In this chapter, we have stated that the most common perspectives on young adults tend to understand this social category from either a developmental perspective or as a cohort. Both of these perspectives are based on certain assumptions regarding shared characteristics of young adults as a category. These assumptions have important implications for the interpretation of research fndings. The aim of this chapter has been to provide insights into who the young adults in our study are in terms of background characteristics, values, religious preferences, media use, and perceived social status/class. In this fnal section, we highlight our most signifcant fndings and the conclusions they allow us to draw.

The participants in this study are not just any young adults, but university students. As our overview of the character of the higher educational felds of the included countries shows, in most cases, the people included in the YARG sample occupy a position not shared by the majority of their peers. However, this does not imply that our sample of university students view themselves as privileged. Assessments of family income compared to a perceived national average pointed to fuctuations depending on the general income level of the country studied. A frst main point that emerges from the fndings is therefore that while higher education often constitutes a threshold to professional career paths that are more likely to result in privileged societal positions, enrollment into higher education does not necessarily imply a privileged background for the YARG participants.

The internal heterogeneity found between our different case studies leads us to our second main point: the category of university students is context-dependent. The analysis of the age distribution in the sample as well as the participants' experiences of permanent life decisions point to some common themes in the data, such as the majority of the participants describing themselves as 21–24 years old as well as single. However, there were notable differences in the age distributions of the respective case studies. Furthermore, some case study contexts included notable proportions of young adults who were married, or reported having responsibility for children and/or close relatives. The analysis therefore suggests that in this study, university students not only come from different cultural contexts; they also make up a mixed crowd in terms of age and life experiences. While the developmental perspective, which points to age and life transitions as markers of emerging adulthood, resonates well with the fndings from some case studies, it is not equally compatible with others. This fnding highlights that transnational research on university students and young adults needs to be sensitive to the variations between young adults' life experiences and understandings of the young adult category across social and cultural contexts. Higher education may be characterized by increasing globalization and standardization (Maringe & Foskett, 2010), but the features of university students clearly vary between individuals and national contexts. This chapter therefore underlines the need to acknowledge the complexity evident in our material.

Furthermore, the fndings illustrate the ways in which implicit assumptions of similarity may lead to overlooking important variations. A cohort perspective on youth explores whether certain features of a specifc age cohort differ from other cohorts and suggests that such differences are attributable to broader processes of change. Here, we used cohort data from WVS on attitudes towards same-sex marriage and abortion to help us understand how the YARG data relates to the value orientations of other age cohorts. The YARG data revealed great differences between attitudes towards euthanasia, same-sex marriage and abortion across the case studies. While longitudinal data from WVS suggest slow cohort change, such cohort change is not as conspicuous as the lack of attitudinal consensus amongst our participants. These fndings point to heterogeneity rather than consensus as the most distinctive feature of the YARG data on values.

Overall, the fndings reveal great variation across the case studies. While the focus on university students reduces the heterogeneity that any transnational study inevitably entails, this chapter has demonstrated that people who are enrolled in higher education in different social and cultural contexts still are far from similar in terms of age, life situation, social background, or attitudes. The transnational scope on university students also has implications for how the fndings should be interpreted, as it points to the context-dependent nature of previous depictions of "university students" that do not hold for the YARG study as a whole. The study provides a valuable contribution to the study of religion and higher education, precisely because of its variable character.

Considering that the indicators that underpin cohort perspectives on youth have pointed to variation rather than homogeneity at a transnational level, one can question the usefulness of cohort perspectives on young adults. However, this is not the conclusion we wish to end with. It is true that our analysis points to the importance of testing underlying assumptions regarding the category of young adults against an empirical background. The poor ft between the age distribution in this sample and depictions of emerging adults in previous research is a good example of why. However, the mismatch between the total sample of university students included in this study and earlier depictions of emerging adults does not necessarily mean that the previous depictions are wrong. Previous depictions are likely to hold true for studies of limited contexts. Our exploration points to the need for future studies to be attentive to the context-dependent character of how the categories of "young people", "emerging adults" and "young adults" are described in order to avoid making premature assumptions about these social categories.

Furthermore, while cohort change does not seem to be the conspicuous feature of the attitudes of young adults studied here, it does not mean that cohort change is not worth studying. The identifcation of the main processes of social change and the forces driving them constitutes a central topic of inquiry in both the study of religion and the study of young adults. However, the analysis points to the dangers of studying young adults with a sole focus on their attitudes and values from a perspective of change. This overshadows the lived realities of young adults and the fascinating variations found within this group.

#### **References**

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. *American Psychologist, 55*(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Arnett, J. J. (2004). *Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties*. Oxford University Press.

**Dr. Maria Klingenberg** is associate professor in Sociology of Religion and holds a position as senior lecturer in Social Sciences of Religion and Didactics at Uppsala University, Sweden. Within her primary feld of research, religion and youth, she has experience from conducting both in-depth case studies and large-scale quantitative surveys, touching upon theories such as religious socialization and majority-minority perspectives. Her research engagements include research within the research project Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective (YARG) at Åbo Akademi University, Finland (2015–2018) as well as research within the research program Impact of Religion: Challenges for Society, Law and Democracy at Uppsala University, Sweden (2008–2018). Klingenberg is also an editor of *YOUNG: Nordic Journal of Youth Research*.

**Sofa Sjö,** Dr. Theol, is a research librarian at the Donner Institute in Turku Finland. She was a senior researcher at the Department Study of Religions at Åbo Akademi University within the Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective Project (2015–2018). She has previously coedited two volumes based on the YARG project: a thematic issue for the journal *Religion*, titled "Rethinking Religious Socialization: A Transnational Perspective" (with M. Klingenberg and M. Broo, 2019) and the edited volume *Digital Media, Young Adults and Religion: An International Perspective* (with M. Moberg, Routledge, 2020).

**Marcus Moberg** is Professor in the Study of Religions at Åbo Akademi University, Finland. His research focuses on the sociology of religion, religion in market and consumer society, the discursive study of religion, and religion, media, and culture. Recent publications include *Religion, Discourse, and Society* (Routledge, 2020), *Church, Market, and Media* (Bloomsbury, 2017), *Religion, Media, and Social Change* (with K. Granholm and S. Sjö, Routledge, 2015), *The Bloomsbury Handbook of Religion and Popular Music* (with C. H. Partridge, Bloomsbury, 2018), and *Digital Media, Young Adults, and Religion* (with S. Sjö, Routledge, 2020). His work has also appeared in journals such as *Journal of Contemporary Religion*, *Method & Theory in the Study of Religion*, and *Religion*.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Chapter 3 Who Are They and What Do They Value? – The Five Global Worldviews of Young Adults**

**Peter Nynäs , Ariela Keysar , and Martin Lagerström**

**Abstract** In this chapter, we present fve distinct worldview profles that describe ways of being religious, spiritual and secular. The fndings emerge from our international study with young adults in twelve countries worldwide, and it is based on the Faith Q-Sort (FQS) and Q-methodology. FQS is a novel way to assess worldviews based on what is called prototypes from a factor analysis of how people respond to a set of statements. We implemented the FQS as part of our mixed-method approach, and results from the survey part allows us to further explore the fve prototypes closer. How are the worldviews different from each other in terms of national distribution, demographic data, measure of religiosity, basic values, life satisfaction, where they get information, and aspects of trust? Since FQS is a new instrument in the study of religions, the investigation based on the mixed method approach helps us to evaluate its usefulness and quality as a method for assessment of ways of being (non)religious.

**Keywords** Religion · Secular · Spiritual · Worldview · Gender · Well-being · Values · Attitude · Q-methodology · Faith Q-Sort

#### **3.1 Introduction**

What kind of way of being religious and non-religious can we fnd in a cross-cultural perspective? This question was at the core of our international project Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective (YARG), and the challenges it posed required us to consider and try out new methods (see Chap. 1 of this volume). Q-methodology was in general rather unknown and mentioned primarily in specialized publications

P. Nynäs (\*)

Study of Religions, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
M. Lagerström Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland

A. Keysar Public Values and Law Program, Trinity College, Hartford, CT, USA

on method (e.g., Newman & Ramlo, 2010; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). It was usually not referred to in volumes on methodology in the study of religions. Nevertheless, when we came into contact with Prof. David Wulff's (2019) work on the Faith Q-Sort (FQS), we concluded that it met our needs.

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

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

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

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

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

#### **3.2 The Faith Q-Sort in the Study of Religions**

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

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

Validity and reliability of Q-methodology is further discussed in Chap. 1 of this volume, but we need to keep in mind that any method will always be limited in one

way or the other. Kontala (2016) illustrates the Q-set's problem with Lego. The sorting process could be compared to a test, where respondents are given 101 Legoblocks and a task to build something familiar out of these blocks. The possibilities are endless, yet at the same time constrained by the available blocks; how the Q-set has been determined by the scholar. The respondent cannot suddenly wish to manifest their preferences by constructing a game of softball. The validity of FQS rests on its items being representative of the entire domain (concourse) of the feld or discourse being studied.

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

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

#### *The Spiritually Attuned Prototype*

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

#### *The Secular-Humanistic Prototype*

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

#### *The Traditionally Theistic Prototype*

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

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

#### **3.3 Five Global Prototypes**

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

#### *Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 1, Secular Humanist*

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

#### *Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 2, Active Confdent Believer*

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

#### *Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 3, Noncommitted Traditionalist*

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

#### *Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 4, Spiritually Attuned*

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

#### *Short Narrative Description of Global Prototype 5, Disengaged Liberal*

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

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

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

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

Here we still need to underscore the difference between the global prototype 1 Secular Humanist and global prototype 2 Active Confdent Believer. This divide stands out as one polarizing and organizing aspect for the prototypes, and makes it meaningful to group them into two main overarching categories. Among the main distinguishing differences we fnd the statement about believing "in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship" (FQS53) and the statement on viewing "religion as the illusory creation of human fears and desires" (FQS60). Participants in our study are also mostly represented by these two opposite prototypes refecting the secular versus the religious ones: the Secular Humanist prototype represents the largest group, followed in size by the Active Confdent Believer

**Table 3.1** Factor score correlations for global prototypes

*Note.* GP = Global prototype

(see Table 3.3). This further indicates that the extent to which people see themselves as either religious or secular is still a meaningful distinction.

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

### **3.4 Some Descriptive Characteristics of the Global Prototypes**

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

The distinct characters of these fve prototypes are well refected in our different measures of religiosity. We asked questions in the survey about belonging to religious groups, how religious people experience themselves to be, how religious their family had been, and how often they take part in religious services or engage in private religious or spiritual practices. Table 3.3 presents these results, and we can see that the difference between the secular prototype 1 and the religious prototype 2 is replicated over all measures including how the religiosity of one's family is assessed.

**Table 3.2** Global prototypes subsamples

**Table 3.3** Global prototypes and measures of religiosity

*Note.* (Q1) "Do you consider yourself as belonging to one or more religious groups, communities, or traditions?"; On a scale from 0 (not at all religious) to 10 (very religious) (Q2), "Regardless of whether you consider yourself as belonging or close to a particular religious group, community, or tradition, how religious would you say you are?; and (Q3) How religious would you say the family you grew up in was?; On a scale from 1 every day to 7 never (Q4) Apart from special occasions such as weddings and funerals, about how often do you take part in religious ceremonies or services these days?, and (Q5) Apart from when you are at religious ceremonies or services, how often do you engage in private religious or spiritual practices, such as worship, prayer, or meditation?

This validates the power of the FQS as a methodology to distinguish between religious and secular tendencies. Moreover, the nuanced variations on the religious-secular scale are captured by the scores of the other prototypes which represent the middle range, interestingly, not too far from each other. The global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist provides in this respect an interesting example.

Close to 50% of the global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist report a form of belonging, and in comparison with 1 Secular Humanist they stand out as religious in this survey primarily based on their self-evaluation and the fact that they quite often view the family they come from as rather religious. In contrast, they cannot be said to practice religion very actively. The identifcation they present with certain aspects of religion is something that we can put into context with the help of the FQS-results. When we look at the survey measures, the global prototype 3, Noncommitted Traditionalist is rather similar to 5 Disengaged Liberal who presents

a more situational form of religiosity in the sense that persons of this prototype tend to become "more religious or spiritual at times of crisis or need" (FQS17). However, as we shall learn below, their forms of religiosity comes with rather different attitudes and values, which in practice positions them very differently.

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

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

**Table 3.4** Global prototypes and their distribution across countries, N

is to what extent the current samples together have entailed variety and richness enough in order to be able to bring to the surface the most relevant distinctions.

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

**Fig. 3.1** Global prototypes and gender

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

Table 3.5 shows some interesting differences regarding to whom persons of different prototypes turn for guidance for how to live their life and make decisions. Overall sources such as their family, their own intuition or feelings, and own reason and judgement stand out as important to persons of all fve prototypes, even though not to the same extent for global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist, and 4 Spiritually Attuned. Instead, global prototype 1 Secular Humanist rely more on their friends. In terms of the item own intuition or feelings we can see that only 65% of persons of prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist rely on this in comparison with the other prototypes for which the same number is between 80% and 93%. We naturally fnd that persons of global prototype 2 Active Confdent Believer rely on many of the sources associated with religion such as God or 'higher power', different religious leaders and groups, and the teachings of their religion, and it is important to note that again global prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist takes on a different route. For persons of this prototype, religiosity is to some extent manifest in how they rely on teachings of their religion. Persons of the global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned tend to share a trust in science with 1 Secular Humanist, for which this source is still much more relevant than all the other ones. In comparison with the

**Fig. 3.2** Global prototypes and sources of information, % yes

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

**Table 3.5** Global prototypes and sources of guidance in life

other prototypes, also great literature and art are somewhat more important to both of them. After the common sources that most share such as family, friends, own reason and intuition, it is diffcult to fnd anything that is markedly characteristic to the global prototypes 5 Disengaged Liberal and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist, even though God or 'higher power' is somewhat relevant in these cases, and 5 Disengaged Liberal is the one prototype that relies the most on a school or university teachers (50%).

#### **3.5 Attitudes, Values and Aspects of Well-Being**

In order to assess moral attitudes, participants in our study were asked to rate how much they agreed on statements on abortion, same-sex relationships and euthanasia on a scale from 1 to 5. From Table 3.6 we see that the least support for liberal social values – same sex marriage and legal abortion – is consistently found in prototype 2, the Active Confdent Believer even though persons of this prototype present somewhat more liberal attitudes towards abortion issues. Noteworthy are therefore also similar variations among the other prototypes with regard to

**Table 3.6** Means and standard deviations on liberal social values per prototype

legalizing abortion. As for attitudes towards same-sex marriage, prototype 3, the Noncommitted Traditionalist, is quite similar to the more religiously traditional prototype 2. We addressed earlier the differences and similarities between the global prototype 5, Disengaged Liberal and prototype 3, the Noncommitted Traditionalist, especially on measures of religiosity. With regard to attitudes towards abortion, same-sex relationships and euthanasia we can see that they are quite different and prototype 3, the Noncommitted Traditionalist, is positioned closer to prototype 2, the Active Confdent Believer especially in conforming to heteronormative values.

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

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

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

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

Figure 3.4 vividly illustrates where the fve prototypes converge and where they diverge. In their study, Schwartz and Huismans (1995) showed that religion was positively associated with tradition and conformity, and to a lesser extent or negatively with values such as security, benevolence, hedonism, stimulation and selfdirection, achievement, power and universalism. We fnd unison on opposite sides of the values circle—small differences in power as well as in benevolence-caring. Gaps logically emerge in values relating to tradition. The religious prototypes, global prototypes 2 Active Confdent Believer and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist, score high on tradition, on conformity and societal security. In contrast, global prototype 1 Secular Humanist scores the lowest on tradition, followed by the global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned and 5 Disengaged Liberal. How the global prototypes 2 the Active Confdent Believer and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist are

**Table 3.7** Global prototypes and social trust

*Note.* B5 refers to "Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can't be too careful in dealing with people?" was measured on an 11-grade scale ranging from 0 = "You can't be too careful" to 10 = "Most people can be trusted". B6 refers to "Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where you live?" and was measured on a 4-grade scale ranging from 1 = "Very unsafe" to 4 = "Very safe" with an additional "I don't know" option.

**Fig. 3.3** Schwartz (1992) value structure. See also Lassander (2014) and Lassander and Nynäs (2016)

confated in many respects is evident here from how these in relation to most of the basic values follow each other. Prototype 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist scores the lowest on the various aspects of universalism (tolerance, nature and concern), and aspects of benevolence (dependability and caring). Overall, the relevance of the secular-religious divide is refected also in measures of basic values, and also with regards to how global prototype 5 Disengaged Liberal, is not necessarily associated with only one side, and also here presents a 'situational' pattern. In terms of selfdirection, for instance, this prototype aligns closer to the religious prototypes, whereas the opposite happens when we compare how the prototype is positioned in relation to tradition and conformity, and we fnd an affnity to the global prototypes 1 Secular Humanist and 4 Spiritually Attuned.

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

Persons of prototype 2 Active Confdent Believer are also the most likely to feel optimistic about their future, to feel positively about themselves and about their success. They are followed by prototype 2 Noncommitted Traditionalist. Persons of

**Table 3.8** Centered means for values per prototype

(continued)

**Table 3.8** (continued)

*Note.* Reported values are centered means, raw means and standard deviations are displayed in parentheses. OM = Overall mean, the mean of all 19 values

**Fig. 3.4** Global prototypes and Schwartz values

prototype 1 Secular Humanist are the least positive about themselves and the least likely to be optimistic about their future. In short, young 'believers', regardless of their religious affliation, express satisfaction with their life and feel optimistic about their future (see Fig. 3.5). Berthold and Rush (2014) looked at respondents from Germany, Austria and Switzerland and found higher satisfaction with life

amongst those individuals who practiced their religion, explaining their fndings by the benefts gained from the social support that a religious community provides, by the healthy lifestyle recommended in various religious systems, and by the growth in self-fulfllment amongst those who frequently use their strengths and thus bring to the fore their satisfaction with life (Seligman et al., 2005). In the World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2012), religion was found to be an external communitybased factor with a positive effect on well-being; religion can have a buffering and protective function.

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

**Table 3.9** Life satisfaction by global prototype

*Note.* All items were measured on the scale 0 – 10, 0 indicating "Extremely dissatisfed" and 10 "Extremely satisfed". Q1 = "All things considered, how satisfed are you with your life as a whole nowadays?", Q2 = "Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?" and Q3 = "How satisfed are you with your present standard of living?"

**Fig. 3.5** Global prototype by optimism *Note.* Global Prototype: 1 Secular Humanist; 2 Active Confdent Believer; 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist; 4 Spiritually Attuned; 5 Disengaged Liberal. "How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?" On the scale 1–5, 1 indicating "strongly disagree" and 5 "strongly agree." The numbers inside the bars refer to the percentage of each of the fve global prototypes who strongly agreed with the frst two statements and strongly disagreed with the third statement. \**p* < .05; \*\*\**p* < .001

#### **3.6 Concluding Summary**

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

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

prototypes tend to view e.g. family, their own intuition, reason and judgement as important to the making of their lives.

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

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

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

#### **References**

Stephenson, W. (1993/1994). Introduction to Q-methodology. *Operant Subjectivity, 17*(1–2), 1–13.

**Peter Nynäs,** PhD, is Professor of Study of Religions at Åbo Akademi University in Turku, Finland and Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Psychology and Theology. He is the Director of the Åbo Akademi University Centre of Excellence in Research: Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective Project (2015–2018) and he previously led the Centre of Excellence in Research: Postsecular Culture and a Changing Religious Landscape in Finland Project (2010–2014). Among the books he has edited are *On the Outskirts of "the Church": Diversities, Fluidities, and New Spaces of Religion in Finland* (with R. Illman and T. Martikainen, LIT-Verlag, 2015) and *Religion, Gender, and Sexuality in Everyday Life* (with A. Yip, Ashgate, 2012).

**Ariela Keysar,** Ph.D., is Senior Fellow at the Public Values and Law Program and was the Associate Director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut. A demographer, she specializes in survey methodology. She is coprincipal investigator, The Class of 1995/5755: The Longitudinal Study of Young American and Canadian Jews, 1995–2019; and U.S. principal investigator, Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective, YARG, 2015–2018. She was co-principal investigator of the Demographic Survey of American Jewish College Students 2014, the ARIS 2013 National College Student Survey, and the American Religious Identifcation Survey 2008.

**Martin Lagerström,** M. Psych. is a PhD student in psychology at Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland. He has worked as a research assistant in the YARG project, working particularly with statistical analyses.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Chapter 4 Family Resemblance in Variations of Contemporary Religiosity and Spirituality: Findings from a Cross-Cultural Study**

**Peter Nynäs , Janne Kontala, Mika Lassander, Nurit Novis-Deutsch , Sofa Sjö , and Paul Stenner**

**Abstract** How can we make sense of religion and spirituality in a cross-cultural perspective? Is it at all possible to compare what we are used to calling 'religion' across different cultures? In this chapter we use fndings from Faith Q-studies (FQS) in 12 different countries to investigate variance of religion and spirituality from an international perspective. Our results shed light on themes and variations and show the capacity of the FQS to systematically recognize recurring themes while also remaining sensitive to unique but signifcant nuances across samples. We further propose that the term *family resemblance* catches well how to comprehend the complexity of variation and provides a conceptual contribution to the debate on universalism vs. particularism.

**Keywords** Faith Q-Sort · Family resemblance · Variance · Cross-cultural

P. Nynäs (\*) · J. Kontala · M. Lassander

Study of Religions, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
N. Novis-Deutsch Department of Learning and Instructional Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

S. Sjö The Donner Institute, Turku, Finland

P. Stenner Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

#### **4.1 Introduction**

How can we in a sensible way comprehend variations of religiosity across cultures or in a global perspective, i.e. make sense of a signifcant variety of distinct cultures from across the world? Our research within the project Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective (YARG) has aimed to address certain limitations within the feld of religious studies and move beyond Eurocentric assumptions by investigating beyond the cultural and religious boundaries of Europe and the West. This required us to traverse a diffcult road and to contribute to new methodologies in the feld. The background and the methodology of this study are addressed in more detail in Chap. 1 of this volume. Here we concentrate on presenting some of the core fndings from using the Faith Q-Sort (FQS) in 12 different countries pertaining to the cross-cultural variation of religion and spirituality.

It is important to contribute to the study of contemporary religiosities with research of a systematic and cross-cultural nature. In a fast-changing and increasingly interconnected world, re-locations, re-confgurations and transformations in the feld of religion and spirituality have come to increasingly underscore the demand for a sensitive conceptual and methodological toolbox. Naturally, this claim taps into many on-going discussions about how to understand contemporary religion and spirituality, and many scholars also address the need for critical methodological refection (e.g., Bowman & Valk, 2012; Bruce & Voas, 2007; af Burén, 2015; Droogers & van Harskamp, 2014; Gauthier, 2020; Gilhus & Sutcliffe, 2013; Lassander, 2012, 2014; McGuire, 2008; Nynäs et al., 2015; Woodhead, 2012). Altogether, it has become diffcult to think "about religions which organizes them into a set of discrete traditions with a supposedly 'global' import" (Cotter & Robertson, 2016, p. vii) and to uphold a "World Religions Paradigm". For instance, the distinction between Eastern and Western religions is questioned (Campbell, 2007).

The debate on universality vs. particularism is of initial relevance for the methodological development presented here. Within the research feld, religion has often been perceived one-sidedly as a transhistorical essence, while religion as a concept has often in practice been provincial (e.g. Asad, 1993, 2003; Balagangadhara, 2005; Chakrabarty, 2000; Masuzawa, 2005; Winzeler, 2008). Despite a growing awareness of these problems, scholars often presuppose a conceptual correspondence between religions that might be overstated or even illusory. A critical view of such premature assumptions of universality is essential to aspirations regarding crosscultural studies on religion and spirituality. Nevertheless, we also, in contrast, need to stress the risks of becoming the victim of an opposite methodological and conceptual trap that is based on assumptions of, for instance, 'the totally different western culture' or the 'totally different Asian or African culture' or similar notions attributed to national and cultural geographies. This is equally problematic and challenging since it might become dependent on the process of essentializing differences and historicities in terms of incommensurable particularities. There are problems involved in cross-cultural comparative approaches. Yet they are important in order to bring in knowledge on religion from a "wider range of contexts" and to be able to "introduce signifcant variation" along different axes (Altinordu, 2013, p. 86).

Is there a third option beyond the dichotomous academic positions on universality versus particularism? de Roover claims that, "the contemporary study of religion has a unique opportunity to settle the debate on the cultural universality of religion" (de Roover, 2014, p. 7). Lambek (2014, p. 147) calls for a "moving balance between distinct epistemological positions". Our ambition is not to settle the debate, but we do aim to contribute to this discussion. We suggest that the notion of *family resemblance* as introduced by Wittgenstein (1998) can shed some further relevant light on the play of themes and variations. This chapter therefore presents a bird's-eye view and is by necessity limited to addressing the main categories related to religiosity with a focus on how they vary across cultures, and we refrain from in-depth analyses of such variations.

#### **4.2 The Faith Q-Sort as a Lens to Contemporary Diversity**

David Wulff (2019) developed the FQS with an explicit aim to methodologically meet a range of "understandings of faith", encompassing both religious and nonreligious attitudes in order to be used "with people of diverse traditions, experiences, and attitudes" (Wulff, 2019, p. 646). The chapter exemplifes this capacity by comparing the so-called prototypes and how they vary from one country to another. Prototypes are the results of an FQS-study and depict reoccurring patterns or schemes for being religious (or spiritual or secular) in a specifc sample. We already presented the fve global prototypes based on data from all participants (*N =* 562) in Chap. 3 of this volume. In this chapter, we compare similar results that we have received from country-specifc samples with these global prototypes as a means of addressing themes and variations of being religious and spiritual in a cross-cultural perspective.

The methodological character and the novelty of the FQS are presented more in detail in Chap. 1 of this volume, and here we primarily underscore some features of relevance for this chapter in particular, namely FQS's strength for being implemented in cross-cultural studies as well as for capturing contemporary religious diversity (for more on Q-methodology, see: Block, 1971, 1978, 2008; Brown, 1980; Gabor, 2013; McKeown, 2001; McKeown & Thomas, 2013; Nilsson, 2007, 2015; Stephenson, 1993/1994; Watts & Stenner, 2012). When David Wulff (2019) designed the FQS based on Q-methodology, he explicitly worked on the limitations and bias of earlier methodological approaches. He derived the FQS-set of 101 statements from a range of religious traditions including non-religion and from fndings and literature in the psychology of religion and related felds. These refect, for instance, attitudes towards religious texts, practices, and materiality; various scales of religiosity; different representations of God; and underlying cognitive dispositions and options for those holding non-religious and pluralist views. With crosscultural applicability in mind, the FQS statements have been formulated using general terms so that the essential substance of the various religious traditions does not become a distinguishing factor. Particular and specifc ideas and practices have been incorporated without reference to the traditions they are part of. Instead of naming, for example, Jesus or Buddha, item 66 of the FQS reads: "Deeply identifes with some holy fgure, either human or divine." This means that at the stage of data analysis, the underlying disposition of identifying with a role model with a sacred status becomes the defning factor, not the name of the object of identifcation, or the particular religious/secular tradition. Statements that are based on earlier instruments with Christian overtones have been modifed to be relevant for people from many different backgrounds and orientations.

To achieve true multi-cultural validity involves item-by-item international, multilingual, and cross-cultural validation – before scales are made or any items put together (cf. Wolf et al., 2020). This is also a concern for both the development and translation of any Q-set to be used in a cross-cultural setting. Despite Wulff's attempts to widen the methodological horizon, our use of the FQS in case-studies in Finland (Kontala, 2016; Lassander & Nynäs, 2016) brought to our attention remains of some potential limitations and biases. The FQS was therefore systematically revised and validated by cross-cultural and multidisciplinary teams of scholars that included international experts that also represented all 12 respective countries taking part in YARG. With regard to the religious and spiritual viewpoints in different countries, statements were revised, and new ones were included. Throughout this process, we strived to be attentive to more local forms of religiosity, non-religiosity and secular positions. It resulted in a new version of the FQS named the FQS-b (Appendix 1).

Translating the new set of statements into target languages was equally important for the cross-cultural adaptation and validity. The FQS-b was translated from English into Arabic, Bengali, Finnish, French, Mandarin Chinese, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish. The back-translation is perhaps the most widely used technique to detect item bias in surveys, i.e., when some items in a test might function differently for different groups in a study (Brislin, 1970, 1980; Geisinger, 1994; Harkness, 2003; Lin et al., 2005; Plake & Hoover, 1979). In our study, we used the double and back-translation process, i.e. the use of two independent parallel translations since this ensures even higher reliability (Hambleton, 1993, 1994; van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996), because the researchers can better assess translations and select the 'best' version (Harkness, 2003). We could see that translating religious and spiritual vocabulary is marked by various forms of biases. Hence, the double and back-translation process provided a higher degree of sensitivity to subtle ambiguities, but in many cases, the translation process also required the expertise of our cross-cultural team.

Despite all the efforts put into defning the specifc items used in the FQS-set, this remains a challenging project. The particular expressions still need to be generalized for a variety of different contexts. This means that the ambition to produce a version of the FQS that has multicultural validity requires modesty. It seems far simpler to design a Q-set for a well-defned small group of people that shares some specifc interest, engagement or relationship. A related problem is that the process of producing a valid Q-set also pushes the linguistic expressions to a level of sophistication that not necessarily echoes the particular viewpoints and discourse of

relevance for people. If the statements in the Q-set become too distanced from a real-life discourse, they may end up hard to comprehend; inviting participants to play a guessing game or, alternatively, making them loose interest in the process.

#### **4.3 Variation and Family Resemblance of Prototypes**

For this chapter we conducted country-specifc analyses on samples from the 12 countries included in the YARG project, namely Canada, China, Ghana, Finland, India, Israel, Peru, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Turkey and the United States. The results from these analyses have been carefully investigated for defning and labelling the country specifc prototypes respectively. Yet, the narrative descriptions we have produced for this study are very short, and many nuances have by necessity been disregarded in our presentations in order to facilitate a bird's-eye view. We comprehend our country-specifc studies as case studies and as a snapshot of a certain time and place; our results address a meaningful and signifcant variation within each sample, but this is necessarily neither exhaustive nor representative of respective countries.

In Chap. 3 we presented the fve global prototypes from our analysis of the total sample, including all respondents from all countries (*N* = 562): (1) the Secular Humanist; (2) the Active Confdent Believer; (3) the Noncommitted Traditionalist; (4) the Spiritually Attuned; and (5) the Disengaged Liberal. These fndings indicate that some religious subjectivities can be seen as categories that are more or less universally valid. For our purpose in this chapter, we see them as reoccurring main themes, and in light of these we can investigate how the prototypes from our case study in the 12 countries stand out. In some countries we could identify only three prototypes (Finland, Peru and Sweden), whereas in China and Israel there were six prototypes and in India eight. The level of diversity differs across countries. Altogether we identifed 57 different prototypes representing to a greater or lesser extent variations of these main themes. These fndings are summarized in Table 4.1 below, including the sample size for each analyzed sample (*n*), the number of prototypes received from each analysis (prototypes found), and the percent of variance they explain including the cumulative percentage for each sample. The average amount of variance accounted for (taking into consideration all the different Q analyses undertaken) was approximately 50% with rather signifcant differences between single prototypes.

The 57 prototypes are not presented and discussed here in detail. This would not be in accordance with our aim in this chapter. Short narrative descriptions of the 57 country specifc prototypes are found in Appendix 2. Here we focus on to what extent and how the FQS helps us to identify reoccurring patterns and variations.

The quality of the FQS is, of course, dependent on how the Q-set is designed. In general, a well-designed Q-set will allow the participants to sort the statements in ways that generate variety. A frst measure of this is the distribution of cards in the initial three piles done by the participants. This gives a rough indication of how

**Table 4.1** The table lists samples and sample sizes with the amounts of prototypes found in each sample and explained variances in each country case

balanced the Q-set is, with the ideal being an equal proportion of items that are identifed with and distanced from. In Kontala's (2016) study of atheists, the respondents could experience problems fnding statements in the FQS which they identifed with, because the sample was very secular and the majority of items in the FQS refers to religion in positive ways. In our study, with a slightly revised version of the FQS (FQS-b), we found that in some rare cases, participants identifed only 15 statements for the positive or the negative pile. In general, however, the distribution was slightly uneven and varied amongst the samples, with some showing a slight skew to the negative, and some to the positive. In sum, the concourse of the FQS worked well across these 12 countries and different traditions. This observation and the explained variance across cultures both indicate that the FQS has a relevant degree of validity.

A closer look at our results affrms that, despite the great variation between the country specifc prototypes, it is possible to detect a certain and relevant degree of family resemblance in how certain prototypes vary from one sample to another across cultures. The members of a family refect the main themes of the global prototypes. Thus, most country specifc prototypes can be seen in relation to the global prototypes we have identifed and as refections of these. Yet, members in one family are not necessarily connected by one essential common feature. Rather, and following Wittgenstein's view, family resemblance is a matter of a series of overlapping shared features, where none of them is common to all of the members, and the taxonomies are dynamic (Wittgenstein, 1998, pp. 77, 84, 112, 247; Andersen, 2000). This indicates that within a family of prototypes, we might fnd some individual prototypes that do not necessarily have much in common when compared separately. Their family resemblance becomes evident only when investigated in light of all the members in the family. Hence, the taxonomies might also be subject to change, and should be considered open in contrast to a closed defnition (Andersen, 2000).

In the following section, we will look frst at some of the variation of being religious, and thereafter explore spirituality. Non-religious and secular worldviews are investigated in a separate chapter in this volume (Chap. 8), and are not discussed here.

#### **4.4 The Variety of Being 'Religious'**

In (almost) all 12 countries included in this study, we fnd at least one prototype that refects some central characteristics of the global prototype 2 Active Confdent Believer. These cases are often defned by agreement with the theistic statement FQS53 ("Believes in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship"). This is a distinguishing statement (*p* < .01) for the global prototype 2 Active Confdent Believer with a z-score that is higher than in all other prototypes in the sample. Among the country specifc prototypes of a similar religious character, we fnd that this statement is often accompanied by statement FQS74 ("Feels personally protected and guided by a spiritual being") and statement FQS41 ("Thinks of the divine as a sheltering and nurturing parent").

In Fig. 4.1 we have presented some examples of the cross-cultural variation. From this we can see how certain aspects emerge as relevant to the religious prototypes in respective country. Turkey 4 and USA 2 affrm the relevance of being personally protected (FQS74) and viewing the divine as a parent (FQS41), whereas we do not fnd this to be central to China 2 and Poland 2 where other statements are

**Fig. 4.1** Examples of cross-cultural variety of being 'religious'

defning of the prototypes. In other words, we can see that they all, to some extent, share distinguishing or defning statements with global prototype 2, but in addition they simultaneously also present unique features that are crucial to asserting their character, such as taking "for granted that particular religious claims are true" (FQS92), which is the case for both China 2 and Poland 2.

In both Ghana and Peru, two of the prototypes are defned by the same two statements as global prototype 2, indicating a similar theistic position. Yet, in Ghana, we can see that prototype Ghana 1, which could be called a "Confdent and Devout Believer", expresses a strong faith in a way that differs from the global prototype 2. One "has a thorough knowledge of religious scriptures or texts" (FQS42), "has dedicated his or her life to serving the divine" (FQS36), and "feels confdent of attaining eternal salvation" (FQS38). Ghana 3 in contrast "is consumed by day-to-day responsibilities, leaving little or no time for spiritual matters" (FQS43). Still, one puts emphasis on ritual or practice and "gives substantial amounts of time or money to some religious organization or worthy cause" (FQS1). This prototype also views "personal self-realization as a primary spiritual goal in life" (FQS93) and "feels spiritually moved and deeply sustained by music, art, or poetry" (FQS33).

Ghana 1 and 2 both express variations of being religiously anchored in the idea of a personal relationship with a divine that one also feels personally protected and guided by. Even though both prototypes Peru 2 and Peru 3 share this position, they also present other features. Peru 2 embraces "elements from various religious and spiritual traditions" (FQS29) and identifes "with some holy fgure, either human or divine" (FQS66). One further "furnishes one's living space with objects for religious or spiritual use or inspiration" (FQS65), and "observes with great care prescribed religious practices and laws" (FQS67). In contrast to Peru 2, Peru 3 does not show any such features. Rather, one is "critical of the religious tradition of his or her people" and has "frequent doubts about long-held religious convictions" even though one, like many other theistic prototypes, thinks of the divine as a "sheltering and nurturing parent".

From the Indian sample, we fnd one prototype that shows a family resemblance to the theistic prototype, but in this case (India 3) we lack statement FQS53 ("Believes in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship") as a defning statement. Rather, a family resemblance with global prototype 2, the Active Confdent Believer, is primarily anchored in the notion of feeling "personally protected and guided by a spiritual being". In both Russia and Canada, we lack this altogether.

This cross-cultural variation is evident from the Table 4.2 below, where factor score ranks for statement FQS23, FQS41, FQS53, FQS74, and FQS97 are compared between the Global, Russian and Canadian prototypes. In none of the prototypes from the Russian and Canadian sample do we fnd any of these statements; they have not in the analysis received suffcient z-scores to receive a defning ranking, and do not stand out as distinguishing. The statements have not been relevant to how the Canadian and Russian prototypes have been defned. However, the statement FQS23 ("Engages regularly in religious or spiritual practices in private") is included in Table 4.2. In the global theistic prototype 2, this statement is also among

**Table 4.2** Factor Score ranks for defning statements of being religious

*Note.* Z refers to z-scores in the analyses and Rank shows how statements are ranked in respective prototypes. The statements are FQS23 ("Engages regularly in religious or spiritual practices in private"); FQS41 ("Thinks of the divine as a sheltering and nurturing parent"); FQS53 ("Believes in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship"); FQS74 ("Feels personally protected and guided by a spiritual being"); and FQS97 ("Is an active, contributing member of a religious or a spiritual community")

the distinguishing statements (*p* < .01), the z-score is also higher than in all other prototypes in the sample, and it is lacking below. Here Canada 2 makes an exception. For this prototype, it is important to engage "regularly in religious or spiritual practices in private" (FQS23), but as part of an experience-oriented spirituality and not as part of a theistic view.

The above Table 4.2 from which we can see that our samples from Canada and Russia do not present us with any prototypes where statements usually associated with theistic forms of religiosity are defning should not, of course, be interpreted as meaning that there is no 'religious' prototype in Canada and Russia. Rather, our results with a specifc sample present prototypes from these countries that are confgured somewhat differently, and other statements dominate as distinguishing statements. Nevertheless, in Russia we do fnd a 'religious prototype' who "thinks that certain specifc beliefs are crucial for salvation" (FQS22) and "believes in some way but does not view him- or herself as religious" (FQS28), but this seems not to be rooted in the idea of a positive personal relationship with a divinity. This prototype 5 from Russia is of a more anxious nature and puts strong emphasis on "a sense of guilt and personal inadequacy" (FQS69). From the short narrative also some ambiguity and tension is evident:

#### Short narrative description of Russia prototype 5, Anxious Believer.

Russia 5 expresses insecurity as part of one's religious beliefs. One thinks that certain specifc beliefs are crucial for salvation and feels confdent of attaining salvation even though one cannot see oneself as facing the prospect of death with courage and calmness. One feels foreign to being critical of the religious tradition of one's people, yet one does not think religion should play the central role in the ruling of the nation. One claims that one rather believes in some way, than views oneself as religious and rejects religious ideas that confict with scientifc and rational principles. Dedicating one's life to serving the divine feels foreign, and one does not give substantial amounts of time or money to some religious organization. Rather, one sees personal self-realization as a primary spiritual goal in life and supports individual freedom of choice in matters of faith and morality.

Subjective forms of being religious, spiritual or secular are seldom as clear-cut as the making of distinctions between given categories such as religious, spiritual and secular might make us expect, and some subjectivities might at a closer look qualify for all labels. From the above we have still seen that such categories, and in this case the category of being religious, is universal and reoccurring in our samples. At the same time the contextual confgurations through which these are refected are just as important. FQS is a good tool for identifying the balance between the universal and the particular.

#### **4.5 A Fractal Analysis of 'Being Religious'**

The prototypes extracted from samples from different countries vary with regards to what 'being religious' involves. Each sample adds individual features and emphases to the family resemblance. In order to shed light on this diversity further, we also conducted a fractal analysis of the individual Q-sorts (*N = 154)* from both global prototype 2 Active Confdent Believer and 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist. In Chap. 2 of this volume, we argued that also global prototypes 3 Noncommitted Traditionalist stood out as religious and aligned with prototypes 2 Active Confdent Believer in light of many other measures. It was therefore included in this analysis in order to enhance the potential diversity even more. This analysis amply demonstrates how a further analysis of larger factors can yield a 'fractal' effect, displaying renewed internal complexity and differentiation, while also exposing more nuanced aspects of the family resemblance in question. By nature, however, these differentiated religious prototypes (DRP) are of course relatively homogenous and show relatively high levels of intercorrelation (see Table 4.3 below).

A closer look at these 'religious' prototypes reveals that many of the dimensions discussed above also differentiate these prototypes. A more theistic belief-orientation seems to unite DRP 1, DRP 3 and DRP 4. DRP1 is characterized by e.g. feeling "personally protected and guided by a spiritual being" (FQS74), and "confdent of attaining eternal salvation" (FQS38). Persons of prototype DRP3 emphasize "that certain specifc beliefs are crucial for salvation" (FQS22), and tend to affrm that they have "experienced moments of intense divine, mysterious, or supernatural presence (FQS10). DRP4 is more about the role of "religion as a central means for

**Table 4.3** Factor correlations for differentiated religious prototypes

becoming a better and more moral person" (FQS3), an ascetic willingness to "give up worldly or bodily pleasures for religious or spiritual reasons" (FQS98). In Table 4.4 we summarize these prototypes briefy with a focus on distinguishing statements but without providing any labels.

Besides expressing a theistic orientation, DRP6 is especially distinguished by a tendency to express "his or her religion primarily in charitable acts or social action" (FQS27). This is shared with DRP7 where the social action is coupled with societal activism. This prototype is also more geared towards the ritual side of religion and "engages regularly in religious or spiritual practices in private" (FQS23). Only in this prototype can we fnd an affrmation of having "used methods of attaining altered states of consciousness" (FQS50), even though this is very mildly ranked. Also DRP2 is more ambiguous, namely believing "in some way" without viewing "him- or herself as religious" (FQS28) while affrming relatively strong traditionalist values such as the need to "remain loyal to the religion of one's nation" (FQS46) and maintaining "continuity of the religious traditions of family and ancestors" (FQS58). Persons of DRP 5 are, on their part, among the few who "understands and relates to the divine as feminine" (FQS19) and "often keenly aware of the presence of the divine (FQS78). They have "experienced a profound change in religious or spiritual understanding or commitment" (FQS37), and also view "the divine or a higher reality as a deep mystery that can be pointed to but never fully understood" (FQS88).

The fractal analysis illustrates variations within the religious family, and reproduce some essential aspects of the global prototypes. Interestingly, these are not limited to the two religious prototypes only. Also, for example, pluralism characteristic to global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned is refected in differentiated religious prototypes 5 and 6 who "embrace elements from various religious and spiritual traditions" (FQS29). The two global prototypes 2 and 3 that provided data for the fractal analysis are either negatively (*r = −*.27), respectively weakly (*r = .*03) correlated with global prototype 1 Secular Humanist. From this should follow that the latter prototype is only weakly present in the differentiated religious prototypes. Still, the tendency to reject "religious ideas that confict with scientifc and rational principles" (FQS70) that distinguishes global prototype 1 Secular Humanist is central also to DRP4. The fact that prototypes can be internally contradictory or inconsistent is further obvious from how prototype DRP4 also "takes for granted that particular religious claims are true" (FQS92).

#### **Table 4.4** Differentiated religious prototypes – a summary

*Differentiated religious prototype 1*

*One believes in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship, and feels personally protected and guided by. One has dedicated one's life to serving the divine and feels confdent of attaining eternal salvation. One thinks of the divine as a sheltering and nurturing parent and prays chiefy for solace and personal protection.*

*Differentiated religious prototype 2*

*One believes in some way, but does not view oneself as religious. Thinking of the ultimate as a life force or creative energy, also the idea of reincarnation, the cycle of birth and rebirth is meaningful. One believes that one can be deeply moral without being religious and values one's own purity and strives to safeguard it.*

*Differentiated religious prototype 3*

*One has experienced an intense divine or mysterious presence, but is also burdened by a sense of guilt and personal inadequacy. One thinks that certain specifc beliefs are crucial for salvation. Feeling closest to those who share the same faith or outlook, one takes part in religious activities to form or maintain social relationships.*

*Differentiated religious prototype 4*

*Views all events in this world within a religious framework and considers the meaning of religious texts and teachings to be clear and true. Longing for a deeper, more confdent faith, one willingly gives up worldly or bodily pleasures. Religion is seen as a central means for becoming a better and more moral person.*

*Differentiated religious prototype 5*

*One has experienced a profound change in religious or spiritual understanding, and is often keenly aware of the presence of the divine. One views religious content as metaphoric, rather than literally true and relates to the divine as feminine. One engages regularly in religious or spiritual practices in private.*

*Differentiated religious prototype 6*

*One considers the meaning of religious texts and teachings to be clear and true. One is moved by the atmosphere of sacred places, and thinks of the divine as a sheltering and nurturing parent. Expressing one's religion mainly in charitable acts, one participates in religious activities chiefy on special occasions and for social reasons.*

*Differentiated religious prototype 7*

*Being religious or spiritual is central to whom one is, one engages regularly in religious or spiritual practices in private but participates in religious activities chiefy on special occasions. One actively seeks to change societal structures and values, one works towards making the world a better place to live.*

#### **4.6 The Variety of Being Spiritual**

The global prototype 4 was labelled Spiritually Attuned, a label that resonates with Wulff's (2019) fndings. The term spirituality has many different meanings and Huss claims that we today need to account for spirituality as a new cultural category (Huss 2014). When referring to a contemporary trend spirituality usually differentiates itself from religion in a value-laden way and puts the individual, seeking, openness, and holism at the center. It is often in discussions of current forms of being religious and secular associated with an emphasis of practices and means to attain insights, and sustains a connection to progressive liberal values and activism (Woodhead, 2013). How is the category 'spiritual' refected in light of our data and results? This is a more diffcult question and the reason for this is evident already when we look at the global prototype 4 and how this is confgured. In the case of the theistic global prototype 2 we found a relatively small number of defning statements, and these were also reoccurring in the country specifc studies (with some exceptions). They constituted a rather distinct pattern of family resemblance.

For 'the spiritual' prototypes the pattern of family resemblance unfolds somewhat differently. First, the global prototype 4 Spiritually Attuned is characterized by nine distinguishing statements out of the 13 statements that are ranked on the highest level 3 or 4, and we can claim that a more complex multidimensionality is at play. Second, and as a consequence of the way in which they are replicated across different cultures, they show even more variation than what was the case for the religious prototypes. This is evident from Fig. 4.2 below.

A family resemblance based on a combination of statement changes from one country to the other is evident also in this case. Yet, the fact that the pattern is determined by a greater number of features or, in this case statements, the pattern could be defned as more vague. The quality of the FQS is also evident from the extent to which it allows us to observe empirically religious subjectivities and spiritualities in contexts where they are unclear or diffcult to access with other instruments.

The Chinese results provide an interesting example since they, on the surface, tend to be rather secular but still are distinguished by other features. In Chap. 2, we could see that measures of religiosity in China in general were relatively low. For instance, less than 10% of the Chinese respondents (*n* = 309) considered themselves as "belonging to one or more religious groups, communities, or traditions". This

#### **SWEDEN 3**

... deeply identifies with some holy figure, either human or divine and being religious or spiritual is central to whom he or she is. One senses universal luminous element within oneself and affirms the idea of reincarnation.

#### **RUSSIA 3**

... thinks about the ultimate asalife force or creative energy rather than a supernatural being, adn views symmetry, harmony, and balance as reflections of ultimate truth. One sees religion as the illusory creation of human fears and desires and considers hypocrisy to be common in religious circles.

#### **GLOBAL 4**

... sees personal self-realization as a primary spiritual goal in life and is inclined to embrace elements from various religious and spiritual traditions. One has a strong sense of a spiritual or higher order of reality in the midst of nature, and is committed to following a spiritual path that is in harmony with the environment ...

#### **ISRAEL 6**

... being religious or spiritual is central to whom one is and one views symmetry, harmony, and balance as reflections of ultimate truth. One seeks to intensify one's experience of the divine and has used methods of attaining altered states of consciousness.

#### **CANADA 2**

... views a higher reality as a deep mystery that can be pointed to but never fully understood. One feels spiritually moved by music, art, or poetry, and by the atmosphere of sacred places. One engages regularly in religious or spiritual practices in private.

**Fig. 4.2** Examples of cross-cultural variety of being 'spiritual'

confrms the fndings of previous surveys on religion in China, such as the results from the World Values Survey; among all national contexts studied as part of this project, China has the lowest number of individuals reporting that religion is very important (3%) or rather important (8%) to them (Inglehart et al., 2014). We are in other words dealing with a highly secular context. Also, many defning statements for the Chinese prototypes refect a secular position.

Yet, another picture emerges when we turn to the results from the FQS. Common to several of the prototypes is a salient identifcation with believing "in some way but [the person] does not view him- or herself as religious" (FQS28). This item surfaces as central in the majority of the Chinese prototypes, even though they differed in terms of the relevance which they additionally gave to societal activism, personal belief or experience, or religious or spiritual matters. Four out of the six Chinese prototypes embrace in different ways spirituality as a potential valuable life-source, without making this a very prominent part of their own life-view. This supports recent research pointing to a highly diverse and vibrant religious landscape in China, despite heavy secular regulation (e.g. Yang & Hu, 2012, p. 96; Sun, 2013). Let us look closer at a Chinese prototype that primarily should count as spiritual.

Short narrative description of China prototype 4, Experience-Oriented and Spiritually Inclined Traditionalist:

For China 4, spiritual experiences are essential. One has a sense of a spiritual or higher order of reality in nature and has experienced moments of intense divine, mysterious, or supernatural presence. One is moved by the atmosphere of sacred places, spiritually moved and sustained by music, art, or poetry. Feeling contempt against religious institutions, ideas and practices is alien to whom one is and one also fnds it foreign to reduce religion to a creation of human fears and desires. Still, one has not dedicated one's life to serving the divine, nor used methods of attaining altered states of consciousness. One does not take comfort in thinking that those who do not live righteously will suffer. One believes that one can be deeply moral without being religious and works towards making the world a better place.

This spiritual prototype from China is unique in the sense that it is the only prototype among the Chinese prototypes that affrms the idea that "religion should play the central role in the ruling of the nation" (FQS71). The statement is not ranked very highly, but still becomes distinguishing since it presents a clear contrast to other prototypes that rank this statement negatively. This detail also makes the Chinese spiritual prototype 4 stand out in relation to the global prototype 4 Spiritually Inclined where we fnd this statement ranked as −4, that is to say among the most negatively ranked. In other prototypes where this idea is ranked positively, it usually surfaces as part of a more theistic or religious viewpoint. This exemplifes that in terms of family resemblance, there are no fxed boundaries between the categories and they can involve tensions and contradictions.

The Chinese prototypes defned by the notion of "believing in some way" (FQS28) without being religious all lacked the strong identifcation with religious belief and engagement that is characteristic of the Chinese prototype 3 which could be labelled "Committed and Communally Engaged Believer". From Fig. 4.2 above we recall that persons of this prototype tend to affrm a personal relationship to a god, and fnd it important to participate in religious services. Religion is also "a central means for becoming a better and more moral person" (FQS3). In addition to the FQS' capacity to uncover the complex multidimensional side of a worldview, the Chinese case shows that it can thereby also help us to expose more hidden aspects that may fall in the shadow when using other methods. The FQS assists in nuancing our comprehension of what it can mean and not mean to hold a nonreligious or secular view and just "believe in some way".

#### **4.7 Concluding Remarks**

In this chapter we have investigated how religiosity and spirituality varies in samples from 12 different countries worldwide: distinct patterns of being religious, spiritual and non-religious in country-specifc samples were identifed, and resulted in three to eight prototypes per country. We compared some of these with our results from the analysis based on a sample consisting of all participants, i.e. fve global prototypes. Based on this we concluded that both religion and spirituality is respectively constituted by a range of elements that vary in signifcant ways from one context to another and in relation to the global prototypes. A fractal analysis of the two global prototypes of a religious character exposed more of the internal variation that can constitute 'being religious'.

The term family resemblance that was introduced by Wittgenstein (1988; Andersen, 2000) presents a way to conceptualize this dynamic well. It accounts for how religion and spirituality are constituted by overlapping shared features, without any of them necessarily being common to all manifestations. The taxonomies of being both religious and spiritual are dynamic, open and subject to change. Our observations show that the FQS can produce systematically comparable results that strike a signifcant methodological balance between the universal and the particular. The term family resemblance seems to further strengthen the called-for dialogical position between the two epistemological positions which the FQS enables.

A key asset of FQS is that it is anchored in self-reference rather than in preconceived theories or systems of classifcation. The Q-set is at the core of validity of any application of Q-methodology, and needs to refect a variety of relevant viewpoints. It is evident to any scholar of religion that this remains a challenging ambition, especially in light of cross-cultural variations. Yet, the FQS includes a broad variety of statements pertaining to religion, spirituality and non-religion that fosters the process of making meaningful distinctions, and presents important qualities in this respect. For example, also ideas that at the stage of designing the FQS-b were expected to be more particularistic and marginal came to resonate in unexpected ways with our samples. The statement referring to the idea of believing "in some way" (FQS28) that was derived from a Nordic context stood out as surprisingly salient for the participants in China, and the statement "Values his or her own purity and strives to safeguard it" (FQS48) was relevant in several samples.

Nevertheless, also some critical remarks regarding the design of the FQS are required. Kontala (2016) illustrates the Q-set's problem with help of Legos. The sorting process could be compared to a test, where the respondents are given 101 pieces of Lego and a task to build something out of these blocks. The possibilities are almost endless, yet at the same time constrained by the available blocks. The respondents cannot suddenly wish to manifest their preferences by constructing a mini railway, or a game of softball, and furthermore, in actual fact people tend to produce variations on a quite fnite number of recurrent themes, such as an airplane, a house, a car and a boat. Of those who build cars, no two cars are absolutely the same, and in this sense there are many variations on the car theme. Some of the variations may actually be hard to classify as to whether they are a car or a boat (and come close to being a hovercraft). Some houses acquire wheels and start to become more like caravans. In understanding the prototypes and the variations, it is obvious that they are each built from many individual pieces, and so the prototype is always more than the sum of its pieces – it is the pieces arranged into a particular pattern. Some pieces, however, come to defne a prototype more than others. Round pieces, for example, might suggest wheels, but for some who frst got attracted to the fat wing like pieces, these round pieces are the wheels of an airplane, whilst for others they are the wheels of a car. For those who built boats, they become the safety liferings on the side of the boat. Obviously, a different set of Lego pieces might prompt different models to be built. These variations cannot be reduced to single features or items. Rather, the notion of family resemblance seems to be relevant in understanding the complex confgurations of multiple features or items, as a matter of a series of overlapping shared features, where none of them is necessarily shared by all members.

Some prototypes were built on what we tend to see as conficting or incompatible elements, such as being both religious or secular, or rooting spirituality in nationalism. A specifc quality of the FQS is that it has proven to be sensitive to such ambiguities, liquidities and simultaneities in how religious subjectivities are confgured. Nevertheless, this also has to be critically discussed in terms of how we understand the method, what we can achieve with it, and how it relates to an empirical reality of e.g. everyday discourses and practices. We cannot neglect that in the more radical end of the discussion of reliability in Q-methodology, McKeown and Thomas (2013, p. 5) cite Heisenberg (1962, p. 58) on the interpretative nature of measurement: "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning". When we design or revise a Q-set for a certain research purpose, we tend to make assumptions about what is universal, particular, reoccurring, central or peripheral. These assumptions affect our understanding of the concourse, and the choices we make. This means that the universal and particularistic features between which we would like to strike a balance are also dependent on the idea of a difference that is constructed by us and others. Or in other words, the question "what is a pattern and who can defne this?" lies at the core of the notion of family resemblance. The results we receive need to be critically viewed in this light.

The FQS differs from many methodological approaches used in the study of religions, and it is the frst instrument for assessing religiosity that is based on Q-methodology. It is designed to be sensitive to both commonalities in religious beliefs and practices, while at the same time exposing the limitations of thinking in terms of universal patterns and categories. The FQS can help us identify some new relevant ways of being religious, spiritual, or secular, or perhaps even more importantly, it can assist us in observing emerging forms combining these points of view. It also reveals that worldviews present a dynamic family resemblance across cultures that have a multidimensional nature, often constituted by simultaneity, ambiguity and even contradictions.

The FQS opens up new vistas in light of challenges posed by religious change and religion in a global cross-cultural perspective. The FQS has the potential to produce relevant systematical observations that are well grounded empirically. As is the case in every academic study, we need to be attentive to the limitations of the instruments and approaches we use, but on a methodological level, the FQS designed by David Wulff (2019) represents a promising pragmatic and dialogical instrument. It helps us navigate the global landscape with regards to religion, spirituality and secular views in spite of epistemological pitfalls associated with ideas about universalism and particularism.

#### **References**

McGuire, M. (2008). *Lived religion: Faith and practice in everyday life*. Oxford University Press.

**Peter Nynäs,** PhD, is Professor of Study of Religions at Åbo Akademi University in Turku, Finland and Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Psychology and Theology. He is the Director of the Åbo Akademi University Centre of Excellence in Research: Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective Project (2015–2018) and he previously led the Centre of Excellence in Research: Postsecular Culture and a Changing Religious Landscape in Finland Project (2010–2014). Among the books he has edited are *On the Outskirts of "the Church": Diversities, Fluidities, and New Spaces of Religion in Finland* (with R. Illman and T. Martikainen, LIT-Verlag, 2015) and *Religion, Gender, and Sexuality in Everyday Life* (with A. Yip, Ashgate, 2012).

**Janne Kontala,** PhD, worked as a researcher in Turku, Finland in the Department Study of Religions at Åbo Akademi University Centre of Excellence in Research: Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective Project (2015–2018). He specializes in the feld of studies of secularism and is the author of *Emerging Non-religious Worldview Prototypes: A Faith Q-sortstudy on Finnish Group-affliates* (2016). He previously worked as a researcher in a project titled "Viewpoints to the world: Prototypes of worldview and their relation to motivational values in different social movements," funded by the Academy of Finland (2011–2015).

**Dr. Mika Lassander,** the author of *Post-Materialist Religion: Pagan Identities and Value Change in Modern Europe* (Bloomsbury, 2014) and co-editor of *Post-Secular Society* (Transaction, 2012), has specialised in methodology in the study of religions, particularly pragmatism, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches, and Actor-Network Theory. His general research interest is in the social-psychological study of the effects of long-term social changes on individuals' worldviews and values. He worked as a senior researcher for the Åbo Akademi University Centre of Excellence in Research Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective (2015–8). He is currently working as a senior statistician and project manager for Statistics Finland.

**Dr. Nurit Novis-Deutsch** is a social psychologist who researches values, religion and morality in the About the Department of Learning and Instructional Sciences at University of Haifa in Israel. Her research concerns the ways in which people create and manage contradictory frames of meaning and organize their identities within multiple social contexts. She also explores applied educational implications of these questions. Her research projects include pluralistic reasoning; outgroup dehumanization; ultra-religiosity; cross cultural religious meaning making, Holocaust education and memory and interdisciplinary learning.

**Sofa Sjö,** Dr. Theol, is a research librarian at the Donner Institute in Turku Finland. She was a senior researcher at the Department Study of Religions at Åbo Akademi University within the Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective Project (2015–2018). She has previously coedited two volumes based on the YARG project: a thematic issue for the journal *Religion*, titled "Rethinking Religious Socialization: A Transnational Perspective" (with M. Klingenberg and M. Broo, 2019) and the edited volume *Digital Media, Young Adults and Religion: An International Perspective* (with M. Moberg, Routledge, 2020).

**Paul Stenner** has a BA and PhD in Psychology and Sociology from the University of Reading. He has been Professor of Social Psychology at the Open University since 2011. From 2005–2011 he was Professor of Psychosocial Studies at the University of Brighton and previously held lectureships at University College London, University of Bath and the University of East London. He works with process approaches to Psychosocial issues. He has published work in numerous felds including the emotions, human rights, quality of life and active ageing. With Simon Watts, he is author of Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation (Sage, 2012). His most recent book is a work of social and psychological theory entitled Liminality and experience: a transdisciplinary approach to the psychosocial (Palgrave, 2017).

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Chapter 5 Common Patterns of Religion and Spirituality: A Contribution to the Discussion on Typologies**

**Peter Nynäs , Nurit Novis-Deutsch , and Paul Stenner**

**Abstract** The aim to discern variation in religion and spirituality has been central to the Study of Religions, and in particular, it has fueled the discussion on typologies. In this chapter, we analyze fve distinct worldview profles (prototypes) that we extracted from our study in 12 countries with the Faith Q-Sort (FQS). The FQS enables us to investigate in detail how certain ideas, practices, attitudes etc. vary in relevance between prototypes, and reveals patterns of importance for the discussion on typology. It provides a meaningful methodological tool for assessing and comprehending worldviews and how these are confgured. Our fndings show that our fve prototypes, on the one hand, are distinguished by certain characteristics and that they, on the other hand, also are multidimensional and emerge as variations of how several elements are combined and emphasized.

**Keywords** Religion · Spirituality · Typology · Faith Q-Sort · Q-methodology

### **5.1 Introduction**

Is there an essence to religiosity? What about spirituality and secularity? Can this 'essence' be typologized as a universal set of dimensions? In this chapter, we will address these controversial questions by comparing the main findings of our study to some of the field's most prevalent typologies. Wulff (2019) writes that typologies have long been rejected by "social scientists under the mistaken assumption that they were intended as categories for sorting

P. Nynäs (\*)

Study of Religions, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
N. Novis-Deutsch Department of Learning and Instructional Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

P. Stenner Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

individual cases" but are now undergoing a comeback. Wulff underscores the need to conceive of any typology as a work in progress, noting that "as early typologists – e.g., James, Spranger, Jung, and Kretchmer – emphasized, typologies are mainly intended, rather, as intuitively distilled "idealized" portraits, intellectual tools for discerning and analyzing patterns of variation." (ibid, p. 661).

Typologies serve as theoretical devices, which help their user to reduce the complexity of actual existence. A typology identifies the abstract characteristics assumed to be exemplified within the complexity of empirical reality. The relation between characterizing and exemplifying runs two ways: the abstract *characteristics* are supposed to be *exemplified* in fact, and the *exemplified* facts are supposed to be *characterized* by the abstract dimensions. While identifying these key religious-spiritual types is a bold and important endeavor, we must retain a critical awareness of the limits and purpose of any typology, and this means insisting upon the two-way traffic between data and categories. Maintaining a critical stance is particularly important, given that much of the research conducted in this area has had an ethnocentric Western bias and has often presupposed a limited range of religious (and non-religious) cultures. Most typologies suffer from a limited underlying pool of data, and hence risk projecting a highly distorted picture of the 'essence of religion'. Indeed, we must surely entertain the possibility that there may be no essence to religion and that the question may be poorly posed. In this chapter, we use our Q-methodological findings to hold to scrutiny several existing religious (and other) typologies in the literature.

The question of religious typologies is not limited to the Study of Religions. More recently, such mapping of religiosities has also emerged from an interest in worldviews, and has been conducted under a range of conceptual frameworks such as ideologies (Tomkins, 1964), values (Schwartz, 1992), social attitudes (Saucier, 2000), social axioms (Leung & Bond, 2004) and moral foundations (Haidt, 2007). Although these conceptual frameworks clearly differ from each other, they all identify general principles of human variation. Some of these conceptual frameworks construe religiosity as a subset or a single dimension within broader worldview classifcations, while others explore religiosity as a variable that correlates or intersects with various worldviews. In this chapter we will investigate such typologies of relevance for the study of religions from a novel methodological perspective, based on Q-methodology and David Wulff's Faith Q-Sort (2019). The chapter starts from a brief discussion of method, after which we look into different typologies and fnally investigate our results from the international study we conducted. The approach and method behind this study is presented more in detail in Chap. 1 of this volume (see also Nynäs et al., 2021). We pay more attention to religiosity in this chapter, since secular worldviews are discussed in Chap. 8 of this volume.

#### **5.2 A Methodological Account**

Ultimately, typologies should be judged by their correspondence to empirical data. In this sense, survey fndings are far less useful at validating typologies, since religious categories are predefned while semi-structured interviews can be far more helpful in this respect. But even interviews are not exempt from diffculty in validating typologies, since the process of analysis and theory-building often allows researchers to re-create the same typologies they were familiar with in the frst place. This means that typologies, classifcations and categorization systems can be self-perpetuating, particularly when the categories are built-in by way of the questions that are asked and embedded in the very instruments which discover them. Thus, different methods for data collection and data-analysis can have important effects on typology structuring.

David Wulff's (2019) Faith Q-Sort (FQS) instrument is sensitive to participantdriven variations, and does not merely reproduce existing categories based on preexisting classifcations. It offers new ways of exploring the relevance of previous typologies also to culturally-diverse samples. For a comprehensive overview of Q-methodology we refer to literature in the feld (see Brown, 1980; Watts & Stenner, 2012), and for a presentation of FQS see Wulff (2019). Our use of the FQS with an international sample allowed us to identify a set of distinct ways of being religious, spiritual and secular and to examine how these varied across cultures (see Chaps. 3 and 4 in this volume). In the current chapter, we take the study a step further by considering the results in light of some key typologies in the study of worldviews and religions. How do our fndings refect such typologies? What general principles for comprehending human variation in religiosity, non-religiosity and spirituality can we extract from them?

Wulff (2019) designed the FQS in order to assess multiple forms of religiosity in individual lives. When selecting the 101 statements for the FQS, Wulff (2019) aimed to be both systematic and globally inclusive. He sought to include items potentially relevant to all major world religions; to the more subjective sides of 'religion' and/or 'spirituality'; and also to humanistic, existential and even spirituality-rejecting perspectives (Wulff, 2019). We developed the FQS further through a process of cross-cultural validation, and defned a revised version, the FQS-b (Appendix 1). This involved double- and back translation into the target languages: Arabic, Bengali, Finnish, French, Mandarin Chinese, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish (see Chap. 1 in this volume; Nynäs et al., 2021).