Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584

DOI 10.1007/s11089-008-0134-1

Well-being and Spirituality from a Korean Perspective:

Based on the Study of Culture and Subjective Well-being

Soo-Young Kwon

Published online: 1 July 2008

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract Criteria for well-being and spirituality are culturally bound. In this article,
therefore, the notions of well-being and spirituality were reconsidered from a Korean
perspective. Two major conceptual approaches that pertain to “subjective well-being”
research in social psychology provide the methodological framework for this study. While
“bottom-up” approaches focus on how external events and situations influence happiness,
“top-down” approaches center on diverse variables within an individual and his or her
culture. Noting the cultural differences between American and Korean self-construals (i.e.,
independence vs. interdependence), the author argues that Koreans need to construct “top-
down” approaches to both well-being and spirituality. Reviewing Robert Emmon’s concept
of “spiritual intelligence,” the author also suggests an integrative model for spirituality and
well-being in Korea.

Keywords Subjective well-being (SWB) . Spirituality . Culture .

Spiritual intelligence . Korean

Introduction

It is not known when people began to use the word “well-being” in Korea. The word did
not exist in any Korean dictionaries until recently. Well-being originated from the English
language, in which it means “the state of being healthy, happy, or prosperous” (American
Heritage Dictionary 2001). In Korea, a lifestyle in which people actively seek to live well in
physical and mental health is intrinsic to the concept of well-being. The concept challenges
people’s philosophies underlying their lifestyles and has influenced current thinking about
how to live and eat well. For example, people are choosing to eat fresh fish and vegetables
that are organically produced instead of consuming fast-food or other foods high in fat and
cholesterol. In some cases, wealthy people in Korea are removing soil from farms to

S.-Y. Kwon (*)

United Graduate School of Theology, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu,
Seoul, South Korea
e-mail: sykwon@yonsei.ac.kr
574 Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584

distribute over their apartment verandas so that they can inhale minerals that are released
from the soil. In stark contrast, before the introduction of well-being, people purchased
objects, like the best marble tiles to decorate their houses, that symbolized social status or
demonstrated good taste. Now, rather than jogging on a treadmill, people are preferring
physical activity, like yoga, to learn how to meditate and practice breathing in order to
improve their mental health at the same time. There is no specific and simple way to
achieve well-being; each individual must pursue a good quality of life, aware of physical
stability and mental tranquility rather than material wealth, in his or her own way. For this
reason, the word “well-being” has been a buzzword of management in Korea for the past
few years. It is not uncommon for Korean companies to link the current well-being trend to
product development and sales in almost every area, such as food, leisure, electronics, and
construction.
In general, the American definition of well-being means a state of happiness, health, or
prosperity and/or welfare. In academia, the term “well-being” is most commonly used in
philosophy to describe what is ultimately good for a person. Well-being seems to lie
somewhere between a philosophical ideal (ultimate good) and life satisfaction in general.
For a majority of people who are practical-minded, the definition of well-being is similar to
happiness. It is also important to distinguish between a hedonist’s concept of well-being,
involving the pursuit of physical pleasure, and the average person’s definition. Often, the
terms “pleasure” and “happiness” are used in reference to a momentary state. However, the
intention and appropriate meaning of well-being that pertains to moral philosophy is
considered to be a “whole life’s worth of happiness.” In this sense, well-being signifies
living both happily and virtuously.
In psychology, the concept of well-being was introduced as a momentary state of
happiness. This article examines the application of well-being from a psychological
perspective and discusses research regarding the correlation between culture and subjective
well-being in social psychology. Lastly, the paper describes relationships between well-
being and spirituality from a social psychology perspective and explores what well-being
means to Koreans.

The study of “subjective well-being” from a social psychology perspective

In the late 1960s, Warner Wilson (1967) began his comprehensive study, entitled
“Correlates of Avowed Happiness,” which examined subjective well-being. According to
his research, a happy person is a “young, healthy, well-educated, well-paid, extroverted,
optimistic, worry-free, religious and married person with high self-esteem, job morale,
modest aspirations, of either sex and of a wide range of intelligence” (p. 294). Since
Wilson’s study, researchers in social psychology have examined interrelationships between
human beings and their subjective happiness. From this research has emerged another field
of study, known as “subjective well-being” (SWB). A few important perspectives on the
method of subjective well-being research, since Wilson’s study, are highlighted here.
First, contemporary researchers were no longer satisfied with the same results that
Wilson reported in his study. For example, the conditions of subjective happiness are too
easily limited to people who are young, wealthy, and married. Current research examines
reciprocal relationships among various factors, such as individual characteristics (person-
ality and/or attitude) and involvement in social groups (in a workplace and/or a romantic
relationship). Wilson looked for causation and demonstrated what factors cause happiness.
In contrast, now researchers are examining to what degree those contributing factors affect
Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584 575

happiness, exploring interactions between factors. In the past, researchers endeavored to

identify the factors most likely to cause subjective well-being. However, with regard to
different factors, current researchers study what constitutes subjective well-being among
different individuals. Such research has revealed patterns of interactions that predict the end
results of subjective well-being and suggest coping strategies. For example, past studies
reported that marriage, lottery winning, and the death of a spouse and/or separation have
major impacts on an individual’s subjective well-being. In 1996, researchers at University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign conducted a 2-year study with 115 participants to examine
what external contributing factors influenced their happiness. Their study concluded that
only recent events, occurring in the previous 3 months, affect participants positively or
negatively. This research is recognized as one of the most important findings to show that
particular major life events may not be the only contributing factors that have a substantial
impact on a person’s subjective well-being (Suh, Diener, & Fujita 1996). The study reports
that, usually, a particular external incident does not influence a person’s happiness longer
than 3 months. It also shows that, rather than a necessary causation, happiness might
depend on the “degree” among many variables—that is, the time variable.
Since Wilson’s study, Ed Diener from the University of Illinois has suggested a new
approach to SWB research. One of his notable contributions is a methodological
formulation in the study of subjective well-being. Diener (1984) presented a paper,
“Subjective Well-being,” in which he defined two main processes that mark major
conceptual approaches to subjective well-being. These two main processes are called
“bottom-up” and “top-down” (Diener 1984). Wilson’s first recognized research, identifying
the external events or situational factors that ensure happiness, is considered a “bottom-up”
process. Wilson explained that, for a person to be happy, it is necessary to satisfy the needs
that pertain to any particular event in a person’s life, such as to be well-educated by going
to college. Wilson reported that fulfilling needs is fundamental and universal and that this
fulfillment applies to everyone. Therefore, this way of conceptualizing well-being is,
therefore, a “bottom-up” approach.
The “top-down” process in subjective well-being is defined by different variables, or
personal characteristics, that exist within every individual. These variables are the main
factors that affect how a person perceives a particular event. Not only do “external events,”
but also diverse variables that exist within an individual, affect his or her happiness. This is
considered a “top-down” approach to well-being.
In the field of social psychology, there is a paradigm shift of SWB research. The
heuristic value of subjective well-being research can help elucidate the nature of well-being
in Korean culture. It is imperative to examine a “top-down” approach to structural
characteristics of a culture that embraces well-being. It should be emphasized that the
concept of well-being varies from person to person rather than applying to everyone of a
particular culture. For example, some may believe that taking yoga classes can improve
mental and spiritual health. However, opinions regarding yoga in relation to well-being may
vary between introverted and extroverted people. Moreover, the view of practicing yoga
may differ among people who have different religious backgrounds. Therefore, it is vital to
note differences in perspectives of well-being that are “top-down” instead of following a
general cultural trend.
A person can mistakenly perceive that a “bottom-up” approach includes consuming
organic produce and taking yoga classes and that engagement in these activities is an
important external criterion for a culture exhibiting well-being. It is of interest to observe
that “bottom-up” well-being, causational/situational well-being, is accepted unconditionally
in Korean culture. Koreans are using and accepting the English word, well-being, and, at
576 Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584

the same time, seem to be transplanting the American perspective of well-being into their
own way of life. What Wilson had reported in his study of happiness is already finding its
new place even in American culture. For example, Wilson’s study concluded that in
American society, married people are happier than those who are either single and/or
separated. American culture identifies with individualism, and the divorce rate is increasing.
No research has concluded that married people have a happier outlook in life. However,
recently, researchers reported that cohabitating couples in the U.S. have a higher
satisfaction rate than people who are divorced and/or single (Diener, Gohm, Suh, & Oishi
2000). Even so, satisfaction in this circumstance could be viewed as culture-dependent.
Among different cultures, perspectives and experiences of well-being will also be different.
Essentially culture will be the main factor determining happiness. For example, Americans
generally identify with private emotional experiences and independence. Koreans, on the
other hand, generally identify with collectivism and support mutual relationships over
individualism. Accordingly, a Korean’s sense of “interdependent” selfhood and his or her
happiness is generally realized less through the means of expressing private internal attributes
than by enriching the feeling of interconnectedness with significant others. The stimulating
influence of culture is notable especially in the “top-down” approach to well-being.

Culture: the main contributing factor in defining well-being

From an ethical perspective, in the field of philosophy, well-being is viewed as state of

“doing” rather than a state of “being.” According to this perspective, the main focus of
striving for well-being is what one can do to make oneself happy and/or virtuous. However,
a new perspective is emerging among social psychologists who recognize that, because of
cultural differences, people’s behavior and subsequent outcomes varies from East to West.
For example, for Americans, the ability to understand one’s actions depends on an
individual’s attitude and internal disposition (emotional state or temperament). For Koreans,
on the other hand, the capacity to understand one’s actions depends on circumstances, roles
in a specific context, and obligation to a person’s expectations.
Because of contrasting cultural perspectives, the composition of well-being is different.
Because of the value attached to the internal features of the self in an individualist culture,
well-being in America is considered to be openly expressing one’s subjective thoughts and
feelings. This type of personal expression is a better representation of an individual’s
happiness than the signs of impact of others’ behavior and/or interactions between the
individual and others, as in a collectivist culture (Anderson & Ross 1984; Anderson 1984).
Research on “feelings as information” has also shown that one of the most prominent
characteristics in an individualist culture is a person’s ability to feel and express internal
attributes. For example, since American culture supports the view of a person’s autonomy
and independence, subjective emotional experience often functions as an important piece of
information in evaluative judgments. In American culture, a person usually asks himself or
herself “How do I feel about it?” The culture puts more importance on an individual’s
subjective feeling and experience when making a decision. Therefore, in the field that
studies feelings and judgment, finding the measurement of one’s current mood is used as a
heuristic for life satisfaction judgment (Schwarz and Clore 1988a, b).
In American culture, recognizing emotional expressions also applies to interpersonal
relationships. The standards of how a person expresses his or her emotion and feeling can
affect interpersonal relationships and the person’s state of well-being and/or welfare. If a
person does not express emotion and perspective, then he or she is not sharing information
Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584 577

about himself or herself. Moreover, if the degree of expression is not enough, then he or she
may be portrayed as emotionally unhealthy. American culture perceives a person as
psychologically healthy when he or she can deliver his or her emotion clearly and verbally
to others. Therefore, Americans perceive East Asians (such as Koreans and Vietnamese) in
a questionable and unacceptable manner when Koreans and Vietnamese do not express
their emotions well and do not freely discuss their internal feelings (Kwon & Le 2004).
Also, in this sense, Americans might hesitate to accept East Asians as psychologically
healthy (possessing well-being) people. Because tradition and value system can remain
fixed in a given culture, people may perceive well-being from a single, narrow perspective
rather than accepting a broad perspective of well-being. Thus, cultural differences are the
main contributing factors influencing different approaches to well-being.
One of the major conflicting criteria in evaluating East Asians’ perspective of well-being
is the recognition of standards of normative behavior. East Asian culture identifies with
collectivism. Korean culture, especially, strongly values how an individual socializes and
collaborates with others. Occasionally, people in Korean culture place more importance on
group goals and expectations instead of following one individual’s lead. For example,
Korean culture promotes a family-centered perspective. The culture perceives that it is not
important how much an individual can articulate his or her feelings with others, but rather
the quality of relationships that the individual has with immediate family members that is
important. American individualistic culture views a person as emotionally unhealthy if he
or she does not verbally express his or her thoughts and feelings to other family members.
However, Korean family-centered culture does not view independent emotional expression
as positive; instead, this behavior is viewed as selfish and immature. For this reason, a
person in Korean culture is constantly referring to the thoughts and feelings of others, but
he or she can still be happy. “How do others perceive me?” Asking this question may be
considered psychologically unhealthy, and sometimes it may result in a clinical diagnosis
for a person, especially in American culture. Context-dependent East Asian people should
be able to maintain well-being despite seeming dependent to Americans. Therefore, one
particular cultural standard should not apply to well-being across cultures.
Undoubtedly, when a person does not and is unable to express any emotion, then a
pathological diagnosis may be appropriate rather than applying cultural perspective to
understand him or her. Nevertheless, many of multicultural psychologists report that it is
imperative to take contrasting cultural perspectives seriously. Since each culture has its own
cultural ideal, different aspects of emotions can develop among different cultures. American
culture emphasizes autonomy and independence. Because of the cultural emphasis on
individualism and independence, people depend on personal temperament and judgment
rather than accepting other people’s perspectives. This characteristic has a primary
connection with an individual’s internal attributes and beliefs of independence. For
example, if the culture values independence, one may become defensive when he or she
feels that he or she is being attacked for his or her internal beliefs (for instance, “you should
not disrespect me when you do not even know me...”). Americans easily develop a sense of
pride in being an American. It is not just a matter of nationalism and/or patriotism. The
feeling of pride may be measured in terms of the extent to which one focuses on the public
display of internal attributes and defends one’s ego in relating to others. Social
psychologists refer to the set of emotions that people in an individualist culture develop
as “ego-focused.” People in a collectivist culture, on the other hand, develop “other-
focused” emotions (Markus & Kitayama 1991). Examples of other-focused emotions are
sympathy and shame. The most notable emotions that Koreans feel are jeong (empathy) and
han (wounded bitterness) (Kwon 2001). In contrast to ego-focused emotions, other-focused
578 Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584

emotions have another person’s emotions, rather than one’s own internal attributes, as the
primary referent. The notion of distinguishable characteristics in a collectivist culture, which
respects others’ points of view and emphasizes the importance of interrelationships rather
than individual independence, is called “interdependence.” Social psychologists, Hazel
Markus and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), have presented two different types of processes in
defining selfhood, “independent self construal” and “interdependent self construal.”
When a person identifies with independent self construal, it is natural and psychologically
healthy to express freely one’s perspective with others. However, a person who identifies with
interdependent self construal always follows the standards that are set by others and/or groups
with which he or she is associated. Consequently, interdependent self construal is recognizing
that others’ perspectives are at least as or more important than one’s own opinion. For example,
in American culture, one’s private point of view and personal pride is more respected than
others’ external perspective. Korean culture has developed to feel emotions such as a sense of
empathy and/or shame in reference to the thoughts and feelings of others. Beyond highlighting
cultural differences, the notion of interdependence self construal can be helpful for discerning
the criteria of well-being, especially in Korean culture because people in this culture express
personal feelings with others substantially less often and less extensively. Misconceptions will
develop and will negatively affect interpersonal relationships if Koreans apply an American
ideal of well-being to Korean culture. Therefore, a different concept of well-being will have
negative consequences when it is applied to an individual who does not have similar cultural
beliefs. Important factors in the culture of interdependent self-construal are understanding why
one should not freely express one’s views and recognizing the need to limit one’s opinion
during discussions. Therefore, this is how East Asian people live, referred to as their “business
of living” (Kakar 1978, p. 34), and it should not be considered pathological when it is viewed
from the cultural perspective of the independent self.
The belief system and orientation to one’s culture becomes natural for a person when he or
she is born into that particular society. Granted, the physical and emotional relationship
between mother and child is the same all over the world. However, there are differences when
it comes to cultural orientation. Takie Sugiyama Lebra (1976), for example, reports that, in
Western society, mothers believe that close physical contact with their children will keep the
children from being lonely. In general, mothers in Western society raise children to become
independent. They will teach their children how to be alone in their early years. On the other
hand, mothers in Japan report that a mother will carry a child on her back until he or she is
2 years old, and the mother teaches her children to fear the pain of loneliness (Lebra 1976).
Social psychologists point out that the concept and structure of SWB should be viewed
differently from culture to culture. In an individualist culture, like in American society, the
majority of research is based on what constitutes life satisfaction, focusing on the prominent
individualist ideal of the self, i.e., “I am essentially what I think and feel.” On the other
hand, in a collectivistic culture, especially in Korean society, the study of well-being should
consider norms and standards for Korean society (Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis 1998;
Diener & Suh 2003). It is important to remember that well-being for Koreans involves the
cultural ideal that emphasizes social relations and harmony rather than the American ideal
of self-autonomy and independence.

Spiritual intelligence: integrating spirituality and well-being

The definition of well-being in American culture usually means personal health. In

American culture, the meaning of “health” refers to both physical and psychological health.
Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584 579

However, American culture has begun to include “spiritual” health in its concept of “well-
being.” Spiritual health does not mean theological and religious beliefs; instead, it can be
viewed as a functional quality. The statement “I’m not religious, but spiritual” has spread in
American society. How should the statement “I am not religious, but spiritual” be
interpreted as the relative proportion of people proclaiming themselves to be Christians
declines and church is downsized in cities?
From this perspective, the idea of spirituality is described as a functional concept. For
example, instead of a religious perspective of spirituality, functional attributes acquired
from spirituality can be discussed. Spirituality may not be a matter of finding a religion for
oneself but what and how much help a person can receive to improve his or her “well-
being.” Deciding which religion to follow, such as either Christianity or Buddhism, is not as
important as what is useful and functional for oneself. This perspective can explain why
many Americans are practicing Buddhist meditation or yoga. There is a connection between
the concept of individualism and the Eastern practice of meditation, because, through
meditation, one can cultivate the internal self and deal with the inner turmoil of “emotion.”
Americans believe that meditation is one of the most useful tools for calming oneself;
therefore, they consider themselves “spiritual” people. The concept of well-being and
spirituality has thus become interchangeable.
Some social psychologists today are examining religion to understand spirituality as the
primary attribute of human intelligence. According to Howard Gardner’s (1996) theory of
multiple intelligences, human intelligence is diverse rather than a single attribute. Now
researchers are evaluating spiritual intelligence from psychological perspectives. After
presenting his theory, Gardner claimed that “spirituality” cannot be considered an
intelligence. Gardner (1996) noted that “I cannot enumerate how often I have been said
to posit ‘spiritual intelligence’ though I have never done so” (p. 2).
Robert Emmons, a social psychologist, was among the first to note the relationship
between religion and subjective well-being. On the basis of both practical and functional
qualities of spirituality, he proposed his theoretical perspective of “spiritual intelligence.”
Emmons (2000) presented a paper, entitled “Is Spirituality an Intelligence?” in which he
argued the following five core components of spiritual intelligence. According to Emmons,
spiritual intelligence is:
(1) The capacity to transcend the physical and material.
(2) The capacity to experience heightened states of consciousness.
(3) The capacity to sanctify everyday experience.
(4) The capacity to utilize spiritual resources to solve problems.
(5) The capacity to be virtuous. (p. 10)
Emmons’s proposal of spiritual intelligence clearly shows that the ideal of American
culture (i.e., personal autonomy and independence) is reflected in the functional component
of spirituality. If defined from a psychological perspective, intelligence is the ability to
problem-solve. Therefore, if spiritual ability is a problem-solving ability, then it is possible
to apply spirituality to solve problems in pursuit of well-being.
In this context, what is the key idea when spirituality is viewed as an intelligence to
pursue well-being? According to the multiple intelligence theory by Gardner, a child is born
with many different types of intelligence rather than a single intelligence. A child’s
intelligence can increase depending on his or her own abilities and culture. In this regard,
spirituality functions as a type of intelligence. At the same time, spirituality from a
functional perspective can grow immensely, but spiritual intelligence may become deficient
because of individual differences and different cultural orientations. For example, if people
580 Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584

are focusing too much on “transcending to another level of consciousness,” then they would
not be attuned to the present reality. Well-being is achieved when a person attains the ability
to both transcend and accept his or her reality, as appropriate. Problems can arise if a person
focuses on only one of these abilities. Hence, spiritual intelligence can be a “useful” ability
when it is applied with other intelligences to solve problems.
The study of “subjective well-being” varies from culture to culture, and particular
research on well-being cannot be applied to every individual and every culture. This point
deserves emphasis also in the study of spirituality. Many theologians have used a “bottom-
up” approach to address spirituality, focusing on what makes everyone spiritual.
Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that spirituality should be applied to observe
different religious practices among different people. It can be also used for a particular
individual to find solutions to an unbalanced life style. It may be called a “top-down”
approach to spirituality.
The process of fulfilling spiritual well-being may vary among different cultures and
individuals in that particular culture. Assume that a person pursues physical and
psychological “well-being,” and he or she also practices meditation. In this case, meditation
is used as a tool to achieve well-being. Therefore, spiritual well-being is an extension of
physical and psychological well-being. During meditation, when a person experiences a
heightened level of consciousness (what Emmons refers to as “spiritual intelligence”), it
may be recognized as an achievement of personal happiness and well-being from the
Western perspective. On the contrary, from a Korean perspective of “well-being,” it is more
important for a person to follow the standards and external norms that are set by the society
and/or a group of which he or she is a member rather than following the personal/internal
satisfaction of “well-being.” Therefore, the Korean notion of well-being and spirituality
should not be viewed from an American cultural perspective. To achieve a life-style of
well-being in America, one can meditate to reach a higher level of consciousness,
considered ego-focused. In Korean culture, meditation is practiced to improve “interde-
pendence” with others, considered other-focused. We can now appreciate the significance
of integrating well-being and spirituality from a cultural perspective. A spiritual person can
be happier; a happy person has the capacity to use spiritual intelligence in his or her own
way. In addition, cultural perspectives on happiness are quite different. Accordingly, it is
becoming increasingly apparent that the way a person uses his or her spiritual function to
achieve or maintain well-being is unique to that person. When Koreans pray, they might
want to pray for others instead of praying only for themselves, and this is how Koreans
experience happiness. The current research on cross-cultural subjective well-being,
therefore, has great heuristic value for the study of spirituality.

The value of spirituality in the pursuit of well-being

According to Emmons (2000), his theoretical perspective of “spiritual intelligence” can be

used against antireligious intellectualism (p. 20). Normally people do not recognize that
religion and intelligence are related, and it is believed that these two entities do not share
similarities. Connecting these two concepts may result in an irrational view of religion and
spirituality. Also, people may believe it illogical to make connections between religion and
intelligence since religious and spiritual worldviews are akin to superstitious thinking, in
contrast to scientific thinking. However, within Emmons’s “spiritual intelligence”
paradigm, a logical relationship can be recognized. This relationship can be perceived as
similar to that examined in Daniel Goleman’s (1995) ground-breaking theory of “emotional
Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584 581

intelligence,” in which emotion affects intelligence. The notion of spiritual intelligence as a

functional quality is helpful because spirituality, in terms of holding a certain religious
conviction, often includes defensive and passive qualities. “Spiritual intelligence” may be
also viewed as a religious person’s faith and/or a strong, fixed belief that many other
religious people possess. Even some religious people recognize that, by having faith, they
can possess certain characteristics and/or something is “given” to them from their deity.
From this perspective, spirituality is characterized by passive, rather than dynamic qualities.
In contrast, Emmons (2000) claims that “spiritual intelligence” has dynamic qualities
rather than possessing particular attributes. If spirituality is perceived as a “capacity,” then
every person can possess a certain spiritual quality. A person can apply his or her spiritual
capacity to solve a particular problem. According to Emmons’s (2000) spiritual intelligence,
“Spirituality not only is something, it does something” (p. 20). For example, a spiritual
person can be defined as one who applies spirituality to solve problems that he or she
encounters everyday. For example, there are people who use prayers as a tool to solve
problems that are complicated and agonizing. These people may be viewed as possessing
religious spirituality. In this context, their lives not only involve faith, but also have a
functional spiritual quality because he or she is using prayer as a resource to solve
problems.
Occasionally, from a theological perspective, the concept of spirituality is defined as the
third phenomenological state, a state that transcends both physical and psychological states.
The third phenomenological state transcends all other conscious levels that can be
experienced in both physical and psychological states. People tend to believe that, in this
phenomenological state, they may experience divinity, and he or she may speak in tongues,
a divine dialect. Rather than accepting this state from the theological perspective, it is more
appropriate to view this state as one in which a person becomes dissociated from his or her
psyche, reaching a level that is abstracted from physical and psychological states.
Therefore, spirituality as an embodied quality and function that people can have in their
lives is of overriding importance for the notion of spirituality as intelligence.
Emmons discusses that one must not perceive spirituality from a reductionistic
perspective and that spirituality should not be used only as a problem-solving instrument.
Emmons acknowledges that spirituality cannot be only functionally described as
intelligence, and he accepts that there is a nonfunctional quality to faith. Emmons (2000)
discusses two major theses in his spiritual theoretical perspective: (1) human beings possess
a set of skills and abilities associated with spirituality that are relevant to human
intelligence, and (2) individual differences in these skills and abilities constitute a core
feature of the person (p. 9). The question then becomes: How do we understand spirituality
as both a functional and a nonfunctional quality? What is spirituality and what does
spirituality do?
Christians in Korean society recognize spirituality as a type of capacity. For example,
spirituality consists of the ability to speak in tongues, to pray while feasting, to prophesize,
and/or to pray for long periods of time. Mostly, people refer to these as components of
Korean churches rather than perceiving these abilities as possessed by individuals.
Recognizing the nature of spirituality of Korean churches, the social psychologist’s
paradigm of SWB must shift. Again, in order to understand spirituality, it is necessary for a
person to follow a “top-down” approach instead of a “bottom-up” approach. Naturally,
people accept the concept of spirituality that is set by their own society and culture when
every individual in a society is endowed with a different type of spiritual intelligence. Each
person has a different type of intelligence and set of abilities that fit with his or her
characteristics. Depending on the person’s attributes and cultural orientation, abilities will
582 Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584

develop. For example, compare a person who has strong linguistic skills to a person who
has spatial and physical abilities. When observing how these two different people pray and
praise in a church, they should not be recognized as the same. A person with high linguistic
ability may pray well by articulating, but a person with strong spatial and physical abilities
may apply his or her talent of dancing to praise God. This shows that there are various
abilities that people can have, and they should not be perceived as similar qualities.
Individual spiritual qualities should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Thus, differences
among individuals in a culture are of great concern in the study of spiritual intelligence.
In the 1960’s, the prominent sociologist Philip Rieff (1987) predicted that Christianity
would be used as a self-help therapy. He argues that belief in salvation would be perceived
as a mechanism of health and that Christ would be perceived as a healer rather than the
suffering Messiah. Rieff noted that a church would use psychology as an instrument to
deliver messages to its members. Already, Americans recognize that spirituality can be
applied to their lifestyle to bring peace and tranquility into their lives. Therefore, the
importance of spirituality is reflected in Americans’ pursuit of “well-being.” Finding
internal tranquility and experiencing emotions are satisfying for Americans, but Koreans
need to find fulfillment in other ways. Subjective well-being has different meanings when
referring to Korean versus American culture. Traditionally, in Korean culture, interpersonal
relationships are viewed as one of the most important factors determining a person’s
happiness. The belief exists that relationships with others have more value than internal
emotion. An individualist view of well-being should not be applied to the Korean lifestyle.
In kind, the Korean understanding of well-being and spirituality should not be applied to
the American lifestyle. Therefore, well-being and spirituality with different values than
one’s culture should not be enforced, and most importantly, one should never accept that
one’s culture is universal. Furthermore, people should accept that relativism exists among
different cultures. Koreans should apply the “top-down” approach to spirituality as well as
to subjective well-being.
Emmons arrives at a possible thesis about the integration of functional (psychological)
and nonfunctional (theological/religious) aspects of spirituality. In his research of spiritual
intelligence, Emmons applied theologian Paul Tillich’s (1963) theological concept of
“ultimate concern.” Religion, states Tillich, “is the state of being grasped by an ultimate
concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself
contains the answer to the question of the meaning of our life” (p. 4). Tillich proposed that
the “ultimate concern” that humans experience results from their deliberation about the
origin of human existence and its meaning. Emmons reconstructs Tillich’s theological/
philosophical perspective into a psychological perspective. In his book, The Psychology of
Ultimate Concern, Emmons (1999) argues that spirituality is a functional expression of an
individual’s ultimate concern. As a result, “ultimate concern” is viewed as a psychological
notion that connects human motivation and various intelligences, including spiritual
intelligence. Every human being tries to pursue his or her own goal in life, using individual
motives and abilities. However, “ultimate concern,” upon which all other concerns in life
are grounded, could be accomplished by a combination of spiritual intelligence and other
intelligences. With regard to the functional and nonfunctional qualities of spirituality,
Emmons integrates the theology of ultimate concern and spirituality into the realm of
psychology. The following diagram shows Emmons’s psychological perspective of
“ultimate concern,” from which spiritual intelligence is argued. Spirituality is the ultimate
intelligence with which we can assess that one course of goal pursuits in life is more
meaningful than another since we are the human beings necessarily concerned with the
ultimate.
Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584 583

Fig. 1 Psychology of ultimate

concern and spiritual intelligence
Motivation/
Goal
Pursuits
for Well-being

Ultimate
Concern

Spirituality Intelligences

Conclusion

People pursue their goals in life by applying their motivations and concerns. During this
process, people utilize various intelligences. When these various types of intelligence are
viewed from a theological perspective, overall intelligence is viewed as collection of
“talents.” According to the theological perspective, God gave human beings different sets
of talents. However, the talents that one develops may depend on the perspectives and
beliefs of his or her culture. For example, a person may be considered “old-fashioned” if he
or she believes that “smart” people are only people who possess a high linguistic ability and
excel in academia. People possess diverse skills and intelligences. They apply their various
intelligences to achieve their goals and “well-being.” Athletes, artists, and other people can
contribute his or her talents to improve a society. People will apply various types of
intelligence to accomplish their own perspective of well-being. Everyone has different
concerns and intelligences for pursuing “well-being,” but, to possess the “ultimate
concern,” he or she must utilize spiritual intelligence. This is considered the ultimate
well-being (See Fig. 1). Depending upon an individual’s special talents/intelligences, the
way of constituting his or her own spirituality can be different. Because of these
differences, the characteristics of spirituality will change.
A person’s culture and his or her cultural orientation have a major effect on his or her
concept of “well-being.” The definition of “avowed happiness” changes when it is applied
to diverse cultures. The study of SWB acknowledges that, because of diverse cultural
perspectives, there will be different views of well-being. Differences can be seen between
American and Korean cultures. The American cultural belief of “internal emotion” exists in
American individuals. However, Korean culture identifies with a collectivist perspective
and places great importance on an interpersonal relationship and moral standard that is set
by the society. Therefore, the concept of well-being for Koreans is not whether a person is
“being well” but rather being well with someone or doing well for someone.
In this perspective, well-being for Koreans is not merely consuming organic products,
but with whom Koreans are consuming organic products. Rather than contemplating and
584 Pastoral Psychol (2008) 56:573–584

meditating for the self, a Korean meditating for Korean society and for others is considered
optimal spirituality and well-being. A single definition of well-being cannot be applied to
every individual and every culture. This also applies to spirituality. Every human being is
born with different talents to fulfill his or her own spirituality. Most importantly, the
diversity that exists within every culture must be considered and individual differences
recognized instead of creating a fixed definition and perspective of well-being and
spirituality.

References

Anderson, S. M. (1984). Self-knowledge and social inference: II. The diagnosticity of cognitive/affective and
behavioral data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 294–307.
Anderson, S. M., & Ross, L. (1984). Self-knowledge and social inference: I. The diagnosticity of cognitive/
affective and behavioral data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 280–293.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
Diener, E., Gohm, C., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and
subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 419–436.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. (2003). Culture and subjective well-being. Boston, MA: MIT.
Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. New
York: Guilford.
Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psychology of ultimate
concern. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 3–26.
Gardner, H. (1996). Probing more deeply into the theory of multiple intelligence. NASSP Bull, 80, 1–7.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
American heritage dictionary (2001). The American heritage dictionary (4th ed.). New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Kakar, S. (1978). The inner world: A psychoanalytic study of childhood and society in India. Delhi, India:
Oxford University Press.
Kwon, S.-Y. (2001). Codependence and interdependence: Cross-cultural reappraisal of boundaries and
relationality. Pastoral Psychology, 50, 39–52.
Kwon, S.-Y., & Le, A. D. (2004). Relationship building in clinical pastoral education: A Confucian reflection
from Asian chaplains. Journal of Pastoral Care and Counseling, 58, 203–214.
Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Rieff, P. (1987). The triumph of the therapeutic: Uses of faith after Freud. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press (original work published in 1966).
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988a). How do I feel about it? Informative functions of affective states. In K.
Fiedler, & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognitions, and social behavior (pp. 44–62). Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Hogrefe.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988b). Mood, misattributions, and judgments of well-being: Informative and
directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.
Suh, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events matter. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1091–1102.
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments
across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493.
Tillich, P. (1963). Christianity and the encounter of world religions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294–306.