefsparticularly for Christians along the spectrum
of non-fundamentalist to fundamentalist beliefsand
shame by examining spiritual maturity as a modera-
tor. Examining how fundamentalist Christian culture
might impact mental health and treatment is an impor-
tant part of gaining multicultural competence when
working with this population (American Psychological
Association [APA], 2002).
With the ultimate goal of expanding the research
base to strengthen multicultural competence among
helping professionals, this study examined the relation-
ship between fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs
and shame. Fundamentalist Christianity is particularly
important to understand as little research has been
conducted on culturally competent interventions for
this population that makes up a significant subset of
Christianity (Aten, Mangis, & Campbell, 2010). Fun-
damentalist Christian culture descends from a unique
history of cultural and religious influences dating back
to the late 19th century that have shaped how these
Christians have come to think about and practice their
faith (Hood, Hill, & Williamson, 2005). Such think-
Keller, Mollen, a nd Ros e n 35
ing is unique to fundamentalist culture and should be
considered distinct from other Christian traditions.
This research provides insight into a unique subset
of the Christian religion for which there are no prior
studies addressing how the construct of shame may be
related to fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Specifi-
cally, this study addressed whether spiritual maturity
influences the relationship between fundamentalist
Christian beliefs and the construct of shame.
Fundamentalist Christian Beliefs
The current study specifically examined Christian
fundamentalism, as this group is not well understood
from a clinical perspective (Aten et al., 2010). One
factor contributing to this lack of understanding is an
unclear distinction between Christian fundamentalism
and other forms of Protestant Christianity, including
the broader category of evangelicalism, of which funda-
mentalist Christianity is a part. Many researchers define
Christian fundamentalism as more of an outlook or at-
titude than a set of specific doctrines (e.g., Davis, 2006).
More specifically, Hood et al. (2005) conceptualized
fundamentalism as a meaning system from which be-
lievers derive motivation for understanding their world.
Fundamentalism emerged from the 19th century
Christian evangelical movement upon disagreement
over Darwinism and higher biblical criticism (Wood-
berry & Smith, 1998). A series of booklets published
between 1910 and 1915 entitled The Fundamentals:
A Testimony to the Truth provided the basic tenets of
what later became known as Christian fundamental-
ism (Hood et al., 2005). Fundamentalist Christianity,
while evangelical, can be distinguished from evangeli-
cal Christianity in its greater emphasis on conserva-
tism and authoritarianism (Moyers, 1994) and a desire
to separate from the world (Woodberry & Smith,
1998, p. 29). Christian fundamentalism is a reaction
to cultural modernism, theological liberalism, higher
criticism, and evolution (Stockwell, 2012). Whereas
some Protestant Christians have accepted the cultural
changes of the times and incorporated them into their
belief systems, fundamentalists have tended to resist
many modern ideas and cultural shifts and argued ada-
mantly for their theological and cultural beliefs.
Ammerman (1991) articulated five particular
beliefs held by both fundamentalist and evangelical
Christians, although to varying degrees, that had ties to
The Fundamentals. These beliefs include the inerrancy
of scripture, evangelism, premillenialism, separatism,
and biblical literalism. Although many evangelical and
fundamentalist Christians espouse these beliefs, one
observable difference lies in their approaches to the
culture at large; fundamentalists tend to relate to the
larger culture through the imagery of warfare, empha-
sizing separation from the secular world, their vindi-
cation become[ing] their badge of separation from the
world, (Hood et al., 2005, p. 80).
Fundamentalist Christians can be found in diverse
settings including smaller, independent, Bible-based
worship communities and in larger, especially influen-
tial denominations (Moyers, 1994). Fundamentalists
often believe they have the truth and that even other
Christians who do not believe as they do regarding
their fundamentalist outlook are not true Christians
(Barr, 1977). Because of the varying degrees of funda-
mentalist beliefs, and the resistance of some toward the
label of fundamentalist, it is difficult for researchers to
quantify how many Christians endorse fundamental-
ist beliefs (Woodberry & Smith, 1998). Additionally,
there seems to be a growing hostility among fundamen-
talist groups toward other more modern outlooks on
religion, theology, and Christianity (Mercer, 2009).
Shame
Many issues for which individuals seek help from
psychologists and clergy are related to shame. Shame
has been implicated in various psychological disor-
ders, including depression (Cheung, Gilbert, & Irons,
2004), posttraumatic stress disorder (Dyer et al.,
2009), and anxiety (Harder, Cutler, & Rockart, 1992).
Shame is an all-encompassing negative feeling about
oneself (Lewis, 1971). Because of the broad nature and
negative self-evaluation inherent in shame, it is particu-
larly important for individuals in helping professions
to understand the sources and influences of shameful
feelings and to assess whether these feelings might be
related to their spiritual or religious beliefs (Moyers,
1994).
Historically, the constructs of shame and guilt were
not conceptually differentiated and at times were used
synonymously (Kim, Thibodeau, & Jorgensen, 2011).
Although earlier researchers may have intuitively un-
derstood the differences between shame and guilt, the
literature suffered from inadequate definitions until
1971 when Lewis produced groundbreaking work
by operationalizing shame and guilt as distinct con-
structs. Lewis specified that guilt involves a negative
feeling after a specific action, such as a moral or ethical
violation, whereas shame is a more all-encompassing
negative feeling about oneself. This distinction can
be described as the difference between performing an
action that may be subjectively interpreted as bad or
36 S p i r i t u a l Ma t u r i t y, Fu n d a m e n t a l i s m a n d S h a m e
wrong (guilt) versus viewing ones entire self as bad or
inept (shame). The latter is a more global assessment
and is associated with poorer mental health (Murray &
Ciarrocchi, 2007). Several researchers have provided
empirical support for Lewiss conceptual work on the
distinction between shame and guilt (Mandel, Hilton,
& Catellani, 2005; Niedenthal, Tangney, & Gavanski,
1994; Tangney & Dearing, 2002).
Williamson, Sandage, and Lee (2007) found that
differentiation of the self, which embodies positive
psychological benefits including self-esteem and feel-
ings of belonging, provides a mediating effect between
social connectedness and shame. This means that an
individual who is connected with others and the wider
social context and who has a strong sense of personal
identity is likely to feel less shame than others who are
not as self-differentiated. Thus, shame is a relationally
defined construct.
Overall, shame is considered a maladaptive emotion
because of its all-encompassing nature, its related sense
of lack of control, and its association with a variety of
psychological disorders including depression, anxiety,
eating disorders, and substance abuse, as well as ag-
gression and decreased empathy (Luyten et al., 1998;
Murray & Ciarrocchi, 2007; Van Vliet, 2008). Al-
though much of the literature identifies shames nega-
tive repercussions, some authors have suggested that
shame also espouses a productive quality by remind-
ing us of our humanity and limitations, promoting a
deeper connection with others (Murray & Ciarrocchi,
2007).
Religion and Shame
The relationship between religion and shame has
been regarded as confusing and complex (Chilton,
2012). While Tangney and Dearing (2002) found
no relationship between religious identification and
variables of shame, there is evidence that suggests the
construct of shame is related to religiosity and spiritu-
ality; although, results are often complex and specific
to unique aspects of religious and spiritual phenomena.
According to Murray and Ciarrocchi (2007), shame
and guilt have no correlation with positive aspects of
spirituality and religion (e.g., a sense of connection
or engaging in religious practices), but they do have a
positive correlation with negative aspects of spirituality
(e.g., increased alienation from God and congregational
dissatisfaction). Shame has been found to be both posi-
tively correlated with negative aspects of religiosity or
spirituality and negatively correlated with positive ben-
efits of spirituality (Reinert, 2005). Because of funda-
mentalist Christians focus on the sinfulness of human-
kind and the rigid standards in which they believe, it is
possible they may internalize such perceived moral fail-
ures as feelings of shame (Lewis, 1971; Strozier, 1994).
Spiritual and Religious Maturity
One factor that may influence the relationship be-
tween religion and shame is spiritual maturity. To the
extent that shame is related to religion, it may be help-
ful for psychologists and clergy to assess spiritual matu-
rity when working with clients or parishioners. Many
individuals in religious cultures experience shameful
feelings as a result of the cultural belief system from
which they come, particularly when coming from a
conservative Christian culture endorsing beliefs that
conflict with their lived experience or identity (Moy-
ers, 1994). In contrast, religious fundamentalism can
also provide personal needs for meaning including
self-worth, value, efficacy, and purpose (Hood et al.,
2005). For this reason, further investigation is needed
to understand the relationships between religious and
psychological constructs (Beck & Haugen, 2013).
Allports (1950) description of spiritual or religious
maturity includes a differentiation of the self in ones
religion including critical thinking and not blindly
accepting the religion of ones parents or culture. All-
port articulated that mature religion is not merely self-
seeking or fear-based. Mature religion involves a higher
power that rules over ones life in a transformative
manner rather than a deity that only impacts smaller,
fragmented areas of ones life. Harmony and compre-
hensiveness are also characteristic of a mature religion
as these descriptions provide a context for dealing with
the problems of evil and suffering in the world.
Several researchers in the field criticized Allports
(1950) view as too simplistic and undefined (Slater,
Hall, & Edwards, 2001). For example, Pargament
(1992) identified Allports idea of religion being a
means to an end for some as flawed due to the observa-
tion that many people seek religious and spiritual expe-
riences as both a means and an end. As research on spir-
itual maturity has progressed, others have explored and
expanded upon Allports initial assertions. One theme
in the literature that broadens scholarship on spiritual
maturity involves attachment theory as a framework
for understanding spiritual maturity (Hall & Fujikawa,
2013). Many scholars have begun to apply attachment
theory to ones relationship with God (Hart, Limke, &
Budd, 2010). Hall, Brokaw, Edwards, and Pike (1998)
studied the concept of Christian spiritual maturity
in terms of object relations theory, concluding that
Keller, Mollen, a nd Ros e n 37
spiritual maturity was positively correlated with the
quality of ones relationships with others in ones life.
Both spiritual and object relations maturity are rela-
tionally defined (Hall et al., 1998). For example, Chris-
tian seminary students with a more secure attachment
style were predictably more spiritually mature than
those with less secure attachment styles (TenElshof &
Furrow, 2000). Implications for these findings suggest
that early attachments manifesting in secure or inse-
cure attachments may be recreated in ones relation-
ship with God. Consistent with the expanding litera-
ture on object relations theory as it pertains to a God
image (Hall & Fujikawa, 2013), attachment themes
were used in the current study to define spiritual ma-
turity. The self-God relationship awareness as well as
the quality of ones relationship with God were exam-
ined (Hall & Edwards, 1996). Inherent in secure at-
tachment is the confidence that ones needs will be met
as emotional and physical needs are expressed (Ain-
sworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). As ones needs
are met, a secure base from which one can explore the
world is created. The individual can explore the world
while feeling secure that their needs will be met.
Until Hall and Edwards (1996) developed a rela-
tionally-based spiritual maturity scalethe Spiritual
Assessment Inventory (SAI)the parallels between
psychological and spiritual maturity were not reflected
in instruments designed to assess spiritual maturity.
Hall and Edwards developed a psychometrically sound
instrument intended to be a relationally sensitive model
of spiritual maturity that emphasized awareness of a re-
lationship with a God image and the quality of ones
relationship with the God image. Such a scale offers the
benefit of assessing an individuals experience with and
emotional bond to God rather than simply measuring
religious behaviors as other scales have done in the past
(Hill & Edwards, 2013). This provides a more nuanced
understanding of the individuals unique experience.
The SAI was selected for this study as it is theo-
retically consistent with the psychoanalytic concept of
attachment projected onto a God image and comple-
ments the psychoanalytic construct of shame under
investigation in this study. The awareness subscale in
the SAI is theoretically based on Shackelfords (1978)
conclusion that object relations theory as well as re-
ligious views held specifically by Christians contain
an overlapping theme of relational dependence. Hall
and Edwards (1996) theorized the realistic acceptance
subscale as a way to assess relational continuity over
time despite relational conflict with a higher being. In
the original factor analysis, the awareness of God and
realistic acceptance subscales materialized as expected.
However, an additional subscale that the authors
labeled as disappointment also emerged. The disap-
pointment subscale reflects an existential crisis of faith
that some religious individuals experience from time to
time.
Current Study
Findings regarding the association between religion
and shame have been mixed. One line of scholarship
suggests the demands of some organized religions may
create an unachievable standard of perfection and
may result in feelings of shame among religious people
(Helm, Berecz, & Nelson, 2001). Other scholars have
argued that religious teachings could serve as a respite
from shameful feelings by providing a sense of com-
munity and meaning (Luyten et al., 1998; Stockwell,
2012). The current study fills a gap in the literature
by examining the relationship between religion and
shame through an examination of spiritual maturity
with an object relations theoretical basis.
Specifically, the current study sought to examine
the relationship among Christian fundamentalism,
spiritual maturity, and shame. Our hypotheses were
exploratory, based on the novel nature of examining
the relationships between Christian fundamentalism,
spiritual maturity, and shame. Concurrently, our hy-
potheses were situated within the line of research that
has demonstrated that the demands of some funda-
mentalist religions may create unattainably high stan-
dards, resulting in feelings of shame for some individu-
als (Helm et al., 2001). We hypothesized that shame
would be negatively correlated with awareness of God
and realistic acceptance, and positively correlated with
disappointment with God, grandiosity, instability, and
impression management. Based on Williamson et al.s
(2007) work on social connectedness and shame, we
expected that main effects would be significant for all
five subscales of spiritual maturity including awareness
of God, realistic acceptance, disappointment with God,
grandiosity, and instability. Further, we hypothesized
that spiritual maturity would moderate the relation-
ship between Christian fundamentalism and shame.
Method
Participants
Data from 164 Christian-identified adult par-
ticipants (141 women; 10 Catholic; 154 Protestant)
were included in this analysis. Most (94.5%) were
heterosexual-identified. The ethnic breakdown among
38 S p i r i t u a l Ma t u r i t y, Fu n d a m e n t a l i s m a n d S h a m e
participants included 95.7% who identified as White,
3.7% as Latino/a, and the remaining .6% consisted of
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and other
ethnicities. The mean age was 36 years old with a stan-
dard deviation of 12 years. Thirty-five percent of the
participants were 22 to 29 years old, 42% were 3039,
7% were 4049, and 12% were 5059.
Procedure
After the study was approved by a human subjects
review board, participants were recruited through con-
venience and snowball sampling through a social media
outlet. The first author posted an advertisement that
linked to the study on a social media site and the survey
was subsequently posted by other associates on the site.
Participants self-selected into the study and clicked on
a link to access the secure survey. Once they entered the
survey, they were presented with an informed consent
page; if they chose to consent, they completed the sur-
vey online. The survey invited individuals with a belief
in a higher power or a god to participate. The data in-
cluded in this analysis included participants who self-
identified as Christian of any denomination. Once the
data were collected, they were downloaded, analyzed,
and stored securely. Participants were not offered an
incentive to participate the study.
Measures
Demographics. Participants completed demo-
graphic information including their age, gender, eth-
nicity, and sexual orientation.
Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale. The
revised religious fundamentalism scale (RRFS) was cre-
ated to measure religious attitudes (Altemeyer & Hun-
sberger, 2004). The scale was not intended to measure
whether one adheres to a particular belief system or
religion; rather, the scale captures attitudes of funda-
mentalism. The original 20-item Religious Fundamen-
talism Scale was revised by the original authors in 2004,
creating a 12-item scale in which respondents use a
7-point Likert scale ranging from very strongly disagree
to very strongly agree in response to the items. Items in-
clude statements such as, To lead the best, most mean-
ingful life, one must belong to the one, fundamentally
true religion, and, The basic cause of evil in this world
is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fight-
ing against God. Higher scores indicate greater fun-
damentalism. The RRFS demonstrates strong validity
when compared with other measures assessing com-
ponents of religious fundamentalism including dog-
matism and right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer
& Hunsberger, 2004). The RRFS demonstrated high
reliability with the current sample, Cronbachs = .91.
Spiritual Assessment Inventory. The Spiritual As-
sessment Inventory (SAI; Hall & Edwards, 1996) is a
54-item self-report scale, which measures aspects of
spiritual development for adherents of the Christian
religion. Specifically, the scale was designed with an
object relations orientation and measures the devel-
opmental maturity of ones relationship with God as
well as awareness of God. Each item contains a 5-point
Likert scale response ranging from not at all true to
very true. There are five subscales including awareness,
realistic acceptance, disappointment, grandiosity, and
instability. All items included in a subscale are aver-
aged together, with the higher score reflecting greater
endorsement of that particular subscale (Hall & Ed-
wards, 1996). For example, participants with a higher
average score on the awareness of God subscale have
higher awareness of God. All subscales demonstrate
strong internal consistency with Cronbachs rang-
ing from .73 to .95, and validity has been demonstrated
with other scales including the Spiritual Well-Being
Scale (Hall & Edwards, 2002). The Cronbachs for
this sample was .91.
Shame Inventory. The Shame Inventory (TSI),
developed by Rizvi (2010), assesses global feelings of
shame. The measure assesses global shame by providing
a definition of shame followed by three questions, rated
on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from never to always,
intended to assess global feelings of shame. The global
shame scores are averaged together with higher scores
reflecting more shame. For this sample, the global as-
sessment of shame yielded a Cronbachs of .82.
Data Analysis
First, descriptive statistics and correlations were
examined. Then, consistent with Aiken and Wests
(1991) recommendations, hierarchical multiple re-
gressions were conducted to determine whether sub-
scales of spiritual maturity moderated the relation-
ship between fundamentalism and shame. Prior to the
analysis, fundamentalism and the spiritual maturity
subscales were centered according to the guidelines
established by Aiken and West. Assumptions of mul-
tiple regression (including independence of residu-
als, normality of residuals, linearity and homoscedas-
ticity) were examined (Aiken & West, 1991). All
subscales of spiritual maturity were examined in sepa-
rate analyses.
Keller, Mollen, a nd Ros e n 39
Two subscales (i.e., grandiosity and instability)
demonstrated positive skewness and kurtosis; grandi-
osity demonstrated skewness of 1.55 and kurtosis of
3.67 and instability demonstrated skewness of 1.92
and kurtosis of 4.15. Thus, we also conducted a log
transformation of the instability and grandiosity sub-
scales. Given that the results were consistent with those
results using the untransformed variables, we report
our findings for the untransformed variables for ease of
comparison across subscales.
Results
Correlations were examined to assess the rela-
tion between shame and spiritual maturity (see Table
1). Shame was negatively correlated with awareness
of God (r (162) = .19 p < .05), realistic acceptance
(r (153) = .30, p < .01), and impression management
(r (162) = .20, p < .01). Shame was positively corre-
lated with disappointment (r (162) = .32, p < .01) and
instability (r (162) = .42, p < .01).
For the awareness of God subscale, the awareness of
God and fundamentalism variables were entered in the
first step of the regression analysis. The interaction be-
tween awareness of God and fundamentalism was en-
tered in the second step. Table 2 presents the results of
the regression. As predicted, awareness of God signifi-
cantly moderated the relationship between fundamen-
talism and shame. In compliance with the guidelines
articulated by Aiken and West (1991), the significant
interaction was graphed by calculating predicted val-
ues of shame at high and low values of fundamentalism
(+/-1SD) and with high and low values of the moder-
ating variable (+/-1SD). Participants high on funda-
mentalism and high on awareness of God endorsed less
shame, whereas participants high on fundamentalism
and low on awareness of God endorsed greater shame.
For participants low on fundamentalism, their levels of
shame stayed relatively constant regardless of their lev-
els of awareness of God (see Figure 1).
For the realistic acceptance subscale, realistic ac-
ceptance and fundamentalism were entered in the first
step of the regression analysis. The interaction between
realistic acceptance and fundamentalism was entered
in the second step. Table 2 presents the results of the
regression. As predicted, the interaction effect was
also significant, demonstrating a moderation effect of
realistic acceptance in the relationship between Chris-
tian fundamentalism and shame. Participants high on
fundamentalism and high on realistic acceptance en-
dorsed less shame, whereas participants high on fun-
damentalism and low on realistic acceptance endorsed
higher shame. The interaction was also graphed in
accordance with Aiken and Wests (1991) guidelines
(see Figure 1).
Parallel analyses were conducted for the disappoint-
ment, grandiosity, instability, and impression man-
agement subscales. Table 2 presents the results of the
regressions. Disappointment produced a significant
main effect on shame but no significant interaction,
suggesting that regardless of ones level of fundamental-
ism, disappointment was positively related to shame.
Grandiosity did not yield a main effect or an interac-
tion effect with fundamentalism. Instability yielded a
significant main effect on shame, suggesting that the
more instability one demonstrates, the greater shame
they have. Impression management produced a signifi-
cant negative main effect on shame but no significant
interaction with fundamentalism, suggesting that the
more one engages in impression management, the less
shame that person has.
Discussion
The current study examined the relationships be-
tween spiritual maturity, Christian fundamentalism,
and shame, providing important information that both
clergy and psychologists can use as they are assisting
parishioners and clients. Consistent with our hypoth-
eses, participants who endorsed greater spiritual matu-
rity generally reported less shame, specifically for the
awareness of God and realistic acceptance subscales.
Early attachments may be projected onto a higher
power (Hart et al., 2010), correlating with higher or
lower elements of spiritual maturity. Results were
consistent with the expected correlations for four of
the components of spiritual maturity including aware-
ness of God, realistic acceptance, disappointment,
and instability. The relationship found between these
constructs and shame aligns with object relations the-
ory. As expected based on Williamson et al.s (2007)
work, main effects were found for disappointment,
instability, and impression management. This finding
supports the idea that components of spiritual matu-
rity, regardless of where ones beliefs lie on the funda-
mentalist spectrum, may impact ones experience of
shame.
Unexpectedly, the impression management scale
was negatively correlated with shame at a significant
level. Positive endorsement of items from the impres-
sion management scale may project an image of one as
a kind of super Christian. Some items include, I am
always in the mood to pray and I always seek Gods
guidance for every decision I make (Hall & Edwards,
2002, p. 355). One explanation for the negative rela-
tionship between shame and impression management
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the SAI, Shame Inventory, and RRFS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 M SD
1 Awareness of God 0.71** .23** 0.41** 0.28** 0.51** 0.19* 0.43** 3.76 0.90
2 Realistic Acceptance .35** 0.21** 0.38** 0.55** .30** 0.38** 4.17 0.77
3 Disappointment 0.04 .56** 0.37** 0.32** 0.14 2.36 1.02
4 Grandiosity 0.05 0.22** 0.14 0.25** 1.52 0.50
5 Instability .25** 0.42** 0.10 1.76 0.72
6 Impression Management .20** 0.38** 2.65 0.77
7 Shame 0.13 2.70 0.69
8 Fundamentalism 55.52 18.62
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.
40 S p i r i t u a l Ma t u r i t y, Fu n d a m e n t a l i s m a n d S h a m e
Keller, Mollen, a nd Ros e n 41

Table 2
Predicting Shame from SAI Subscales
R2 R2 B SE B
Awareness of God
Step 1 0.04 .04*
Awareness of God 0.12 0.07 0.16
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.06
Step 2 0.08 .04*
Awareness of God 0.12 0.07 0.16
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.12
Awareness of God x Fund. 0.01 0.00 0.20
Realistic Acceptance
Step 1 0.09 0.09**
Realistic Acceptance 0.26 0.08 0.283**
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.04
Step 2 0.12 0.03*
Realistic Acceptance 0.29 0.08 0.32**
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.04
Realistic Acceptance x Fund. 0.01 0.00 0.17*
Disappointment
Step 1 0.11 0.11**
Disappointment 0.21 0.05 0.31**
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.09
Step 2 0.11 0.00
Disappointment 0.21 0.05 0.30**
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.09
Disappointment x Fund. 0.00 0.00 0.02
Impression Management
Step 1 0.04 0.04*
Impression Management 0.16 0.07 0.18*
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.06
Step 2 0.05 0.00
Impression Management 0.16 0.08 0.18*
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.07
Impression Management x Fund. 0.00 0.00 0.05
Grandiosity
Step 1 0.03 0.03
Grandiosity 0.16 0.11 0.11
Fundamentalism 0.00 0.00 0.10
Step 2 0.04 0.01
Grandiosity 0.12 0.12 0.09
Fundamentalism 0.01 0.00 0.13
Grandiosity x Fund. 0.01 0.01 0.10
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.
42 S p i r i t u a l Ma t u r i t y, Fu n d a m e n t a l i s m a n d S h a m e

Figure 1a
Shame as Predicted by Fundamentalism and Awareness of God

Figure 1b
Shame as Predicted by Fundamentalism and Realistic Acceptance

could be that individuals who want to manage others
impressions of them may also report little shame as
part of their impression management strategy. They
might also hold a view of themselves that is inconsistent
with a shameful, negative self-evaluation. They may see
themselves as deferring to their religious beliefs in every
aspect of life or view themselves as religiously sophisti-
cated. It is possible that their identity may be consistent
with projecting a certain Christian image to others,
which may buffer them from shameful feelings.
A possible explanation for the influence of aware-
ness of God on shame for fundamentalist Christians is
that awareness of a higher power involves a focus out-
side of ones self. Consistent with Williamson et al.s
(2007) work on differentiation of the self, it is possible
that if one is focused outside of the self, including on a
higher power, the tendency for shaming thoughts and
feelings is ameliorated and feelings of connectedness
with the divine are enhanced.
Similar results were found for the realistic accep-
tance subscale of spiritual maturity. Individuals high
on Christian fundamentalism and high on realistic
acceptance experience lower shame, and individuals
high on Christian fundamentalism and low on realis-
tic acceptance experience higher shame. Realistic ac-
ceptance involves positive relational responses to dif-
ficult experiences or feelings about God. For example,
positive endorsement of realistic acceptance entails
Keller, Mollen, a nd Ros e n 43
individuals affirming that even when they are disap-
pointed in God, they still desire the relationship to
continue (Hall & Edwards, 1996). A possible explana-
tion for the interaction effect is that individuals with
more realistic acceptance do not take disappointment
and anger with their higher power personally and are
able to engage in a relationship with God despite dif-
ficult feelings. They are not ruled by their emotions in
a way that results in shutting down the relationship;
rather, they put effort into restoring the relationship
(Hall & Edwards, 1996).
Regarding spiritual maturity as a larger construct
consisting of several components, it is possible that
when fundamentalist Christians are unable to adhere
to the rigid standards in which they believe, they may
internalize this failure as shame. This could be due to
the particular religious beliefs of the sinfulness of hu-
mankind (Strozier, 1994). If individuals cannot attain
the high moral standards that are esteemed by fun-
damentalist attitudes and beliefs, they may consider
themselves to be inept or bad, resulting in internalized
shameful feelings (Lewis, 1971). This study clarifies
some of the complex relationships between religion
and shame (Luyten et al., 1998) as it expands the re-
search base specifically on how fundamentalist Chris-
tianity is related to shame. These findings support the
hypothesis that aspects of spiritual maturity moder-
ate the relationship between Christian fundamental-
ism and shame while illuminating topics for future
study.
These results should be interpreted in light of the
methodological limitations of this study. This study
used a correlational design; thus, results should be in-
terpreted with caution as causality cannot be inferred.
This study utilized self-report measures, which may
yield biased responses (van de Mortel, 2008). For ex-
ample, it is possible that due to the personal nature
of the topic of religion, participants may have skewed
their answers in an attempt to demonstrate a particular
attitude commensurate with their belief system. An-
other limitation may be the use of online data collec-
tion. Although the informed consent at the beginning
of the study outlined the requirements of participation,
the participants were not screened by the researchers as
having met the requirements of the study. The sample
was limited in its gender, racial, and sexual orientation
diversity, which may in turn limit the generalizability
of the results. In addition, we did not collect regional,
educational, or income information which may have
provided important data. The self-selection of the par-
ticipants, as well as the individuals who re-posted the
study for their social network contacts, may have also
limited the generalizability of this study. It is possible
that social desirability may have contributed to the
skewness of the grandiosity and instability scales. Fu-
ture researchers should consider adding a measure of
social desirability to enhance their findings.
In addition, some SAI subscales were significantly
correlated; notably, the awareness of God correlated
0.71 ( p < .01) with realistic acceptance. This correla-
tion supports Hall and Edwards (2002) findings and
theoretical assertion that realistic acceptance would be
moderately correlated with awareness of God. How-
ever, it is important to note that awareness of God and
realistic acceptance emerged as separate factors in Hall
and Edwards (1996) factor analysis of the SAI.
Practical Considerations for Psychologists and
Clergy
This study demonstrates the importance of spiri-
tual maturity in moderating shame for Christian fun-
damentalists. These results may have implications for
a wide range of diverse faith practices. Working to
enhance clients or parishioners spiritual maturity
may help decrease shame and lessen other psychologi-
cal challenges they may be experiencing. This research
complements Williamson et al.s (2007) study that
found a mediating effect of differentiation of self be-
tween social connectedness and shame. Differentiation
of self, including self-esteem and belonging, are consis-
tent with benefits of secure early attachment (Kohut,
1984). The results from the current study could ex-
pand to other areas besides religious and clinical set-
tings to include educational and community outlets
where individuals can learn to strengthen their self-
differentiation and spiritual maturity.
Practical implications may be tempered by consid-
eration of the homogeneity of the participants in the
study and should not be generalized to all Christian
clients or parishioners. Nonetheless, one consider-
ation for psychologists and clergy assisting fundamen-
talist Christians is the importance of assessing their
awareness of God. Because this research indicates
that Christian fundamentalists high on awareness
of God tend to experience less shame than Christian
fundamentalists low on awareness of God, assessing
ones awareness of God may provide insight into the
amount of shame one is experiencing. A helping pro-
fessional can assess awareness of God by asking ques-
tions about how much the individual thinks about
God or considers God in situations of everyday living.
If the individual appears to internalize a consistent
44 S p i r i t u a l Ma t u r i t y, Fu n d a m e n t a l i s m a n d S h a m e
awareness of God, it is likely that she or he is connected
with a greater power beyond the self. Because shame
involves a negative self-evaluation (Lewis, 1971), hav-
ing an awareness of outside entities may reduce ones
negative rumination about the self, thereby reducing
shameful feelings. Other interventions can include
mindfulness-based techniques, such as meditation and
guided imagery, which are found to be effective in the
reduction of anxiety, stress, and depression (Khoury
et al., 2013). Mindfulness and guided imagery tech-
niques focused on God or Christian scriptures may en-
hance ones awareness of God and diminish shameful
feelings.
For psychologists and clergy working with clients
or parishioners who adhere to a Christian fundamen-
talist belief system, it will also be helpful to assess re-
alistic acceptance as an indicator of how one handles
uncomfortable emotions. The maturity that results
from an acceptance that all relationships, even a rela-
tionship with a higher power, contains both pleasant
and unpleasant emotions, may be predictive of less
shame as the client demonstrates an ability to toler-
ate the unpleasant feelings. If a parishioner or client
appears unable to tolerate unpleasant feelings toward
a higher power, the helping professional may engage
the client in processing her or his feelings about toler-
ating uncomfortable affect. Learning to tolerate un-
comfortable affect may both improve the relationship
with the higher power and result in decreased shame.
Another helpful intervention may be to assess whether
the observed intolerance of difficult affect in relation
to a higher power is consistent across other relation-
ships, particularly ones with primary caregivers. If this
is the case, then the helping professional can engage in
dialogue with the client or parishioner about how they
might be able to acquire the skills to tolerate relational
difficulties and then perhaps apply these skills to their
relationship with their higher power.
Future Research Directions
This study highlights several opportunities for fur-
ther research. First, because awareness of God and re-
alistic acceptance moderated the relationship between
fundamentalism and shame, further research could
expand on the possibility of whether these constructs
could be learned or whether they are inherent parts
of ones personality. If awareness of God and realistic
acceptance are skills that can be taught, it is possible
that psychologists and clergy could help train others
in these skills with the intention of helping to reduce
clients and parishioners experiences of shame. Addi-
tionally, future research for individuals of various faiths
and different sects of Christianity is needed to better
understand the relationships between shame and spiri-
tual maturity among various faith groups.
Another avenue of future research would be to ex-
amine other effects of religious fundamentalism on
ones emotional experience. It is possible that operat-
ing under a fundamentalist frame of reference may be
limiting in ways other than the experience of shame.
Other emotions, including guilt, could be explored.
Future research could have implications for mental
health treatment as the body of literature produces a
more comprehensive understanding of the relation-
ship between religious fundamentalism and emotions.
Enhanced understanding could be beneficial to both
clergy and psychologists.
One interesting phenomenon that occurred during
data collection was the large number of women partici-
pants compared with men. Continued research could
focus on potential gender differences in the experience
of Christian fundamentalism, spiritual maturity, and
shame. Understanding what prompted more women
than men to participate may be helpful as well in under-
standing potential gender differences between women
and men in their experiences of religion and shame.
Lastly, research illuminating the process by which
individuals become fundamentalist in their religious
beliefs may also be beneficial in light of the relationship
between religious fundamentalism, spiritual maturity,
and shame. Understanding the formation of religious
and spiritual beliefs, as well as conceptualizing the
process using an attachment framework, may provide
a deeper well of knowledge for mental health practi-
tioners and clergy. This continued line of scholarship
may yield some helpful information in conceptualizing
a treatment plan or direction for assisting an individual
seeking help.
The current study, along with future research in this
area, can provide increased understanding of clients or
parishioners within the context of their cultures, includ-
ing religious or spiritual identities. A greater context for
how individuals belief systems are associated with their
experience of shame may be beneficial for psychologists
and clergy alike as they provide assistance to those who
seek help. Knowing how the level and quality of spiri-
tual maturity can influence a religious fundamentalist
persons shame may be a cause for a spiritual assessment
when providing help to an individual. Such assessment
may enhance treatment planning and conceptualiza-
tion of how to be of service to the individual. Future
researchers can strive to better understand the relation-
Keller, Mollen, a nd Ros e n 45
ship between fundamentalist belief systems, spiritual
maturity, and shame in an effort to provide more spe-
cialized services to the individuals whom psychologists
and clergy serve.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised religious fun-
damentalism scale: The short and sweet of it. International Journal
for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 4754. doi:10.1207/s15327582
ijpr1401_4
American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines on multicul-
tural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change
for psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
Ammerman, N.T. (1991). North American Protestant fundamen-
talism. In M. E. Marty & R. S. Appleby (Eds.), Fundamentalism ob-
served (pp. 165). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Aten, J. D., Mangis, M. W., & Campbell, C. (2010). Psychotherapy
with rural religious fundamentalist clients. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 66, 513523. doi:10.1002/jclp.20677
Barr, J. (1977). Fundamentalism. Ispwich, MA: Presbyterian Pub-
lishing Corporation.
Beck, R., & Haugen, A. D. (2013). The Christian religion: A theolog-
ical and psychological review. In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W.
Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality
(Vol 1): Context, theory, and research (pp. 697711). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14045-039
Cheung, M. S., Gilbert, P., & Irons, C. (2004). An exploration of
shame, social rank and rumination in relation to depression. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 36, 11431153. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(03)00206-X
Chilton, J. M. (2012). Shame: A multidisciplinary concept analysis.
Journal of Theory Construction and Testing, 16(1), 48.
Davis, W. A. (2006). Bible says: The psychology of Christian fun-
damentalism. Psychoanalytic Review, 93, 267300. doi:10.1521/
prev.2006.93.2.267
Dyer, K. F. W., Dorahy, M. J., Hamilton, G., Corry, M., Shannon,
M., MacSherry, AMcElhill, B. (2009). Anger, aggression, and self-
harm in PTSD and complex PTSD. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
65, 10991114. doi:10.1002/jclp.20619
Hall, T. W., Brokaw, B., Edwards, K. J., & Pike, P. L. (1998). An em-
pirical exploration of psychoanalysis and religion: Spiritual maturity
and object relations development. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 37, 303. doi:10.2307/1387529
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (1996). The initial development and
factor analysis of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory. Journal of Psy-
chology and Theology, 24, 233246.
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (2002). The Spiritual Assessment
Inventory: A theistic model and measure for assessing spiritual de-
velopment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 341357.
doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00121
Hall, T. W., & Fujikawa, A. M. (2013). God image and the sacred.
In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook
of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and
research (pp. 277292). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/14045-015
Harder, D. W., Cutler, L., & Rockart, L. (1992). Assessment
of shame and guilt and their relationships to psychopathology.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 584604. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa5903_12
Hart, J. T., Limke, A., & Budd, P. R. (2010). Attachment and faith
development. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 122128.
Helm, H. W., Jr., Berecz, J. M., & Nelson, E. A. (2001). Religious
fundamentalism and gender differences. Pastoral Psychology, 50,
2537. doi:10.1023/A:1010443032348
Hill, P. C., & Edwards, E. (2013). Measurement in the psychology of
religiousness and spirituality: Existing measures and new frontiers.
In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook
of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and
research (pp. 5177). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-
sociation. doi:10.1037/14045-003
Hood, R. W., Hill, P. C., & Williamson, W. (2005). The psychology of
religious fundamentalism. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Idler, E., Musick, M., Ellison, C., George, L., Krause, N., Ory, M.,...
Williams, D. (2003). Measuring multiple dimensions of religion and
spirituality for health research: Conceptual background and findings
from the 1998 General Social Survey. Research on Aging, 25, 327
365. doi:10.1177/0164027503025004001
Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P.,
Bouchard, V.,... Hofmann, S. G. (2013). Mindfulness-based therapy:
A comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 763
771. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.05.005
Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011). Shame, guilt, and
depressive symptoms: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin,
137, 6896. doi: 10.1037/a0021466
Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kosmin, B. A., & Keysary, A. (2009). American religious identi-
fication survey (2008). Trinity College, CT: Program on Public
Values.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. Oxford, England:
International Universities Press.
Luyten, P. P., Corveleyn, J. J., & Fontaine, J. J. (1998). The relation-
ship between religiosity and mental health: Distinguishing between
shame and guilt. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 1, 165184.
doi:10.1080/13674679808406507
Mandel, D. R., Hilton, D. J., & Catellani, P. (2005). The psychology of
counterfactual thinking. New York, NY: Routledge.
Meacham, J., & Gray, E. (2009, April 13). The end of Christian
America. Newsweek, 153, 15.
46 S p i r i t u a l Ma t u r i t y, Fu n d a m e n t a l i s m a n d S h a m e
Mercer, C. (2009). Slaves to faith: A therapist looks inside the funda-
mentalist mind. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Pub-
lishing Group.
Moyers, J. C. (1994). Psychological issues of former fundamentalists.
Cultic Studies Journal, 11, 189199.
Murray, K., & Ciarrocchi, J. W. (2007). The dark side of religion,
spirituality, and the moral emotions: Shame, guilt, and negative reli-
giosity as markers for life dissatisfaction. Journal of Pastoral Counsel-
ing, 42, 2241.
Niedenthal, P. M., Tangney, J., & Gavanski, I. (1994). If only I
werent versus If only I hadnt: Distinguishing shame and guilt in nectedness affects guilt and shame: Mediation by hope and differen-
counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67(4), 585595. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.4.585
Pargament, K. I. (1992). Of means and ends: Religion and the search
for significance. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2,
201. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0204_1
Reinert, D. F. (2005). Spirituality, self-representations, and attach-
ment to parents: A longitudinal study of Roman Catholic college
seminarians. Counseling and Values, 49, 226238. doi:10.1002/
j.2161-007x.2005.tb01025.x
Rizvi, S. L. (2010). Development and preliminary validation of a
new measure to assess shame: The shame inventory. Journal of Psy-
chopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 438 447. doi:10.1007/
s10862-009-9172-y
Shackelford, J. F. (1978). A comparison of psychological and theo-
logical concepts of dependency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, La Mirada, Cali-
fornia.
Slater, W., Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (2001). Measuring religion
and spirituality: Where are we and where are we going? Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 29, 421.
Stockwell, C. (2012). Fundamentalisms and the shalom of God:
An analysis of contemporary expressions of fundamentalism in
Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Evangelical Review of Theology, 36,
266279.
Strozier, C. B. (1994). Apocalypse: On the psychology of fundamental-
ism in America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Tangney, J., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
TenElshof, J. K., & Furrow, J. L. (2000). The role of secure attach-
ment in predicting spiritual maturity of students at a conservative
seminary. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 28, 99108.
van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response
bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing,
25, 4048.
Van Vliet, K. (2008). Shame and resilience in adulthood: A
grounded theory study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 233
245. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.2.233
Williamson, I., Sandage, S. J., & Lee, R. M. (2007). How social con-
tiation of self. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 21592170.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.026
Woodberry, R. D., & Smith, C. S. (1998). Fundamentalism et al:
Conservative Protestants in America. Annual Review of Sociology, 24,
2556. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1
Author Information
KELLER, KATHRYN H. M.Ed. Address: Kathryn Lamar Counsel-
ing, 415 S. Elm Street, Suite 101, Denton, TX 76201. Title: Doc-
toral Candidate, Counseling Psychology. Degrees: BA (Business
Administration) Baylor University; M.Ed, Ed.S. (Mental Health
Counseling) University of Virginia. Specializations: Psychotherapy,
trauma, PTSD, and spirituality.
MOLLEN, DEBRA. PhD. Address: Department of Psychology and
Philosophy, Texas Womans University, PO Box 425470, Denton,
TX 76204. Title: Associate Professor. Degrees: BA (Psychology)
Adelphi University; MA (Counseling Psychology) University of
Denver; PhD (Counseling Psychology) Indiana University. Special-
izations: Multiculturalism, womens sexuality, reproductive justice,
professional training, and early career psychologists concerns.
ROSEN, LISA H. PhD. Address: Department of Psychology and
Philosophy, Texas Womans University, PO Box 425470, Denton,
TX 76204. Title: Assistant Professor. Degrees: BA (Psychology) Rice
University; MA (Developmental Psychology) University of Texas
at Austin; PhD (Developmental Psychology) University of Texas at
Austin. Specializations: Peer relations across the lifespan, aggression
and victimization, attractiveness and weight stereotyping.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.