Comparison of Different Measures of Religiousness and Spirituality: Implications for Neurotheological Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for your careful attention to review suggestions.
Author Response
NA
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting this article. There are some interesting aspects of this paper and some potential of developing it toward publication; however, unfortunately, I would view this as needing a major revision. While the research study itself is adequate, the framing of this as neurotheology is misleading and requires reworking.
In the introduction, the question of epistemology should be dealt with. Science, theology, religion/spirituality, etc., rely upon different epistemological foundations. The authors hint at this, but do not go into it. It is important to consider as this as a primary difference. I am also curious how the author would distinguish neurotheology from the psychology of religion and spirituality. In my view, this research is reflective of the psychology of religion and spirituality, not neurotheology, especially as it is focusing on measure than rely upon subjective experience, not neuropsychological or neurological findings.
At the end of the results it is stated, "Such findings related to gender may have interesting consequences with regard to neurophysiological differences between males and females." This is the only statement that really points toward the "neuro" aspects of the study in the results, and this is quite weak in tying in the "neuro."
It seems the connection with "neuro" is based on talking about how aspects of the results may connect with neurological/neuropsychologial functioning. This is more speculative, though, as the study itself did not look directly at neurological or neuropsychological aspects.
The framing of this paper is problematic. It is not a study that focuses on neurotehology. It is misrepresenting the data to suggest this. Rather, this is a psychology of religion and spirituality paper that considers how aspects of brain functioning may relate to the results. But it is over-selling itself to suggest it is a neurotheological research project. If the paper is reframed as a psychology of religion and spirituality paper, which would require a major rewrite, it could be a good contribution to the literature. However, I do not see a path to publication with this paper as a neurotheology paper.
Author Response
Reviewer #2.
In the introduction, the question of epistemology should be dealt with. Science, theology, religion/spirituality, etc., rely upon different epistemological foundations. The authors hint at this, but do not go into it. It is important to consider as this as a primary difference. I am also curious how the author would distinguish neurotheology from the psychology of religion and spirituality. In my view, this research is reflective of the psychology of religion and spirituality, not neurotheology, especially as it is focusing on measure than rely upon subjective experience, not neuropsychological or neurological findings. Thank you for these comments. We will clarify the issue regarding epistemology in the introduction. We also will clarify how neurotheology is distinguished from the psychology of religion and how this study fits into neurotheology. We will argue that while there is certainly some overlap, the emphasis on neurological correlates for these measures broadens the discussion beyond just psychology.
At the end of the results it is stated, "Such findings related to gender may have interesting consequences with regard to neurophysiological differences between males and females." This is the only statement that really points toward the "neuro" aspects of the study in the results, and this is quite weak in tying in the "neuro." We agree and will make a stronger relationship between all of the questionnaires and neuroscience.
It seems the connection with "neuro" is based on talking about how aspects of the results may connect with neurological/neuropsychologial functioning. This is more speculative, though, as the study itself did not look directly at neurological or neuropsychological aspects. We agree, but feel that this lays the foundation for future neurotheological research. This is why we feel that this article fits the criteria for the neuroscience of religion that is the focus of this issue. And we will try to clarify the empirical and speculative aspects of the discussion.
The framing of this paper is problematic. It is not a study that focuses on neurotehology. It is misrepresenting the data to suggest this. Rather, this is a psychology of religion and spirituality paper that considers how aspects of brain functioning may relate to the results. But it is over-selling itself to suggest it is a neurotheological research project. If the paper is reframed as a psychology of religion and spirituality paper, which would require a major rewrite, it could be a good contribution to the literature. However, I do not see a path to publication with this paper as a neurotheology paper. We appreciate this concern but recognize that neurotheology requires a strong subjective and/or psychological background to connect with the neuroscience. This is the basis of this study and why it was performed. From here, we plan to be able to perform neurotheological studies.
Reviewer 3 Report
The Introductory section from 23-77 set the discussion. However, two points could be strengthened. First is the discussion of the web-based survey. While the main areas under review were noted, it would help the reader know a sampling of the questions to get a stronger sense of the survey. Line 63-66 is also a bit confusing. It suggests that another type of survey was used. I don't think that this is the case but the nature, size and type of survey used and the relationship with the noted Scales (Quest, INSPIRIT, etc.) are so important to the article that this section needs to be very clear and it does not yet seem to be that clear. For example, had the noted Scales been distributed separately and there was X number of responses to each one? Or was the number of responses only from the web-based survey? This dynamic is what is not clear. It would also be helpful for the reader to have a sense of the number of responses under discussion as well.
Because the rate of response is not clear, the reader comes away feeling that the data and findings were not fully presented and discussed. The data presented at the beginning of the "Results" section (78) could be defined a bit more clearly at the very beginning of the paragraph. In other words, are these the total responses from the web-based survey? It is not clear. Because this section seems to jump right in with the number 393, that adds to the lack of clarity. It would help to begin the paragraph with clarifying information about the 393 respondents. Also helpful to know would be if this is the totality of responses that include all of the Scales noted. Overall this section would be stronger with more information for the reader such as (a)how many responded to the different formats, (b) what were the strengths and limitations of the formats and (c) some valuable background information. Such information would be helpful before noting the sample of 393 respondents.
Part of the issue may be due to the fact that Table 1 was not included though it was referred to on Line 88. Without seeing the data directly in the Table, it makes it more challenging to understand what the authors mean.
It might be helpful to move the discussion on "Materials and Methods" (298) to the "Results" section. This is where the reader becomes acquainted with the measurement formats. The discussion of these diverse measurements may be more useful in the beginning section for the reader who may not be as familiar with certain formats noted in addition to providing a good introductory statement into the issue at hand.
As correlation is noted as being important, more discussion of the diverse formats and how the data from each one reflects correlation and does not reflect correlation needs more content of a descriptive nature as well. Because the reader cannot see the questions utilized in these Scales, it is more difficult to recognize the correlation. For example, Line 88-91 notes that the Quest scale correlated with religious involvement and with INSPIRIT and death anxiety. At this point, we can only take the authors at their word. Without an Appendix of the Scales or a Table, it is more difficult to digest the degree, type and nature of the correlation.
The clarification of the surveys and their data would also help with the section from Line 169 which discusses the Texas A & M survey. As noted in this section, the data from both surveys would be helpful. This would have a stronger impact on the reader with the earlier clarity of the survey.
Page 6 states that diverse individuals participated in "the survey." Which tool is being discussed here? If under the "Introduction" or "Results" there is more clarity about the main source of the data, then "the survey" noted on Page 6 will be naturally understood. This will also help clarify the statements about the challenges of self-selection.
Finally, the "Conclusions" section could be much stronger. A strong concluding section should note the key points made in the manuscript and especially note the clear implications for neurotheological research so as to connect to the paper's overall theme more clearly. This brief paragraph does not really tie the article together and conclude in a constructive way.
Also there were several typos throughout the manuscript that increased toward the end of the paper.
Author Response
Reviewer #3.
The Introductory section from 23-77 set the discussion. However, two points could be strengthened. First is the discussion of the web-based survey. While the main areas under review were noted, it would help the reader know a sampling of the questions to get a stronger sense of the survey. The surveys are standardized questionnaires so we will include a few samples of the questions.
Line 63-66 is also a bit confusing. It suggests that another type of survey was used. I don't think that this is the case but the nature, size and type of survey used and the relationship with the noted Scales (Quest, INSPIRIT, etc.) are so important to the article that this section needs to be very clear and it does not yet seem to be that clear. For example, had the noted Scales been distributed separately and there was X number of responses to each one? Or was the number of responses only from the web-based survey? This dynamic is what is not clear. It would also be helpful for the reader to have a sense of the number of responses under discussion as well. We appreciate this comment regarding clarifying how the survey was structured and used. We have clarified this in the manuscript.
Because the rate of response is not clear, the reader comes away feeling that the data and findings were not fully presented and discussed. The data presented at the beginning of the "Results" section (78) could be defined a bit more clearly at the very beginning of the paragraph. In other words, are these the total responses from the web-based survey? It is not clear. Because this section seems to jump right in with the number 393, that adds to the lack of clarity. It would help to begin the paragraph with clarifying information about the 393 respondents. Also helpful to know would be if this is the totality of responses that include all of the Scales noted. Overall this section would be stronger with more information for the reader such as (a)how many responded to the different formats, (b) what were the strengths and limitations of the formats and (c) some valuable background information. Such information would be helpful before noting the sample of 393 respondents. We agree and have edited these sections to clarify that we used the respondents from the first two years of the survey who completed all components. In this way, we could make a full set of comparisons as described in the results.
Part of the issue may be due to the fact that Table 1 was not included though it was referred to on Line 88. Without seeing the data directly in the Table, it makes it more challenging to understand what the authors mean. We have included Table 1 as a separate file.
It might be helpful to move the discussion on "Materials and Methods" (298) to the "Results" section. This is where the reader becomes acquainted with the measurement formats. The discussion of these diverse measurements may be more useful in the beginning section for the reader who may not be as familiar with certain formats noted in addition to providing a good introductory statement into the issue at hand. We are happy to modify the ordering of the sections, but this is was the recommended order of the journal.
As correlation is noted as being important, more discussion of the diverse formats and how the data from each one reflects correlation and does not reflect correlation needs more content of a descriptive nature as well. Because the reader cannot see the questions utilized in these Scales, it is more difficult to recognize the correlation. For example, Line 88-91 notes that the Quest scale correlated with religious involvement and with INSPIRIT and death anxiety. At this point, we can only take the authors at their word. Without an Appendix of the Scales or a Table, it is more difficult to digest the degree, type and nature of the correlation. We appreciate this concern and have included the results in the table. We have included more discussion about the questionnaires and their formats as well as sample questions.
The clarification of the surveys and their data would also help with the section from Line 169 which discusses the Texas A & M survey. As noted in this section, the data from both surveys would be helpful. This would have a stronger impact on the reader with the earlier clarity of the survey. We agree have included more information about this survey.
Page 6 states that diverse individuals participated in "the survey." Which tool is being discussed here? If under the "Introduction" or "Results" there is more clarity about the main source of the data, then "the survey" noted on Page 6 will be naturally understood. This will also help clarify the statements about the challenges of self-selection. We will clarify that this refers to a variety of demographic data including age, gender, and religious background.
Finally, the "Conclusions" section could be much stronger. A strong concluding section should note the key points made in the manuscript and especially note the clear implications for neurotheological research so as to connect to the paper's overall theme more clearly. This brief paragraph does not really tie the article together and conclude in a constructive way. We appreciate this request and have rewritten the conclusion section.
Also there were several typos throughout the manuscript that increased toward the end of the paper. Thank you, we have tried to correct all typos.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revision is much improved and the content is clearer and allows the reader to understand the comparisons made as well as the nature of the data collection means. The chart with the data was included this time. This was so helpful in looking at the explanation of the responses. The conclusion was more of a conclusion as well. I certainly appreciated the stronger explanations and background given. There are a few sections that need to be proofed for minor mistakes and typos. (ie "our" instead of "are"). The points needing editing appear to be the result of rushing to submit the revision as I don't believe that they would still be in the paper if the authors took more time to read through the document carefully.
One section, though, that I feel needs a bit more clarity is that of Section 2 and Section 4 - or at least the beginnings of those 2 sections. Plus there is a small suggestion. Suggestion 2 discusses the survey of the 393 respondents. It notes the points of comparison with the Quest, INSPIRIT, etc. scales. Then there is the chart of the data. In Section 4, the survey from the 393 respondents were again introduced. Then the paper moves on to describe the diverse scales - Quest, INSPIRIT, Religiousness Measures - in more depth. These 2 sections feel a bit disjointed. It "feels" like the survey with the 393 respondents are 2 different things, but they are not. So I wonder if it would not be better to either combine the 2 Sections or, at least in Section 4, allude to what you wrote in Section 2 and note what you are trying to do in Section 4 or how it is a continuation of the conversation in Section 2.
My suggestion: Under Section 2, there is a better description of the results in terms of the demographics of those surveyed. In section 143-163, under the discussion of the interesting data in terms of belief in God and faith connection, etc. Would it be appropriate for you to note that as some of the respondents were young adults that with the presence of the "nones" or spiritual but not religious, that the issue of belief in God but not part of a faith community is not so odd?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
