When approaching religion from a cross-cultural psychological perspective, one faces questions regarding the universals and the specifics of religions across cultural contexts. On the basis of previous theorization and research, the author proposes a model that posits four basic dimensions of religion and individual religiosity that are partially distinct although interconnected: believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging. These dimensions are presumably universally present across religions and cultural contexts and delimitate religion from other similar constructs. They reflect distinct psychological processes (cognitive, emotional, moral, and social), respective goals, conversion motives, types of self-transcendence, and mechanisms explaining the religion-health links. However, across cultural and religious groups, these dimensions may differ in content, salience, and ways in which they are interconnected or emphasized, leading to various forms of religiosity, including functional and dysfunctional ones. Within each dimension, there is additional universality (in structure) and cultural variability (in salience) regarding the way religious cognitions, emotions, morality, and identity are processed. This Big Four religious dimensions model may be a powerful tool for studying universals and cultural specifics of the psychological dimensions of religion.

Individual differences in religiousness can be partly explained as a cultural adaptation of two basic personality traits,Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This argument is supported by a meta-analysis of 71 samples (N = 21,715) from 19 countries and a review of the literature on personality and religion. Beyond variations in effect magnitude as a function of moderators, the main personality characteristics of religiousness (Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) are consistent across different religious dimensions, contexts (gender, age, cohort, and country), and personality measures, models, and levels, and they seem to predict religiousness rather than be influenced by it. The copresence of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness sheds light on other explanations of religiousness, its distinctiveness from related constructs, its implications for other domains, and its adaptive functions.

A great deal of research has shown that a variety of negative events and emotions can increase religion and spirituality. We argue that positive events and emotions (that imply some self-transcendence) can increase religion and spirituality. In two experiments, participants (N = 91 and N = 87) were exposed to a neutral video or one of three videos eliciting positive emotions: humor, appreciation of nature, and wonder at childbirth. Religiousness was to some extent affected by the positive emotions elicited (Study 1), and spirituality was higher among participants who were exposed to the videos eliciting self-transcendent emotions (appreciation of nature and wonder at childbirth) but not among those exposed to humor (Study 2). Both religiousness and spirituality may fit with the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, but the correspondence seems to be clearer for spirituality, a reality marked by universalism and openness to experience.

Based on theorization on the four basic dimensions of religiousness, Believing, Bonding, Behaving, and Belonging, and corresponding cognitive, emotional, moral, and social motives and functions of religion, we developed a measure and investigated cross-cultural consistency of the four dimensions as well interindividual and cross-cultural variability. Data were collected from 14 countries varying in religious heritage: Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism/Taoism (N = 3,218). Beyond their high interrelation and common personality correlates, that is, agreeableness and conscientiousness, the four dimensions were distinct across cultures and religions, less interrelated in Eastern Asia compared to the West, differentially preferred across cultural zones, and characterized by distinct features. Believing and bonding, to which spirituality was primarily related, were preferred in Western secular societies. Behaving and belonging, valued in religious societies, were importantly related to fundamentalism, authoritarianism, and low openness. Bonding and behaving were primordial in, respectively, Israel and Turkey. Furthermore, belonging (marked by extraversion) and bonding were uniquely associated with increased life satisfaction, whereas believing was uniquely related to existential quest and decreased life satisfaction. Thus, the multidimensionality of religiousness seems deeply rooted in distinct psychological dispositions evident at both the individual and the cultural levels.

In introducing this Special Issue we first consider six ways of thinking about how culture and religion relate to each other: Religion may be part of culture, constitute culture, include and transcend culture, be influenced by culture, shape culture, or interact with culture in influencing cognitions, emotions, and actions. Second, we present the major current trends of relevant research from cross-cultural psychology, social and cultural psychology, and comparative psychology of religion. Although diverging in methodologies, theoretical traditions, and research focus, these approaches complement each other in increasing our psychological understanding of the inter-relations between culture and religion. Finally, we present the papers of this special issue that offer theoretical advances, test new research hypotheses, and provide empirical evidence showing how cultural-level dimensions (from ecology and biology to ethnicity, family practices, and socio-economic factors) shape religion’s functioning at the individual and/or collective level with regard to key life domains.