J O U R N A L O F P S Y C H O L O G Y & T H E O L O G Y2 0 1 4 , V o l . 4 2 , N o . 3 , 2 6 9 – 2 8 3

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 4 b y R o s e m e a d S c h o o l o f P s y c h o l o g y

B i o l a U n i v e r s i t y , 0 0 9 1 – 6 4 7 1 / 4 1 0 – 7 3 0

2 6 9

Towards a Psychological Understanding of Servanthood: An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Orthodox Beliefs, Experiential Avoidance, and Self-Sacrificial Behaviors Among Christians at a Religiously-Affiliated UniversityJoshua J. Knabb, Joseph Pelletier, and Anna Grigorian-Routon

California Baptist University

The authors utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the relationship between orthodox Christian beliefs, experiential avoidance, and self-sacrificial Chris-tian behaviors among adults at a religiously-affiliated uni-versity. Results revealed that lower experiential avoidance was linked to more orthodox Christian beliefs, which, in turn, was related to more self-sacrificial Christian behav-iors, similar to the acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) model that emphasizes accepting the inner world

in order to adopt and live out a set of well-defined values in the outer world. Therefore, the authors proposed ACT-based interventions designed to help Christians cultivate an attitude of acceptance when relating to difficult private encounters, which may help followers of Christ to more fully believe in and implement his teachings. Further re-search is needed to generalize and replicate these prelimi-nary results.

According to both Christian scripture and theol-ogy, religious belief should lead to behavior and action. In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus argued for the importance of putting his teachings into practice (7:24), with the Apostle James writing that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). As the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1955) revealed, “It is evident that the only appropriate conduct of men [sic] before God is the do-ing of His will. [Jesus’] Sermon on the Mount is there for the purpose of being done” (p. 46).

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Joshua J. Knabb, Assistant Professor of Psychology, California Baptist University, 10370 Hemet Street, Suite 200, Riverside, CA 92503. Phone: (951) 343-3937. Electronic mail: [email protected] Note: Joshua J. Knabb, PsyD, Assistant Professor of Psy-chology, California Baptist University, Riverside, CA; Joseph Pel-letier, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology, California Baptist University, Riverside, CA; Anna Grigorian-Routon, MS, Lecturer of Psychology, California Baptist University, Riverside, CA.

2 7 0 O r t h O d O x B e l i e f s , e x p e r i e n t i a l a v O i d a n c e , a n d s e l f – s a c r i f i c i a l B e h a v i O r s

lation (Chang-Ho, 2004). Further research is needed that examines the relationship between these two vari-ables, including studies that examine a range of influ-ences on the often-inconsistent belief-behavior link.

What is more, very few authors have proposed the-oretical models within the psychology and sociology of religion literatures that attempt to explain this often-weak correlation between religious belief and behavior. One such model was proposed by Cornwall (1989), a sociologist at Brigham Young University, who tested a comprehensive, five-factor theoretical model for predicting religious behavior. In particular, Cornwall suggested that religious socialization, demographic characteristics, personal community relationships, and religious commitment all directly or indirectly influ-ence religious belief, which, in turn, impacts religious behavior. Among the Mormon participants in her study, results revealed that all five categories directly or indirectly influenced religious behavior.

One of the strengths of Cornwall’s (1989) model is that it focuses on a wide range of correlates of reli-gious behavior, including cognitive (i.e., belief), affec-tive (i.e., commitment), developmental (i.e., religious socialization), and interpersonal (i.e., community relationships) variables. Although she argued at the conclusion of her article for further investigation of these five factors (i.e., socialization, demographics, community relationships, commitment, beliefs) to better understand how they contribute to religious behavior, a fundamental question remains within the psychology of religion literature: what potential nega-tive psychological processes exist that prevent Chris-tians from living out the teachings of Christ, especially more difficult behaviors involving self-sacrifice and servanthood? Asked differently, in that several New Testament passages link belief with action, and teach that action involves self-sacrifice, servanthood, suffer-ing, and hardship, what unpleasant private experiences (e.g., thoughts, feelings, sensations, images) might get in the way of following Christ? Certainly, some Chris-tians might avoid living out the teachings of Christ in an effort to reduce or eliminate potentially difficult thoughts, feelings, and sensations that link religious belief and behavior.

As an example, many Christians hold to the New Testament belief that they should “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19) by evangelizing (i.e., sharing the gospel message of Jesus’ death, burial, and resur-rection; 1 Corinthians 15:3–5) to non-Christians for the purpose of ensuring their salvation. However, they might avoid engaging in such self-sacrificing, evange-lizing behavior due to unpleasant thoughts of doubt

In addition, a plethora of New Testament verses1 elucidate that following the teachings of Christ in-volves self-sacrifice, servanthood, suffering, and hard-ship. In the gospels, Jesus taught that individuals wish-ing to follow him must deny themselves and “take up their cross” (Matthew 16:24), proclaiming that he came to serve, rather than be served (Mark 10:45), and that the world would hate those who follow him (John 15:18–20). Moreover, the Apostle Paul wrote that he is content with a wide variety of hardships and diffi-cult experiences “for the sake of Christ” (2 Corinthi-ans 12:10). In agreement, in The Imitation of Christ, the German medieval writer Thomas Kempis (2003) noted:

When you shall have come to the point where suffering is sweet and acceptable for the sake of Christ, then consider yourself fortunate, for you have found paradise on earth. But as long as suffering irks you and you seek to escape, so long you will be unfortunate. (p. 43)

Overall, both New Testament writings and Christian theology illuminate that religious belief should lead to religious behavior when following Christ, and that self-sacrifice, servanthood, suffering, and hardship are part of this two-step process of understanding Chris-tian teachings and putting them into practice.

Common Christian beliefs that involve self-sacri-fice and servanthood include loving one’s neighbors (Luke 10:27), forgiving and praying for one’s enemies (Matthew 6:14–15), giving to the poor (Matthew 5:42), serving others in the local church (Galatians 6:10; Romans 12:3–8), and evangelizing to non-Christians via missionary work (Matthew 28:19). To be sure, those hearing Jesus’ words must put them into practice, which is analogous to building a firm founda-tion so that one’s house is not destroyed by the storms of life (Matthew 7:24–27).

Within the psychology and sociology of religion literatures, though, the link between religious belief and behavior is often inconsistent (see Sappington & Baker, 1995). For example, several studies in the last two decades have revealed that religious belief is cor-related with prosocial behaviors (see, e.g., Driskell & Lyon, 2011; Sappington & Baker, 1995), whereas other researchers have found either no link (Smith, Wheeler, & Diener, 1975), or a weak, positive corre-

1Throughout the article, the New International Version of the Bible was used when quoting scripture.

K n a B B , p e l l e t i e r , a n d G r i G O r i a n – r O u t O n 2 7 1

main in contact with private experiences such as pain-ful thoughts and emotions” (Chawla & Ostafin, 2007) may influence these two variables. After all, Jesus re-peatedly stressed the importance of servanthood and self-sacrifice (see, e.g., Matthew 16:24; Mark 10:45), and New Testament writers continually affirmed the belief that Christians will experience suffering and hardship when following Christ (see, e.g., Matthew 5:10–12; John 15:18–20; Acts 14:21–22; Philippians 1:29; 2 Corinthians 4:8–11).

In sum, some Christians might experience spiritual conflict because they struggle to accept the unpleas-ant thoughts, feelings, and sensations that influence religious belief and behavior, especially self-sacrificial behavior that requires servanthood, resulting in signif-icant difficulty following the teachings of Christ. To be sure, Christians might have a hard time putting a range of orthodox beliefs into practice due to unpleas-ant private experiences (e.g., thoughts of self-doubt, feelings of anxiety). These behaviors, which are to be guided by New Testament teachings, may include for-giving one’s enemies, giving to the needy, serving in the church, tithing, social justice, and evangelizing to non-Christians. As noted above, the level of willingness to accept these unpleasant inner experiences—the EA construct—might help to explain the inconsistent link between religious belief and religious behavior, espe-cially more difficult self-sacrificial behaviors.

A theoretical approach to understanding how re-ligious belief, experiential avoidance, and religious behavior are related comes from the acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) literature (see, e.g., Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999). ACT, a third-wave cognitive-behavioral therapy approach for ameliorat-ing experiential avoidance, was developed in the 1980s and 1990s in an effort to help clients become more ac-cepting of their private experiences (i.e., thoughts, feel-ings, sensations) so that they can live out a set of well-defined values. In particular, two acronyms—FEAR and ACT—can help to explain the inner struggle to live out self-sacrificial religious teachings within the Christian faith. With the FEAR acronym, individu-als may fuse with negative thoughts, evaluate negative emotional experiences as “bad,” attempt to reduce these unpleasant thoughts and feelings with avoidance behaviors, and justify the avoidance with reason giving. For Christians, following the teachings of Christ in-volves self-sacrifice, servanthood, suffering, and hard-ship; however, difficult inner experiences might get in the way of living out these self-sacrificial religious be-haviors. For example, a Christian might believe in Je-sus’ teaching about showing mercy to the poor, needy,

and rejection or feelings of anxiety and embarrassment. To be sure, an unwillingness to accept these difficult inner experiences might prevent some Christians from transforming the religious belief of “baptizing all na-tions” to the religious behavior of evangelizing to non-Christians.

In a separate line of research, beginning in the 1990s, Steven Hayes and colleagues began publishing articles on the relationship between experiential avoid-ance (EA) and behavior disorders (Hayes, Wilson, Gif-ford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996). According to Hayes et al., a wide range of psychiatric disorders may be due to “unhealthy efforts to escape and avoid emotions” (p. 1152). In other words, the unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and sensations that accompany many DSM-IV-TR disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder) are not in and of themselves what lead to suffering; instead, the nega-tive evaluation of such thoughts and feelings, as well as the accompanying behaviors that serve to rid one-self of these inner experiences, lead to behavior dis-orders. Stated differently, an unwillingness to accept unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and sensations may lie at the heart of many forms of psychopathology. As an example, someone with frequent panic attacks might stay indoors because he or she believes that this isolat-ing behavior will reduce the likelihood that his or her difficult inner experiences (e.g., rapid heartbeat, fear, thoughts of dying) will continue. However, avoiding going outside and engaging with the world presum-ably causes more harm than the private experiences. In other words, pain and suffering are not one and the same—suffering stems from both an unwillingness to accept pain and repeated efforts to avoid ubiquitous painful experiences. Therefore, cultivating a willing-ness to accept these anxiety-related thoughts, feelings, and sensations will allow the individual the opportu-nity to live his or her life again.

Although the concept of EA has been recently ap-plied to a range of behavioral disorders—posttrau-matic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, eating disorders, borderline personality disorder, and pornography use (Buhr & Dugas, 2012; Cowdrey & Park, 2012; Iverson, Follette, Pistorello, & Fruz-zetti, 2012; Maak, Tull, & Gratz, 2012; Wetterneck, Burgess, Short, Smith, & Cervantes, 2012)—to date, the EA construct has not been explored in the con-text of religious or spiritual problems, a DSM-IV-TR V-code diagnosis, including distressing experiences in the context of faith. In other words, when examining the struggle to transform religious belief to behavior, especially self-sacrificial acts, an unwillingness to “re-

2 7 2 O r t h O d O x B e l i e f s , e x p e r i e n t i a l a v O i d a n c e , a n d s e l f – s a c r i f i c i a l B e h a v i O r s

and sick (Matthew 25:35–40). However, he or she might fuse with the thought, “I can’t really make a dif-ference in the world so why try,” and negatively evalu-ate the inner experience of hopelessness (e.g., “This feeling is bad and I must get rid of it by avoiding try-ing to serve the poor”) that accompanies this thought of doubt. As a result, the Christian might attempt to reduce these thoughts and feelings by simply avoiding efforts to serve in his or her community, as well as rein-force this avoidant behavior by offering reasons to sup-port his or her unwillingness to take action (e.g., “No one else in my church volunteers in soup kitchens,” “I feel too hopeless to help out in my community”).

On the other hand, the ACT acronym (see, e.g., Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999) can help to make sense of the role that acceptance plays in linking reli-gious belief and self-sacrificial religious behavior. With the ACT acronym, the individual accepts, rather than avoids, his or her unpleasant thoughts and feelings, commits to a valued-direction, and takes action. By doing this, the individual’s unpleasant thoughts and feelings do not serve as a barrier to walking in a valued direction. Instead, the individual relies on a set of well-defined values to guide his or her life. As noted above, the level of willingness to accept unpleasant inner ex-periences might link the relationship between religious belief and behavior, especially difficult self-sacrificial behavior—the Christian who is able to follow Jesus’ teachings about servanthood and self-sacrifice may be more likely to accept unpleasant thoughts (e.g., doubt) and feelings (e.g., anxiety) so that unpleas-ant inner experiences do not get in the way of living out a well-defined set of values (i.e., New Testament teachings on love, servanthood, self-sacrifice, and suffering).

A scriptural example of the link between religious belief, experiential avoidance, and religious behavior comes from the gospels, when Jesus prayed to God shortly before his crucifixion. In particular, anticipat-ing a painful experience on the cross, Jesus was “in an-guish,” as well as “sorrowful and troubled,” and asked that God “take this cup from [him]” (Luke 22:39–44; Matthew 26:36–39). In spite of these difficult inner experiences, he went on to suffer a violent death, con-sistent with God’s will. Therefore, Jesus was able to ac-cept, rather than avoid, very painful emotions (e.g., sor-row, anguish), acting on his belief that he was supposed to die and rise again three days later (Mark 8:31–33).

Building on (a) the religious belief-behavior lit-erature, (b) current EA research, (c) ACT theory, and (d) scriptural examples of living out New Testament teachings on self-sacrifice, the purpose of the current

study was to explore the potential influence of Chris-tians’ level of experiential avoidance in explaining the relationship between orthodox religious belief and self-sacrificial religious behavior. Stated differently, the objective of this research was to investigate the impact that efforts to avoid unpleasant inner experiences (e.g., thoughts of doubt, feelings of depression or anxiety, sensations of pain) have on Christians’ ability to trans-form religious beliefs into a life of servanthood.

HypothesesBased on the religious belief-behavior literature,

EA research, ACT theory, and scriptural examples, the authors hypothesized that higher levels of agreement with orthodox Christian beliefs—including scripture that suggests Christians should practice self-sacrifice and will experience hardship when following the teach-ings of Christ—will be linked to a greater willingness to accept unpleasant inner experiences (e.g., thoughts, feelings, sensations), which, in turn, will be related to behavior consistent with living out New Testament teachings that require some form of self-sacrifice.

MethodThe second and third authors recruited a volun-

teer sample of 133 male and female college students, between 18 and 58 years old, from undergraduate and graduate classes at a private Christian university in southern California. The study was announced in-per-son before classes began, and classrooms were selected that included courses from a variety of disciplines so as to ensure a diverse student sample. Interested partici-pants were included in the study if they reported be-ing affiliated with a Christian denomination and were at least 18 years of age. The study measures were ad-ministered to the participants between February and March 2013 upon securing informed consent. Table 1 includes a breakdown of the participant demographic variables.

Fourty-one participants completed a paper survey, which was distributed to the particpants when the study was announced and filled out in a classroom set-ting, and 92 students completed the survey online via Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, at a location of their choosing. The third author monitored the completion of the paper surveys to ensure that there were no distractions or interruptions, and that the stu-dents who elected to complete the online survey were instructed to complete the online measures in a quiet environment, free from distractions. None of the par-ticipants in the study were paid for their time. The In-stitutional Research Board at the university where the

K n a B B , p e l l e t i e r , a n d G r i G O r i a n – r O u t O n 2 7 3

research was conducted approved the study prior to its commencement. The paper questionnaires were hand-scored by the second author and manually entered into SPSS, and the online surveys were electronically scored by Survey Monkey and transferred to the main SPSS file for further analyses.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire. A demographic questionnaire was designed specifically for this study, which asked for information concerning name, ad-dress, telephone number, date of birth, age, ethnicity, marital status, first language, highest grade completed, religious denomination, church name, and frequency and duration of church attendance.2

Christian Orthodoxy Scale. The Christian Ortho-doxy Scale (COS) (Fullerton & Hunsberger, 1982) is a 24-item instrument—utilizing a 7-point Likert scale (–3 to 3)—that measures orthodox Christian beliefs, a dimension of religiousness. The items focus on topics such as the Trinity, Jesus’ divinity, the Bible as God’s word, Jesus’ return someday, the forgiveness of sins through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and Jesus’ miracles that were reported in the New Testa-ment. Inter-item correlations range from .60 to .70, and research has revealed that the 24-item scale loads onto a single factor. Based on several published stud-ies, the scale is considered both reliable and valid (Ful-lerton & Hunsberger, 1982). In the original valida-tion study, mean scores for two samples of university students with Christian backgrounds were 119.9 (SD = 41.2) and 119.9 (SD = 42.4) (Fullerton & Huns-berger, 1982). Cronbach’s alpha for the COS in the current study was .96.

Christian self-sacrifice/service and hardship/suf-fering items. Two additional face-valid items were included in the demographic questionnaire that asked participants to rate their level of agreement—on a 10-point Likert scale—with two verses in the New Testament in that the Christian Orthodoxy Scale does not specifically address orthodox beliefs about Chris-tian service/self-sacrifice and hardship/suffering. The first statement focused on the theme of self-sacrifice

TAble 1Demographic Characteristics

VariableTotal

(N = 133)Age (Years) (M/SD)

26.249.47

Educationa (%)High School 81 Year of College 172 Years of College 233 Years of College 194 Years of College 32

Genderb (%)Female 76Male 24

Marital Statusa (%)Single 65Married 29Separated 1Divorced 4

Ethnicity (%)African American 9Asian American 5European American 53Hispanic 24Native American 1Other 8

First Languagea (%)English 79Spanish 13Other 5

Denominational Affiliationa (%)Baptist 14Catholic 12Church of Christ 1Methodist 1Nazarene 1Non-Denominational 63None 4Orthodox 1Pentacostal 1Presbyterian 1Seventh-Day Adventist 2

Church Attendance (Years)c (M/SD)8.377.58

Church Attendance (Days Per Month)c (M/SD)4.232.97

aTotal does not equal 100% due to several participants leaving item blank or due to rounding.bOnly participants that filled out the paper demographic questionnaire reported gender (n = 41) due to an error with the electronic demographic questionnaire. cSeveral participants left this item blank.

2Gender data were only tracked among participants completing the paper survey (n = 41) due to an error with the electronic demo-graphic questionnaire.

2 7 4 O r t h O d O x B e l i e f s , e x p e r i e n t i a l a v O i d a n c e , a n d s e l f – s a c r i f i c i a l B e h a v i O r s

Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire. The Multidimensional Experien-tial Avoidance Questionnaire (MEAQ) is a 62-item measure with a 6-point Likert scale that assesses “the tendency to avoid negative internal experiences,” such as thoughts, feelings, and sensations (Gamez, Chmielewski, Kotov, Ruggero, & Watson, 2011, p. 692). The instrument—based on the experiential avoidance (EA) construct that is used to conceptual-ize inner struggles and models of psychopathology in psychotherapy—includes six dimensions: (a) Be-havioral Avoidance, which measures the tendency to avoid uncomfortable situations; (b) Distress Aver-sion, which assesses the level of unwillingness to accept distress; (c) Procrastination, which captures a style of delaying future distress; (d) Distraction/Suppression, which measures a pattern of attempting to ignore or suppress unpleasant inner experiences; (e) Repression/Denial, which assesses a tendency to dissociate from, or deny, difficult thoughts, feelings, or sensations; and, (f) Distress Endurance, which captures the ability to take action in spite of distress. In addition to six sub-scale scores, the measure also includes an overall score of experiential avoidance. Total score results vary de-pending on population, with community adults aver-aging 185.29 (SD = 39.95), college students averaging 195.08 (SD = 34.46), and psychiatric patients averag-ing 224.61 (SD = 39.94). Research has demonstrated that the MEAQ has good internal consistency and cor-relates with other tests of the experiential avoidance construct (Gamez et al., 2011). Cronbach’s alpha for the MEAQ in the current study was .98.

Religious Commitment Inventory-10. The Re-ligious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10) is a 10-item measure that assesses religious commitment, de-fined as “the degree to which a person adheres to his or her religious values, beliefs, and practices and uses them in daily living” (Worthington et al., 2003, p. 85). Items within the measure, based on a 5-point Likert scale, focus on reading about one’s faith, contributing money to one’s religious institution, staying active in one’s local religious organization, and fellowshipping with others in one’s church or other religious affilia-tion (Worthington et al., 2003). Overall, the measure assesses living out one’s faith, rather than just knowl-edge about one’s sacred texts or writings. The RCI-10 has demonstrated strong internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct and discriminant validity, with a mean score of 22.0 (SD = 6.1) among college students from a religiously affiliated university

and serving others, as explicated by Jesus in the gospel of Matthew:

I believe that self-sacrifice and serving others is founda-tional in the life of Christians, as modeled by Jesus Christ in Matthew 20:26–28: “Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom to many.”

This specific passage was selected because of the specific emphasis Jesus placed on servanthood and self-sacri-fice, as revealed by France (1985): “In this [verse], the Son of Man is an example, not in that his disciples can also give their lives as a ransom, but in the attitude of service (putting others first) which inspired his unique self-sacrifice” (p. 293). In addition, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with Jesus’ teach-ing on suffering and hardship for Christians who fol-low him:

I believe that living out the teachings of Jesus Christ by following Him leads to hardship and suffering for Christians, as revealed by Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”

This particular passage was selected because of its em-phasis on the suffering and harship Christians have commonly endured, as France explained: “Insult and slander are the forms which persectution of Chris-tians has often taken from the earliest of times. Since Jesus himself was abused and slandered, it should be no surprise that his followers receive the same treat-ment” (p. 111). Overall, although some researchers within the psychology of religion literature have ar-gued for a move from single-item measures to more global measures of functioning in order to improve reliability (see, e.g., Lopez, Riggs, Pollard, & Hook, 2011), published studies frequently rely on such items in order to assess specific characteristics of religious life (see, e.g., Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2008). In fact, within the current study, these two items were rather specific to the Christian faith, asking about distinctly Christian views on suf-fering and hardship, which prevented the authors from selecting a global religious measure that has been validated on populations with a range of religious backgrounds.

K n a B B , p e l l e t i e r , a n d G r i G O r i a n – r O u t O n 2 7 5

computed for all of the measures (i.e., COS, self-sac-rifice/serving item, hardship/suffering item, MEAQ, RCI-10, FMS) to be utilized within the measurement and structure models. Third, Pearson correlations were calculated on all of the study variables. Fourth, the au-thors utilized the measurement model to elucidate the factor loadings of the observed variables onto two la-tent variables—orthodox Christian beliefs (comprised of the COS and items on serving/self-sacrifice and hardship/suffering) and self-sacrificial Christian be-haviors (which included the RCI-10 and FMS). Fifth, the authors employed the structure model to investi-gate the proposed hypothesis that orthodox Christian beliefs are linked to self-sacrificial Christian behaviors, influenced by level of experiential avoidance. The maximum likelihood method was utilized within the measurement and structure models, and AMOS 20 es-timated means and intercepts for missing data. Three statistics were used to determine the fit of the model with the collected data—the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square estimate of approximation (RMSEA). Worth mentioning, a CFI value that exceeds .90 reveals a good fit between the model and data, as well as a chi-square p-value greater than .05. To be sure, an increas-ingly lower chi-square value indicates a better model fit (see, e.g., Catalano, Chan, Wilson, Chiu, & Muller, 2011). However, sample sizes around 200 commonly produce a significant result for the chi-square goodness of fit statistic. Moreover, a RMSEA value of less than .08 reveals a good fit for the data. To conclude, consis-tent with the recommendation of Bentler and Chou (1987), we employed a sample size-to-parameters ra-tio of 5:1 when determining the minimum number of participants necessary to employ structural equation modeling (SEM) in the current study. Thus, since the number of parameters in the current study was 20 for the structure model, we required a minimum of 100 participants to utilize SEM.

Results

Demographic and Descriptive StatisticsThe authors conducted MANOVAs to examine

whether overall differences emerged on the COS, self-sacrifice/servanthood item, suffering/hardship item, MEAQ, RCI-10, and FMS scores for marital status, first language, highest grade completed, denomina-tional affiliation, and ethnicity. Pillai’s Trace indicated no significant differences across the study measures for marital status, first language, highest grade completed,

(Worthington et al., 2003). Cronbach’s alpha was .94 for the RCI-10 in the current study.

Faith Maturity Scale. The Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) is a 38-item instrument that assesses “values and behavioral manifestations or indicators of faith rather than exclusively on an assent to particular religious beliefs or tenets” (Tisdale, 1999, p. 171). Based on a 7-point Likert scale, items on the FMS focus on atti-tudes towards helping the poor, living out one’s faith, helping individuals who are struggling with their faith, helping those in need or with problems, protecting the environment, Bible devotion/study, promoting social justice and world peace, giving time and money to one’s local church, praying and worshipping with others, evangelizing, and living a life committed to following Christ (Tisdale, 1999). The scale assesses horizontal (FMS-Horizontal), vertical (FMS-Vertical), and global (FMS-Total) faith maturity, that is, the behavioral manifestation of faith in human relationships and in relationship with God. In terms of psychometrics, the measure exhibits high reliability, ranging from .84 to .90 for categories such as age, denomination, and gen-der, as well as both content and construct validity (Tis-dale, 1999). Regarding normative data, Salsman and Carlson (2005) recently reported average scores of 4.24 (SD = 1.27) for FMS-Vertical and 3.74 (SD = .97) for FMS-Horizontal when examining each 7-point item among college students. In the current study, Cron-bach’s alpha was .92 for the FMS, and the authors chose to use the global score, rather than vertical and horizon-tal subscales, to capture total faith maturity.

Data AnalysesFive different analyses were conducted in the cur-

rent study, utilizing PASW Statistics GradPack 18 and AMOS 20. To begin, we conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) with the categori-cal variables (i.e., marital status, first language, highest grade completed, denominational affiliation, ethnic-ity) and regressions with the continuous variables (i.e., age, frequency and duration of church attendance) to examine whether any of the demographic variables in-fluenced scores on the COS, self-sacrifice/servanthood and suffering/hardship items, MEAQ, RCI-10, and FMS.3 Second, means and standard deviations were

3The authors were unable to examine gender differences across the study variables in that only 41 particpants reported their gender due to an error with the electronic survey.

2 7 6 O r t h O d O x B e l i e f s , e x p e r i e n t i a l a v O i d a n c e , a n d s e l f – s a c r i f i c i a l B e h a v i O r s

traction, Repression) and total score on the MEAQ. Finally, in terms of self-sacrificial Christian behaviors, a small-to-medium positive effect size was observed between the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10) and Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) and the Distress Endurance subscale of the MEAQ, and a small negative effect size was observed between the RCI-10 and the total score and Procrastination subscale of the MEAQ.

Measurement ModelThe authors tested the orthodox Christian beliefs

and self-sacrificial Christian behaviors constructs with the measurement model, using maximum likelihood and estimating means and intercepts for missing data. Results revealed a good fit for the measurement model (χ2 [df = 4, n = 133] = 6.94, p = .139; CFI = .99; RM-SEA = .07). Also, the five variable loadings yielded significant findings for the two latent constructs, as revealed in Table 3, and the two constructs correlated with each other (ß = .77, p < .001).

Structure ModelWith the structure model, the authors tested the

hypothesis that orthodox Christian beliefs (an unob-served variable) are linked to self-sacrificial Christian behaviors (an unobserved variable), and both variables are influenced by experiential avoidance (an observed variable). Overall, the structure model yielded a good fit (χ2 [df = 7, n = 133] = 11.5, p = .119; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .07). Specifically, the orthodox Christian beliefs construct was linked to both experiential avoid-ance (ß = –.20, p = .044) and the self-sacrificial Chris-tian behaviors construct (ß = .77, p < .001). However, experiential avoidance (i.e., the MEAQ total score) was not directly linked to self-sacrificial Christian be-haviors. Still, as revealed in Table 2, a small negative effect size was observed between MEAQ-Procrastina-tion and the RCI-10, and small-to-medium positive ef-fect sizes existed between MEAQ-Distress Endurance and the RCI-10 and FMS. Also, a small negative effect size emerged between the total MEAQ score and RCI-10. Ultimately, although the experiential avoidance construct was not linked to the self-sacrificial Chris-tian behaviors construct, the MEAQ/RCI-10/FMS correlations in Table 2 reveal a small-to-medium effect size between experiential avoidance and self-sacrificial Christian behaviors.

In spite of this, the authors attempted to explore an alternative path for the three variables—religious belief, experiential avoidance, and religious behav-ior—so as to produce better results, investigating the

or ethnicity. Although Pillai’s Trace indicated there was an overall significant difference across the study measures for denominational affiliation (F = 2.05, p < .01), further analyses were not possible due to a low sample size for 10 of the 11 denominations reported.

In addition, regressions were performed to de-termine if age and frequency and duration of church attendance were linked to scores on the COS, self-sacrifice/servanthood item, suffering/hardship item, MEAQ, RCI-10, and FMS. Results revealed that higher frequency of monthly church attendance was linked to higher scores on the COS (ß = .27, p < .01), self-sacrifice/servanthood (ß = .25, p < .01) and hard-ship/suffering (ß = .29, p < .01) items, and RCI-10 (ß = .38, p < .001). Age and duration of church atten-dance were not linked to any of the study variables.

Finally, Table 2 elucidates the means and standard deviations for the variables in both the measurement and structure models. As Table 2 reveals, the mean for the COS was 154.86 (SD = 23.39), almost one standard deviation above the mean score for under-graduate university students in the original study. For the MEAQ, the total score was 206.30 (SD = 58.89), about one-half of a standard deviation above the mean for community adults in the original validation study, and roughly one-third of a standard deviation higher than the original college sample. Regarding the RCI-10 results, the mean score was 33.87 (SD = 10.83), al-most two standard deviations above the college sample in the validation study. Finally, the mean score for the FMS was 186.20 (SD = 34.08), translating to an aver-age score of 4.9 per item on a 1–7 Likert scale, which is about one-half to one standard deviation higher than average scores recently reported by Salsman and Carl-son (2005) among university students in the mid-west.

Correlation MatrixThe authors conducted Pearson correlation analy-

ses on all of the study variables. As revealed in Table 2, a medium-to-large positive effect size was observed with the Christian Orthodox Scale (COS) and items related to Jesus’ teachings in the gospel of Matthew on service/self-sacrifice and suffering hardship. In ad-dition, small negative effect sizes existed between the COS and the total score and Distress Aversion and Repression subscales on the Multidimensional Experi-ental Avoidance Questionnaire (MEAQ). Also, large positive effect sizes were observed between the COS and Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10) and Faith Maturity Scale (FMS), and small negative effect sizes existed between the suffering/hardship item and three subscales (i.e., Distress Aversion, Dis-

K n a B B , p e l l e t i e r , a n d G r i G O r i a n – r O u t O n 2 7 7

TA

bl

e 2

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix,

Mea

ns, a

nd S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

ns fo

r Stu

dy M

easu

res

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

1. C

OS

2. C

hris

tian

Sac

rific

e Q

uest

ion

.5

3**

3. C

hris

tian

Suff

erin

g Q

uest

ion

.3

9**

.5

6*

4. M

EAQ

Tot

al S

core

–.1

8*–.

10 –

.21*

5. M

EAQ

Beh

avio

ral A

void

ance

–.13

–.04

–.16

.9

4**

6. M

EAQ

Dis

tres

s Ave

rsio

n –

.21*

–.11

–.2

0*

.94*

*

.87*

*

7. M

EAQ

Pro

cras

tina

tion

–.16

–.03

–.12

.8

5**

.7

8**

.7

5**

8. M

EAQ

Dis

trac

tion

–.10

–.02

–.1

9*

.74*

*

.71*

*

.70*

*

.55*

*

9. M

EAQ

Rep

ress

ion

–.2

0*–.

10 –

.22*

.9

4**

.8

7**

.8

4**

.8

0**

.6

6**

10. M

EAQ

Dis

tres

s End

uran

ce .

15

.15

–.04

–.03

.09

.07

.03

.2

9**

.12

11. R

CI–

10

.60*

*

.62*

*

.43*

* –

.17*

–.10

–.15

–.2

2*–.

09–.

10.2

4**

12. F

MS

.5

0**

.5

5**

.3

8**

–.09

.04

–.08

–.16

.02

–.03

.31*

*.8

5**

Mea

n (S

D)

12

34

56

78

910

1112

Part

icip

ants

(N =

133

)15

4.86

(2

3.39

)8.

50

(2.0

8)7.

42

(2.6

7)20

6.30

(5

8.89

)41

.22

(11.

53)

48.3

7 (1

4.68

)27

.46

(7.1

5)29

.45

(6.7

5)43

.65

(15.

51)

52.5

7 (7

.58)

33.8

7 (1

0.83

)18

6.20

(3

4.08

)

Not

e. N

s ran

ged

from

107

to 1

33 d

ue to

mis

sing

scor

es a

mon

g pa

rtic

ipan

ts. C

OS

= C

hris

tian

Ort

hodo

xy S

cale

; MEA

Q =

Mul

tidi

men

sion

al E

xper

ient

ial A

void

ance

Que

stio

nnai

re; R

CI-

10 =

Rel

igio

us

Com

mit

men

t Inv

ento

ry-1

0; F

MS

= F

aith

Mat

urit

y Sc

ale.

*p <

.05.

** p

< .0

1.

2 7 8 O r t h O d O x B e l i e f s , e x p e r i e n t i a l a v O i d a n c e , a n d s e l f – s a c r i f i c i a l B e h a v i O r s

dox Christian beliefs, with correlation results revealing a small negative effect size between the total MEAQ score and both the COS and item on suffering/hard-ship. Stated differently, Christians who were more flexible with, and accepting of, difficult thoughts, feel-ings, and sensations endorsed more traditional Chris-tian beliefs about a range of topics. Specifically, those who reported they are better able to tolerate pain, fear, anxiety, sadness, doubt, and discomfort in pursuing Christian values/behaviors, as well as suffer for what matters to them most, tended to believe that: (a) they are called to lead a life of servanthood and self-sacrifice, (b) following Christ will involve hardship and suffer-ing, (c) Jesus Christ was the Son of God, (d) the Bible is the word of God, (e) Christ will return someday, (f) Jesus was born of a virgin and the divine Son of God, (g) Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins and rose from the grave, (h) Jesus performed miracles on earth, and (i) God answers prayers.

Conversely, Christians who reported higher ex-periential avoidance tended to endorse less ortho-dox Christian beliefs. In particular, Christians who reported that they typically: (a) try to get rid of their painful memories or disappointments, (b) do anything to get rid of hurt, (c) distract themselves from unpleas-ant thoughts and feelings, (d) attempt to rid them-selves of painful feelings, (e) deny painful experiences, and (f) struggle to indentify unpleasant feelings also believed less in Christian orthodoxy, including Jesus’ divinity, God’s ability to answer prayers, the impor-tance of service/self-sacrifice, and the expectation of suffering for Christ.

Within acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), acceptance of the inner world (e.g., difficult

impact that experiential avoidance has on self-sacri-ficial Christian behaviors, with both variables being linked to orthodox Christian beliefs. Results revealed that although experiential avoidance was not directly linked to religious behavior, experiential avoidance was related to orthodox Christian beliefs, which, in turn, was related to self-sacrificial religious behaviors. In that the structure model in Figure 2 (χ2 [df = 7, n = 133] = 11.5, p = .119; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .07) offered the same fit as the original structure model in Figure 1, the authors adopted Figure 2 as the final structure model in the study.

DiscussionIn the present study, the authors found that the

total MEAQ score had a small negative effect on both the COS and the item measuring the expectation of hardship/suffering when following Christ. In addi-tion, the total MEAQ score had a small negative effect on the RCI-10, but not the FMS. Finally, the COS and service/self-sacrifice and hardship/suffering items had a medium-to-large positive effect on the RCI-10 and FMS scores among the participants in this study. This latter result is consistent with several other stud-ies exploring the religious belief-behavior link (see, e.g., Driskell & Lyon, 2011; Sappington & Baker, 1995), although the experiential avoidance-orthodoxy link appears to be the first of its kind in the psychology of religion literature. What follows is a more thorough review of these findings, including recommendations for psychotherapists working with Christians who are struggling to live out the teachings of Christ.

To begin, the authors found that an ability to toler-ate unpleasant inner experiences was linked to ortho-

TAble 3Measurement Model Standardized Regression Coefficients

Latent Variables Beta

Orthodox Christian BeliefsCOS .68***

Christian Sacrifice .82***Christian Hardship .62***

Self-Sacrificial Christian BehaviorsRCI-10 .98***

FMS .86***COS = Christian Orthodoxy Scales; RCI-10 = Religious Commitment Inventory; FMS = Faith Maturity Scales.*p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

K n a B B , p e l l e t i e r , a n d G r i G O r i a n – r O u t O n 2 7 9

-.20* -.01

.77***Orthodox Christian Beliefs

Self-Sacrificial

Christian

Behaviors

Experiential

Avoidance

-.20* .77***

-.01

Orthodox

Christian Beliefs

Self-Sacrificial

Christian

Behaviors

Experiential

Avoidance

FiGuRe 2Structure model (c2 [df = 7, n = 133] = 11.48, p = .119; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .07) of the relationship between experiential avoidance, orthodox Christian beliefs, and self-sacrificial Christian behaviors.

FiGuRe 1Structure model (c2 [df = 7, n = 133] = 11.50, p = .119; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .07) of the relationship between orthodox Christian beliefs, experiential avoidance, and self-sacrificial Christian behaviors.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

2 8 0 O r t h O d O x B e l i e f s , e x p e r i e n t i a l a v O i d a n c e , a n d s e l f – s a c r i f i c i a l B e h a v i O r s

ing that higher orthodoxy among Christians is related to following Christ.

As an example, Tan (2006) referred to Jesus as the “Master Servant,” and argued that learning servant-hood involves “following him all the way.” In fact, sev-eral passages in the gospels illuminate Jesus’ attitude of servanthood. In Mark, Jesus ministered to crowds as a servant (1–7), followed by serving his disciples (Mark 8–10) and offering his own life as a final act of service (Mark 11–16). In addition, Jesus taught about ser-vanthood in Matthew 20:28 and Luke 22:26–27, and modeled this quality via washing his disciples’ feet in John 13:14–17 (Tan, 2006). By thoroughly studying Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the gospels, Christians can cultivate orthodox Christian beliefs about the sa-lience of servanthood, which, according to this study, are linked to self-sacrificial Christian behaviors (e.g., tithing, serving others, serving in the church, spending time with God via prayer and devotion, social justice).

Turning to a more specific example in scripture, the relationship between acceptance of difficult inner ex-periences, religious orthodoxy, and commitment/self-sacrifice seems to have been modeled by Jesus when he prayed to God on the Mount of Olives shortly before his arrest. In this moment, Jesus was “in anguish,” with “sweat like drops of blood.” Still, in spite of his inner distress, he prayed for his father’s will to be done, turn-ing to the belief that he was to die for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, in Luke’s account, Jesus appeared to tolerate distress, and avoid utilizing aversion and pro-crastination strategies, which influenced his willingness to accept the belief that he would be mocked, spit on, killed, and raised on the third day (see Luke 18:31–33). In turn, this belief led to self-sacrificial behaviors, that is, scripture stated that Jesus suffered and rose on the third day for the forgiveness of sins (see Luke 24:46–47).

On the other hand, the Christians in this study who indicated that they commonly avoid distress, distract themselves from difficult experiences, and at-tempt to repress and deny unpleasant feelings reported less openness to orthodox beliefs (i.e., a small nega-tive effect size existed between the total MEAQ score and the COS and suffering/hardship item), which, in turn, led to less religious commitment (i.e., a medium-to-large positive effect size existed between the COS and self-sacrifice/servanthood and suffering/hardship items and the RCI-10 and FMS). In scripture, this finding might be consistent with the story of the rich young ruler in the gospel of Mark (10:17–27). The ruler approached Jesus and asked him how to inherit eternal life, pointing out that he already was adhering to the religious teachings of his day. As a result, Jesus

thoughts, feelings, and sensations) helps individuals to adopt and more fully live out a set of well-defined val-ues in the outer world. For the Christians in this study, embracing an attitude of inner acceptance, rather than avoidance, may help them to turn to Jesus’ teachings as a proverbial road map or compass for life. Overall, this finding—the EA-Christian orthodoxy link—seems to align with an ACT perspective on the inner/outer world distinction, i.e., the importance of making room for un-pleasant private experiences in order to live out a set of well-crafted values that are beyond day-to-day thoughts, feelings, and sensations. In other words, values offer a much more stable compass reading than inner events, which tend to fluctuate and change from moment to moment (Hayes et al., 1999). As Hayes et al. revealed, the pain of avoiding a life built upon values causes more suffering than the inner pain that arises on a daily basis.

Moreover, the findings of this study elucidated a positive link between Christian beliefs and self-sacri-ficial Christian behaviors (i.e., religious commitment, faith maturity), with correlation results revealing a me-dium-to-large positive effect size between the COS and items measuring self-sacrifice/servanthood and suffer-ing/hardship and the RCI-10 and FMS. In particular, believing in service/self-sacrifice, hardship and suffering for the sake of Christ, Jesus’ divinity, the Bible as God’s word, Jesus’ return to the earth someday, Jesus’ path for salvation through his life, death, and resurrection, and God answering prayers was positively correlated with a higher frequency of lived out biblical principles; these principles include serving in the local church, tithing, helping those in need, and spending time with God in prayer and devotion. This belief-behavior link is consis-tent with prior research elucidating a relationship be-tween religious beliefs and prosocial behaviors (see, e.g., Driskell & Lyon, 2011; Sappington & Baker, 1995). Thus, an association appears to exist between belief in New Testament teachings and living them out.

This link also aligns with Jesus’ teaching on the im-portance of putting his commands into practice, which he compares to building a house upon solid rock (see Matthew 7:24). As a result, it may be particularly im-portant to ensure that Christians study the Bible and agree with its teachings if they are to live out Christ’s commands involving servanthood and self-sacrifice (see Mark 10:45). In other words, the results of this study suggest that believing in Jesus’ teachings is posi-tively linked to religious commitment and faith matu-rity among self-reported Christians. For pastors and ministers within the Body of Christ, this finding high-lights the importance of cultivating congregants’ belief in scripture (e.g., Jesus’ model of servanthood), reveal-

K n a B B , p e l l e t i e r , a n d G r i G O r i a n – r O u t O n 2 8 1

words, helping Christians to be more accepting of un-pleasant inner experiences may allow them to more fully adopt and follow the most salient teachings and values within their faith tradition. To use ACT lan-guage, optimal Christian functioning involves a will-ingness to commit to value-based action, taught and modeled in scripture, despite difficult private events such as distress, anxiety, sadness, and doubt. Overall, cultivating acceptance, rather than avoidance, of un-pleasant inner experiences might lead to an openness to studying the Bible and its teachings as a proverbial road map, which, in turn, can help Christians live out the self-sacrificial behaviors explicated in scripture.

In order to work with Christians exhibiting experi-ential avoidance, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) may be a useful vehicle through which to of-fer strategies and metaphors for relating differently to difficult thoughts, feelings, and sensations, and, at the same time, follow a set of well-defined values that are rooted in the teachings of Christ (for a more detailed overview, see Knabb, Ashby, & Ziebell, 2010). Re-cently, Knabb et al. proposed an integrative model that combines the central tenets of ACT with Christian values in order to guide pastoral counselors and thera-pists working with Christians who are struggling to live out the teachings of Christ. In particular, the arti-cle proposed a variety of modified ACT strategies and metaphors for helping Christians to be more accept-ing of the inner world (e.g., “sinful” thoughts), while pursuing Jesus’ teachings in Matthew (e.g., “blessed are the peacemakers,” “reconcile to others,” “love your enemies”) in the outer world. In other words, follow-ing Christ via a set of well-defined values—rather than being guided by (a) inner experiences that tend to fluc-tuate and change, and (b) attempts to avoid such ex-periences—can help Christians to cultivate a sense of direction in life (Knabb et al., 2010).

As a brief example, the FEAR acronym, discussed in the introduction of this article, can help Christians relate differently to inner experiences by better under-standing the role that cognitive fusion, judgment of difficult emotions, avoidance of unpleasant encoun-ters, and justification of avoidance plays in preventing Christians from adopting a set of Christ-centered val-ues and taking action. Conversely, the ACT acronym can serve as a reminder to be more accepting of inner experiences so as to commit to a Christ-centered, val-ued direction. Overall, psychotherapy with Christian clients struggling with EA tends to involve: (a) accep-tance strategies that allow them to let go of the struggle to “rid” themselves of difficult feelings, (b) cognitive defusion skills to teach them to relate to thoughts

told him to sell all of his possessions and “follow me.” The young ruler, though, “went away sad” in that he “had much wealth.” In this story, the ruler might have struggled to accept his inner experience of anxiety that was linked to catastrophic thoughts about the harm that would result from letting go of his possessions. Fu-sion with these thoughts, combined with the unpleas-ant experience of anxiety, might have prevented him from adopting and following the command to sell all of his possessions and follow Jesus.

Furthermore, this link between (a) experiential avoidance strategies such as distress aversion, distrac-tion, repression, and denial, and (b) the struggle to adopt and live out a set of well-defined values is consis-tent with emerging EA/ACT research. As an example, McCracken and Vowles (2008) recently investigated the relationship between acceptance of pain and values-based action among a sample of patients in the United Kingdom with chronic pain. Results revealed a signifi-cant correlation between acceptance and values-based action, and a negative correlation between values and physical and psychosocial disability. In other words, cultivating an attitude of acceptance is linked to values, which are rooted in action; values-based action, in turn, reduces the likelihood of depression-related functional interference and psychosocial disability. In a similar vein, we found a link between acceptance of difficult inner experiences, Christian beliefs that are rooted in scripture, and religious commitment and faith maturity.

To conclude, this study found no direct link be-tween EA, as measured by the total MEAQ score, and the self-sacrificial Christian behaviors construct (i.e., the RCI-10 and FMS), although the orthodox Chris-tian beliefs construct helped to explain the relationship between these two variables. As a result, our research has revealed the importance of a set of well-defined values in allowing Christians to accept the inner world and follow Jesus’ teachings in the outer world. In other words, Christians who are more accepting of unpleas-ant thoughts, feelings, and sensations do not tend to display self-sacrificial Christian behaviors without a set of orthodox beliefs and values to guide them. Consis-tent with the ACT literature, Christians can cultivate an attitude of acceptance towards their inner experi-ences, but may be able to more effectively do so with a set of values, grounded in their sacred texts, to guide them in a more deliberate manner.

These particular findings in (a) the current study, (b) scripture, and (c) the EA/ACT literature seem to be relevant for psychotherapists working with Chris-tians experiencing spiritual/religious conflict, that is, those who struggle to live out their faith. In other

2 8 2 O r t h O d O x B e l i e f s , e x p e r i e n t i a l a v O i d a n c e , a n d s e l f – s a c r i f i c i a l B e h a v i O r s

may have existed among the Christian sample in the present study. To be sure, these religious items may have been endorsed because the Christians believed they should answer the questions in a way that is re-spectful of their faith, religious culture, or Christian upbringing. Despite the authors’ efforts to purpose-fully recruit participants from a range of classrooms across many different majors, additional studies that utilize random sampling from the broader Christian community might help to reduce a possible response bias and allow for generalizability of the results.

Furthermore, additional constructs need to be in-cluded that explore the role that psychological func-tioning plays in the belief-behavior link. For example, future researchers may wish to focus on the influence of God attachment, exploring the theory that God serves as a secure base for Christians to more confidently ex-plore the world and live out his teachings. As another example, researchers may wish to study the role that God image—an unconscious, internalized representa-tion of God that transcends theology—plays in influ-encing the belief-behavior link.

Moreover, additional global measures of Christian functioning need to be created and psychometrically tested in order to better understand a range of distinctly Christian correlates of psychological functioning. As noted in the Method section, in the current study, the authors created single-item measures to investigate the relationship between Christian beliefs about suffer-ing and hardship and experiential avoidance. As Lo-pez et al. (2011) revealed, single-item questionnaires are commonly unreliable, and might weaken the link between such items and other constructs investigated within a given study. Because of this, global measures of Christian functioning need to be created to increase reliabilty and validity among assessment instruments within the psychology of religion literature.

To conclude, future researchers might choose to explore other religions (e.g., Judaism, Islam), or utilize a more ecumenical sample, in order to evaluate the influence of EA on the belief-behavior relationship among a more culturally or religiously diverse group. By conducting this type of research, both researchers and clinicians can meet the needs of a broader range of religious adults struggling with an ability to tolerate unpleasant experiences in order to convert religious belief to religious practice.

ReferencesBentler, P., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural model-ing. Sociological Methods Research, 16, 78–117.

Bonhoeffer, D. (1955). Ethics. New York: New York: Touchstone.

with more distance and flexibility, and (c) anchoring themselves in the here-and-now with Christ and his teachings in order to be willing to follow him in a more deliberate way.

In sum, the authors set out to investigate the rela-tionship between Christian beliefs, experiential avoid-ance, and Christian behaviors. Results revealed that experiential avoidance is linked to orthodox Chris-tian beliefs, including the importance of self-sacrifice/suffering, and Christian orthodoxy is related to self-sacrificial Christian behaviors. Pastors and ministers can benefit from these findings by continuing to stress the importance of belief in scripture—including Je-sus’ model of servanthood, self-sacrifice, suffering, and hardship—and psychotherapists can employ an inte-grative ACT approach to help Christian clients learn strategies to be more accepting of the inner world so as to adopt and live out a set of well-defined values, rooted in Christian teachings/principles, in the outer world.

Limitations and Directions for Future ResearchA plethora of limitations in the current study are

worth discussing. To begin, the participants in this study that completed the electronic survey did not re-port their gender. As a result, gender effects were not adequately tracked, and may have altered the findings. To be sure, although 41 participants reported their gen-der (76% female and 24% male), it was impossible to generalize this statistic to the rest of the study sample. Future studies should more accurately collect gender data in order to investigate the impact that this variable has on religious belief, EA, and religious behavior.

Relatedly, although denominational affiliation was tracked, the sample size for 10 of the 11 denomina-tions was too low to analyze score differences on the COS, self-sacrifice/servanthood and suffering/hard-ship items, MEAQ, RCI-10, and FMS. Future re-searchers may wish to focus their efforts on only a few denominations (e.g., non-denominational, Catholic), or obtain a much larger sample size, in order to analyze possible denominational differences for Christian or-thodoxy, attitudes towards suffering/hardship and ser-vanthood/self-sacrifice, level of experiential avoidance, religious commitment, and faith maturity.

Also, the sample was recruited from a conservative, Baptist university in southern California. Although students are not required to sign a statement of faith, the participants may have felt obligated to endorse items reflective of Christian orthodoxy, religious com-mitment, and faith maturity in that the items on these measures tend to be face valid; this, of course, may have altered the findings. In other words, a response bias

K n a B B , p e l l e t i e r , a n d G r i G O r i a n – r O u t O n 2 8 3

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. (2008). Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic re-view and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 63–101.

McCracken, L., & Vowles, K. (2008). A prospective analysis of ac-ceptance of pain and values-based action in patients with chronic pain. Health Psychology, 27, 215–220.

Sappington, A., & Baker, J. (1995). Refining religious belief-behav-ior relations. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 5, 39–48.

Salsman, J., & Carlson, C. (2005). Religious orientation, mature faith, and psychological distress: Elements of positive and negative associations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 201–209.

Smith, R., Wheeler, G., & Diener, E. (1975). Faith without works: Jesus people, resistance to temptation, and altruism. Journal of Ap-plied Social Psychology, 5, 320–330.

Tan, S. (2006). Full service: Moving from self-service Christianity to total servanthood. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Tisdale, T. (1999). Faith Maturity Scale. In P. Hill & R. Hood, Jr. (Eds.), Measures of religiosity (pp. 171–174). Birmingham, Al: Reli-gious Education Press.

Wetterneck, C., Burgess, A., Short, M., Smith, A., & Cervantes, M. (2012). The role of sexual compulsivity, impulsivity, and experiential avoidance in Internet pornography use. The Psychological Record, 62, 3–18.

Worthington, E., Wade, N., Hight, T., Ripley, J., McCullough, M., & Berry, J. et al. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 84–96.

Author InformationKNABB, JOSHUA J. PsyD. Address: Online and Professional Studies, California Baptist University, 10370 Hemet Street, Suite 200, Riverside, CA 92503. Title: Assistant Professor of Pscyhol-ogy, Chair—Behavioral Sciences Department, Director—MS in Counseling Psychology. Degrees: BS (Business and Management) University of Redlands; MA (Clinical Psychology) Azusa Pacific University; PsyD (Clinical Psychology) Azusa Pacific University. Specializations: Psychology of religion, the integration of Christian-ity and psychotherapy, attachment-based therapies, psychological assessment.

PELLETIER, JOSEPH. PhD. Address: School of Behavioral Sci-ences, California Baptist University, 8432 Magnolia Avenue, River-side, CA 92504. Title: Assistant Professor of Psychology, Director of Research. Degrees: BA (Psychology) Texas A&M University; MSc (Social and Applied Psychology) University of Kent; PGCHE (Psy-chology and Statistics) University of Kent; PhD (Social Psychol-ogy) University of Kent. Specializations: Subjective group dynamics, prosocial development, social identity, intergroup relations, social decision-making.

GRIGORIAN-ROUTON, ANNA. MS. Address: Online and Professional Studies, California Baptist University, 10370 Hemet Street, Suite 200, Riverside, CA 92503. Title: Lecturer of Psychol-ogy. Degrees: BA (Psychology and Anthropology) UC Riverside; MS (Counseling Psychology) California Baptist University.

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. (2012). Fear of emotions, experiential avoid-ance, and intolerance of uncertainty in worry and generalized anxi-ety disorder. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 5, 1–17.

Catalano, D., Chan, F., Wilson, L., Chiu, C., & Muller, V. (2011). The buffering effect of resilience on depression among individuals with spinal cord injury: A structural equation model. Rehabilitation Psychology, 56, 200–211.

Chang-Ho, C. (2004). Faith maturity and doctrinal orthodoxy: A validity study of the Faith Maturity Scale. Psychological Reports, 95, 993–998.

Chawla, N., & Ostafin, B. (2007). Experiential avoidance as a func-tional dimensional approach to psychopathology: An empirical re-view. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 871–890.

Cornwall, M. (1989). The determinants of religious behavior: A theoretical model and empirical test. Social Forces, 68, 572–592.

Cowdrey, F., & Park, R. (2012). The role of experiential avoidance, rumination, and mindfulness in eating disorders. Eating Disorders, 13, 100–105.

Driskell, R., & Lyon, L. (2011). Assessing the role of religious beliefs on secular and spiritual behaviors. Review of Religious Research, 52, 386–404.

France, R. T. (1985). The gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Fullerton, J., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 317–326.

Gamez, W., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., Ruggero, C., & Watson, D. (2011). Development of a measure of experiential avoidance: The Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire. Psycho-logical Assessment, 23, 692–713.

Hayes, S., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. (1999). Acceptance and com-mitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, S., Wilson, K., Gifford, E., Follette, V., & Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional di-mensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consult-ing and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1152–1168.

Iverson, K., Follette, V., Pistorello, J., & Fruzzetti, A. (2012). An investigation of experiential avoidance, emotion dysregulation, and distress tolerance in young adult outpatients with borderline person-ality disorder symptoms. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 415–422.

Kempis, T. (2003). The imitation of Christ. New York: Dover Pub-lications.

Knabb, J., Ashby, J., & Ziebell, J. (2010). Two sides of the same coin: The theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Acceptance and Commit-ment Therapy (ACT). Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 12, 150–180.

Lopez, J., Riggs, S., Pollard, S., & Hook, J. (2011). Religious commit-ment, adult attachment, and marital adjustment in newly married couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 301–309.

Maack, D., Tull, M., & Gratz, K. (2012). Experiential avoidance me-diates the association between behavioral inhibition and posttrau-matic stress disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36, 407–416.