The causal model of spiritual well-being based on an accompanist of god and spiritual intelligence

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The aim of this study was to investigate the causal model of spiritual well-being based on the attachment to God and spiritual intelligence, mediated by constancy in long-term goals, belief in a just world, and self-compassion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The current study is of structural equation model correlation designs. The statistical population of the research consisted 4500 of chronic mental patients’ families in the year 2022–2023. Using G.Power software, 392 families were selected as the sample size. These questionnaires were used in the field section; spiritual well-being, attachment to God, spiritual intelligence of, belief in a just world, Strength and Stability Long-term goals, and self-compassion. A structural equation model and covariance test were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS:

The results showed that the conceptual model of the relationship between spiritual well-being based on attachment to God and spiritual intelligence with the mediating role of belief in a just world, persistence in long-term goals, and self-compassion fits the experimental model.

CONCLUSION:

Consequently, spiritual well-being is associated with positive psychological outcomes in both clinical and nonclinical situations, and is a significant component of quality of life and related to health.

Introduction

Human problems and psychological conflicts have multiplied. Most mentally ill, depressed people, and the majority of suicides are the effects of the disobedience era.[1] However, nothing today can save man from chaos, apart from spiritual support and inner revolution, knowledge of the spirit.[2] On the other hand, in the process of developing health science synchronous discovery of chlorpromazine in 1954 with the beginning of a movement deinstitutionalization and considering of the ethical dimension in 1997 from the other side of the World Health Organization (WHO), the spirituality of “spiritual health” as the fourth dimension of human health along with physical, mental, and social health is observed.[3]

The word “spirit” is derived from the Latin words “spiritus” (meaning breath, courage, vigor, or soul) and the word “spirare” (meaning to breathe). The indigenous definition of spirituality is: the high spiritual direction of man, who laid in all people to pass perfection and accompanying God.[4] From this definition, it is evident that spirituality is an intangible world and a universal process with an existential nature and it is based on values, faith, morals, religion, deity, and sanctity.[5] Spirituality shows in various dimensions; we can refer to spiritual well-being. Spiritual well-being is a small concept of spirituality.[6] Spiritual well-being is defined as the expansion of the spiritual nature of the transcendental and existential dimensions of man. Spiritual health is about the connection with self (personal dimension), others (social dimension), nature (the environment), and God (transcendental dimension). Therefore by definition, spirituality is an inseparable aspect of humankind. Two dimensions of spiritual well-being have been defined; religious well-being and existential well-being. In religious well-being, an individual perceives personal satisfaction due to having a relationship with a superior power. Existential well-being is achieved when an individual attempts to understand the meaning and purpose of life. Individuals with a holistic approach to life usually have high spiritual well-being and are more flexible. They usually deal with the problems around them with an open mind.[7]

Spiritual well-being is associated with positive psychological outcomes in both clinical and nonclinical contexts. Results of the studies show that there is a positive correlation between spiritual well-being and light depression, cognition personal well-being, positive attitude of intent and goal in life well-being, optimism, and hope, there is a negative correlation between spiritual well-being and suicide.[6] Therefore by definition, spirituality is an inseparable aspect of humankind. He considered other psychological structures to provide mental health.[8] Spiritual welfare involves a psychological, social, and religious element. The religious element is a sign of connection to a higher power, it is an attachment to God Therefore, the approach of theory to God is an appropriate player for the theoretical concept of spiritual well-being.[9] According to opinion[10]: “Spirituality like water and God’s servant love a glass that holds it” (p63). On the other hand, God is the source of substitute, beginning, the position of spiritual security, features of love and affection that a person experiences by an attendant to God. The monotheistic view of the world introduces God, in a way that he has all the attributes of a companion.

Nevertheless, we need a cognitive ability (intelligence) to understand spiritual and religious sources and issues. On the other hand, spiritual intelligence combines the structures of spirituality and intelligence in a new structure by searching around the sacred, semantic, and metaphysical elements, it becomes apogee. It helps a person in the field of social life to continue living in a rich, meaningful, and vast space.[11]

On the other humans, react to their mental interpretations of the situation. Belief in a just world it has been proposed as an influential psychological variable in the field of health that monitors a person’s interpretation of events. The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that “people get what they deserve”—that actions will necessarily have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor.[12] The just-world theory[13] assumes that people want to believe that they live in a world where good things happen to good people and bad things only to bad ones and where therefore everyone harvests what they sow. Therefore, the BJW normally serves an adaptive function. Belief in a just world most in agreement with Islamic thinkers and some Western thinkers, agree with (the superior system). This means that the world of existence between all the worlds that it is possible to create, they not only depict it as systematic but also consider it to be the best and the most benevolent world.[14] Many studies have shown that belief in a just world acts as a protection that protects well-being.[15]

Persistence to achieve long-term goals among other variables that they are related to spiritual well-being. Grit was operationalized as trait-level passion and perseverance for long-term aspirations.[16] Specifically,[16] conceptualized grit as a hierarchical construct underpinned by two interrelated dimensions, namely, consistency of interests and perseverance of effort. Consistency of interests entails constantly showing interest and efforts, whereas perseverance of effort involves demonstrating heightened intensity of persistence even after experiencing concrete setbacks or failures.[17] Grit, as a noncognitive skill, has drawn the attention of investigators. Noncognitive behaviors can influence one’s achievement or pleasure. According to,[18] “grit not only refers to resilience against failure, but also it covers an individual’s tenacity in attaining an objective through incessant effort” (p. 144). In the same way, the capacity of perseverance to boost effort in accomplishing science-related tasks explains why this facet of grit predicts increased achievement in science.[19]

In line with predicting spiritual well-being, a new structure called self-compassion in psychology can also be studied.[20] Self-compassion is defined as “being open and accompanying one’s sufferings, experiencing a sense of care and kindness towards oneself, adopting a nonjudgmental attitude with understanding towards inadequacies and failures,” and recognizing that one’s experience is a part of human experience.” Meta-analyses of studies conducted in adult and adolescent populations have found moderate to large effect sizes indicating an inverse association between self-compassion and negative mental states such as depression, anxiety, stress, and suicidal ideation.[21,22,23,24] In longitudinal research,[25] found that self-compassion levels at baseline predicted lower depression, anxiety, and negative affect after 6 months, while[25] found that increases in self-compassion were linked to reductions in psychopathology and loneliness over a 5-year time span.

Considering the discussions raised about the relationship between the variables of attachment to God, spiritual intelligence, persistence in long-term goals, belief in a just world, and self-compassion, it shows that it is possible to draw a theoretical model about the structural relationships of these variables with spiritual well-being [Figure 1]. Therefore, the question of the current study is to determine the structural connection of the causal model of spiritual well-being based on attachment to God and spiritual intelligence with the mediation of persistence in long-term goals, belief in a just world, and self-compassion to achieve an integrated and predictive model?

Figure 1.

The conceptual model of the research

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting

The current research is based on the structural equation model, which serves as its fundamental purpose and one of the types of correlation designs. The study examined the relationship between the variables of attachment to God, spiritual intelligence, persistence in long-term goals, belief in a just world, and self-compassion with spiritual well-being.

Study participants and sampling

The statistical population of the research consisted 4500 of chronic mental patients’ families in the year 2022–2023. According to the statistical population, a minimum sample size of 392 families was calculated through the use of simple random sampling and G.Power software. This was determined by using a 95% confidence level, along with a statistical power of 0.89 and an effect size of 0.75.

The inclusion criteria were agreement and informed consent, age conditions of 18 to 60 years, having a minimum level of middle school education, not taking any psychiatric medication or psychological intervention, having treatment since six months before entering the research, not receiving a diagnosis of mental disorders based on the fifth edition of the statistical guide and structured clinical interview. The exclusion criteria were unwillingness to continue participating in the training sessions. During the training program, a psychiatrist prescribed medication despite the presence of an incomplete questionnaire.

Data collection tool and technique

Library sources and field method (using questionnaires) were used to collect the information for this study. In the field of library science, a conceptual model of spiritual well-being was developed by identifying relevant books, articles, theses, and research studies. The views and theories of experts were examined concerning the research topic, and the conceptual model was based on the theoretical literature surrounding spiritual well-being. After identifying the five variables that influence spiritual well-being, questionnaires were prepared for each of the variables, taking into account their validity and reliability.

By ethical considerations and entry/exit criteria, questionnaires were completed by the families of chronic mental patients. In the continuation of the research process, the research paths were examined using the Smart PLS software, by the conceptual model. The confirmatory factor analysis model and structural equations were compiled using Smart PLS software version 3.3. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance of covariance (ANCOVA (were performed using SPSS version 25. Finally, the research tool was implemented, and the study questionnaires are as follows:

1. Spiritual well-being questionnaire (SWBQ): The scale was established by[26] in 1982 and is composed of 20 questions and two subscales. The scale for responding to questions is a 6-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. In terms of positive questions, the fully agree option gets a score of 6 and the fully disagree option gets a score of 1. The ranking of negative questions is the reverse (questions 1-2-5-6-9-12-13-16-18 are negative questions). Marking this scale results in the score of religious well-being, existential well-being, and total spiritual well-being, suggesting that Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of religious and existential well-being were 0.91, 0.91, and 0.93, respectively. The coefficients of retest reliability of the entire scale, religious well-being, and existential well-being were 0.85, 0.78, and 0.80, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole range of spiritual well-being is 0.90, and with respect to the subscales of religious and existential well-being, 0.82 and 0.87 were reported, respectively.[26] To examine the validity of the spiritual well-being scale, the correlation between spiritual well-being, religious and existential well-being, and religious observance scores is 0.51, 0.47, and 0.40, respectively. These correlation coefficients are an indicator of the converging validity of the spiritual well-being scale.[27]

2. The scale of attachment to God: This survey was prepared by,[28] to measure Muslims’ attachment to God. This questionnaire is made up of 37 questions. There are four subfactors in this questionnaire, which are summed up into two basic factors (inner perception of self and inner perception of God): These factors are entirely consistent with the theoretical foundation of attachment. And it states the internal validity of the questionnaire and the validity index on the construction and the coordination of its theoretical basis. The four basic factors of the questionnaire are: shelter, safe shelter, and object of attachment, seeking the object of attachment in stressful moments, and opposing separation from the object of attachment. This questionnaire has a seven-point Likert rating. In the research of,[28] the validity of the content, shape, and criteria of this questionnaire was assessed. Indeed, the Cronbach alpha calculated for this questionnaire was estimated to be in excess of 0.70. Besides this index, Cronbach’s alpha for internal self-perception and internal perception of the dimension of God is 0.85 and 0.90, respectively. Moreover, the internal similarity of the safe foundation, the refuge, the object of attachment, the search for the topic of attachment in stressful times, and the protest of the separation of the topic from attachment have been reported as 0.88, 0.93, 0.90, and 0.86, respectively.

3. The spiritual intelligence self-report inventory (SISRI): This questionnaire consists of 24 elements and four subscales of critical thinking, personal significance, transcendental consciousness, and self-expression.[29] This test measures how smart someone is spiritually using a scale of 1 to 5. If you disagree, score 1; if you agree, score 2; if you don’t have an opinion, score 3; if you agree, score 4; if you agree, score 5). (Of course, in question 6, the scoring is reversed). The reliability of the scale is 0.92 through Cronbach’s alpha method and 0.91 through half-scale. The validity of the four subscales of critical thinking, personal meaning making, transcendental awareness, and expansion of self-awareness is 0.78, 0.78, 0.87, and 0.91, respectively. Retrieved from.[29] Using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.88,[30] estimated the reliability of this scale. The validity of the face and the contents of the scale have been confirmed by psychologists. Exploratory factor analysis and primary confirmation factor analysis were used to calculate the conceptual validity of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis and primary confirmation factor analysis were used to calculate the conceptual validity of the scale. The results obtained have demonstrated that this scale is a reliable tool for the measurement of spiritual intelligence. And because of the proper validity and trustworthiness, it can be used in education and research environments such as universities.

4. Believing scale in a just world: The magnitude of the convictions of a just world in Iran was first expressed and validated by Sajjadian and Golparvar.[31] This questionnaire has 27 questions and its purpose is to study the beliefs of a righteous world consisting of four components that are: Beliefs of a Righteous World for Yourself (eight articles), Faiths of a Just World for Others (eight articles), Fair General World Beliefs (seven elements), and Unfair World Beliefs (three elements). This survey is based on a Likert scale. (I don’t agree at all, 1; I don’t agree, 2; I don’t have an opinion, 3; I agree, 4; I totally agree; 5) Gol,[31] evaluated the reliability of this questionnaire. And its Cronbach alpha has been reported as 0.72 for the beliefs of the just world of oneself and 0.84 for the beliefs of the just world of others. At the same time, they provided evidence that these questionnaires were simultaneously and conceptually valid. Also used this questionnaire in their research and stated that its reliability was acceptable and supportive at about 0.90. These researchers indicated that the Cronbach alpha in this questionnaire was 0.531, the Spearman–Brown coefficient is 0.564, and they reported his retest coefficient with (range of two months) 0.74.[32] Cronbach’s alpha is 0.66 to 0.67 and the similarity index 0.33 to 0.34, and also the reliable proof with Cronbach’s alpha by gender for the beliefs in a fair world for oneself is 0.72. Beliefs about a world fair to others, 0.84. They recorded 0.88 general beliefs of the just world, and 0.74 beliefs of the unfair world in this questionnaire.[33]

5. Strength and Stability Scale (Grit-s): This scale has been expanded by Duckworth et al.[16] To measure the characteristic of sustainability within long-term goals, two dimensions of persistence of effort and stability of interests have been formulated. This questionnaire is composed of 12 components and is based on the five-point Likert scale. Through an exploratory analysis of raw material factors, the designers determined the two-factor structure of the sustainability scale. And in the case of the 12 elements, they calculated a factor load greater than 0.4. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to measure the reliability and internal coherency of the global scale is observed. The force stability and interest stability subscales were 0.85, 0.78, and 0.84, respectively.[34] Standardized and measured the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the persistence questionnaire. For this purpose, the reliability coefficient was calculated through internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha method for the components of interest and passion 0.774, effort and perseverance 0.745, and for the whole scale 0.820, Based on this, the reliability coefficient of the questionnaire in the whole scale and dimensions is satisfactory, α <0.7. According to Mirsadeghi et al.,[34] the first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis method was used to measure the validity of the questionnaire. Based on the data analysis, they identified two factors (interest and effort), which explain 60.92% of the persistence variable. The confirmatory factor analysis indicates that the model fit indices are in good condition.

6. Short self-comparison scale. (SCS–SF): This is a 12-point self-report instrument that was retrieved by Raes et al.,[35] for measuring auto-compassion from his long-form with 26 questions. These questions are divided into six subscales: personal goodness (questions 6 and 12), self-assessment (questions 2 and 11), routine human experience (questions 5 and 10), segregation (questions 4 and 8), attention (questions 3 and 7), and extreme assimilation (questions 1 and 9). In the research conducted by Raes et al.,[35] he reported that the scale mentioned was highly reliable and valid. Its overall reliability was achieved by the Cronbach alpha method of 0.87. Moreover, each subscale had good internal coherence (from 0.55 to 0.81). The converging validity of the self-comparison scale was obtained with perfectionism (−0.33), negative affect (0.38), and external shame (−0.21). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the full scale and factors of self-analysis judgement, isolation of human experience, and extreme mindfulness-identification were obtained at 0.79, 0.68, 0.71, and 0.86, respectively.[36] Standardized and confirmed the factor structure of the Persian version of the revised self-compassion scale. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale’s total score is 0.91. For the subscales of self-kindness, self-judgment shared human experiences, isolation, mindfulness, and extreme replication reported 0.83, 0.87, 0.91, 0.88, 0.92, and 0.77, respectively. It has been reported that the questionnaire’s concurrent and convergent validity are favorable.

Ethical consideration

This research investigation was approved by the Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj branch (IR.IAU.NAJAFABAD.REC.1400.055). The study was granted with informed consent from the parents and written consents were signed. After obtaining the necessary permits and receiving the code of ethics from the Islamic Azad University of Sanandaj ethics committee, the researcher selected tools and samples for the study.

Results

Table 1 describes the descriptive state of the search variables. In this section, a total of 392 valid and analyzable questionnaires were collected. Values for descriptive statistics and core indicators include average, standard deviation, minimum score, and maximum score it is indicated for each of the variables in this table. As a function of the scale of the search variables (Likert scale) of the core indicators, the scatter is calculated as a function of the search variables. Provide descriptive statistics describing the condition of each search variable and this gives an idea of the scope of the search variables. The more significant the mean values of the variables in the model, it shows that the variable assessment is in a more favorable and satisfying situation.

Table 1.

Descriptive indexes for all search variables

Variables		Mean (SD)		Min–Max
Consistency in long-term goals		22.95 (6.33)		8–38
Attachment to God		55.84 (8.68)		35–80
Spiritual Intelligence		81.35 (15.90)		27–116
Belief in a fair world		86.42 (16.49)		46–126
Self-compassion		38.03 (8.16)		17–60
Spiritual well-being		61.03 (12.82)		25–100

In Figure 2, multiple-level confirmation factor analysis model shows structural equations in standard factor estimation mode. Based on Figure 2, the conceptual model, attachment to God variables is observed. Spiritual intelligence, independent role, belief fluctuations in a just world, persistence in long-term goals, and self-compassion play a mediator role and spiritual well-being plays a dependent role. Attachment to God involves 37 elements consisting of six components. (Research, shelter, secure base, separation protest (concern about separation from attachment), positive self-perception and positive perception of God), spiritual intelligence, including 24 items made up of four components. (Critical existential thought (seven items), creation of personal sense (six items), transcendental consciousness (five items) and expansion of self-consciousness (six), belief in a just world consists of four components, which are: beliefs of a just world to oneself (eight elements), beliefs of a just world for other people (eight elements), beliefs of a just world in general (seven elements), and the creeds of an unfair world (three articles). The self-compassion variable consists of 12 elements within the six components of self-compassion. Personal judgement, shared human experiences, isolation, attention, and extreme assimilation are categorized. And lastly, the spiritual well-being variable consists of 20 elements, which consists of two components: religious health (10 elements) and existing health (10 elements).

Figure 2.

Conceptual model based on standard coefficient estimation

Figure 3 actually tests all measurement equations (second-order factor loads and trajectory coefficients) using t-statistics. Based on this model, factor burden is important at the 95% confidence level. However, the t number is outside the range of −1.96 to +1.96.

Figure 3.

Conceptual model used to estimate important coefficients

Three criteria for reliability, converging validity, and diverging validity were used to evaluate external models. In the reliability section, it is necessary to verify the reliability of the representative variable and the current one. The reliability of the indicator was tested by measuring factor loads and the reliability of the underlying variables was tested by composite reliability. The reliability of an indicator is determined by the square power of the factor loadings of its items. To be considered reliable, the factor loadings must be at least 0.5, indicating that at least half of the variance in the indicator can be explained by the underlying variable. Therefore, it is desirable to have factor loadings greater than 0.7, and those below 0.4 should be removed. If the factor loadings are between 0.4 and 0.7, they can be eliminated from the analysis. This is because removing them can increase the convergent validity value, which is determined by the extracted average variance of the variable represented by the “numbers displayed in the middle of the circle.” Since the items of reflexive variables are related to one area, removing one or more of them does not significantly affect content validity. Table 2 shows that all variables have good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha values greater than the appropriate limit of 0.7. Each variable has a combined reliability coefficient (Dillon–Goldstein coefficient) above 0.7, indicating the appropriateness of their combined reliability. The convergent validity evaluation criterion refers to the average shared variance between the underlying variable and its indicators, and the minimum acceptable value is 0.50. In this model, the convergent validity of the model variables is all higher than 0.5, which is all at a suitable and acceptable level.

Table 2.

Findings of Cronbach alpha, composite reliability, and convergent validity

Variables		Hidden variables		Cronbach’s alpha (Alpha>0.7)		Rao index (rho_A>0/6)		Composite reliability (CR>0.7)		Extracted average variance (AVE>0.5)
Belief in a just world		Beliefs of a just world for themselves		0.867		0.879		0.898		0.529
		Beliefs of a just world for others		0.877		0.88		0.903		0.538
		General just world beliefs		0.911		0.912		0.929		0.652
		Beliefs of an unjust world		0.799		0.805		0.87		0.627
Self-compassion		Kindness to yourself		0.879		0.88		0.943		0.892
		Judging yourself		0.688		0.691		0.865		0.762
		Common human experiences		0.724		0.728		0.879		0.783
		Seclusion		0.793		0.794		0.906		0.828
		Mindfulness		0.585		0.615		0.825		0.704
		Extreme replication		0.856		0.856		0.933		0.874
Spiritual Intelligence		Critical existential thinking		0.886		0.889		0.911		0.596
		Personal significance		0.892		0.898		0.918		0.652
		Transcendent consciousness		0.889		0.892		0.918		0.691
		Expansion of self-awareness		0.917		0.92		0.936		0.708
Attachment to God		Search		0.663		0.691		0.854		0.745
		Safe shelter		0.724		0.725		0.844		0.644
		Secure base		0.685		0.703		0.822		0.607
		Objection to separation		0.789		0.79		0.877		0.703
		Positive self-perception		0.836		0.841		0.901		0.753
		Positive perception of God		0.524		0.525		0.808		0.678
Spiritual well-being		Religious health		0.882		0.888		0.904		0.516
		Health of existence		0.911		0.918		0.927		0.562
Belief in a just world		–		0.947		0.949		0.951		0.623
Self-compassion		–		0.947		0.949		0.951		0.623
Persistence in long-term goals		–		0.909		0.91		0.926		0.611
Spiritual Intelligence		–		0.951		0.955		0.956		0.676
Attachment to God		–		0.881		0.883		0.9		0.675
Spiritual well-being		–		0.933		0.939		0.941		0.747

Table 3 displays the correlation coefficients for examining the relationship between pairs of hidden variables. It also assesses the divergent validity of the research model. The average extracted variance (AVE) of the variables located in the houses on the main diagonal of the matrix is higher than the correlation value between them arranged in the lower and left houses of the main diameter. The results of Table 3 show that all variables have acceptable divergent validity. For instance, the square root of the average explained variance for the variable of self-belief in a just world (72.7%) is larger than the correlation value of this variable with other variables.

Table 3.

Correlation coefficient and validity index diver

Hidden variables		Persistence in long-term goals				Health of existence		Positive perception of God		Positive perception of God		Positive self-perception		Objection to separation		Secure base		Safe haven		Searching for		Expansion		Transcendent consciousness
Beliefs of a just world for yourself
Beliefs of a just world for others
Beliefs of the general just world
Beliefs of the general un just world
Kindness to yourself
Judging yourself
Common human experiences
seclusion
Mindfulness
Extreme assimilation
Critical existential thinking
Personal significance
transcendental consciousness																								0.832
Expanding self-awareness																						0.841		0.712
search																				0.863		−0.002		0.065
safe haven																		0.802		0.514		0.152		0.283
Safe base																0.779		0.382		0.389		0.054		0.133
Objection to separation														0.839		0.405		0.514		0.359		0.011		0.115
Positive self-perception												0.868		0.335		0.561		0.401		0.413		0.15		0.26
Positive perception of God										0.823		0.392		0.415		0.421		0.515		0.639		0.036		0.128
Religious health								0.697		0.312		0.157		0.675		0.242		0.482		0.268		−0.017		0.068
health of existence						0.749		0.714		0.456		0.32		0.711		0.376		0.555		0.373		0.068		0.178
Persistence in long-term goals		0.782				0.716		0.673		0.428		0.213		0.617		0.325		0.661		0.322		0.007		0.151
Hidden variables		Personal meaning		Critical Existential Thinking		Replication		Mindfulness		Seclusion		Experiences		Judging yourself		Self-kindness		Beliefs of a just world for themselves		Beliefs of a just world for themselves		Beliefs of a just world for themselves		Beliefs of a just world for themselves
Beliefs of a just world for yourself																								0.727
Beliefs of a just world for others																						0.733		0.629
Beliefs of the general just world																				0.807		0.633		0.602
Beliefs of the general un just world																		0.792		0.609		0.651		0.602
Kindness to yourself																0.945		0.621		0.673		0.641		0.64
Judging yourself														0.873		0.673		0.571		0.651		0.606		0.548
Common human experiences												0.885		0.387		0.363		0.395		0.42		0.376		0.315
seclusion										0.91		0.383		0.526		0.564		0.623		0.528		0.487		0.483
Mindfulness								0.839		0.619		0.356		0.553		0.622		0.63		0.567		0.574		0.494
Extreme assimilation						0.935		0.513		0.479		0.366		0.61		0.618		0.507		0.593		0.522		0.423
Critical existential thinking				0.772		0.107		0.151		0.056		0.228		0.097		0.12		−0.045		0.232		0.136		0.092
Personal significance		0.808		0.584		0.023		0.109		0.029		0.107		0.022		0.01		−0.023		0.139		0.012		0.015
transcendental consciousness		0.727		0.495		0.072		0.194		0.093		0.167		0.06		0.1		0.086		0.194		0.125		0.101
Expanding self-awareness		0.747		0.53		−0.005		0.064		0.027		0.169		−0.076		−0.027		−0.015		0.131		−0.02		0.014
search		−0.032		0.013		0.43		0.278		0.249		0.351		0.33		0.364		0.339		0.368		0.424		0.38
safe haven		0.147		0.276		0.369		0.485		0.476		0.353		0.463		0.434		0.467		0.534		0.487		0.447
Safe base		0.084		0.143		0.428		0.221		0.29		0.244		0.404		0.44		0.4		0.41		0.46		0.47
Objection to separation		0.055		0.101		0.653		0.621		0.538		0.335		0.663		0.676		0.653		0.661		0.607		0.604
Positive self-perception		0.109		0.118		0.279		0.259		0.361		0.368		0.212		0.348		0.442		0.409		0.442		0.305
Positive perception of God		−0.001		0.037		0.451		0.344		0.294		0.181		0.361		0.454		0.441		0.444		0.377		0.428
Religious health		0.001		0.109		0.442		0.63		0.509		0.273		0.655		0.618		0.582		0.591		0.562		0.623
health of existence		0.104		0.168		0.644		0.691		0.573		0.454		0.675		0.647		0.678		0.818		0.621		0.694
Persistence in long-term goals		0.021		0.076		0.496		0.629		0.561		0.336		0.653		0.582		0.623		0.551		0.533		0.57

Based on the standard path coefficients and the corresponding critical values between the variables of the proposed research model, which are presented in Table 4, the direct and indirect hypotheses are all confirmed. According to the coefficient of determination (R2) for spiritual well-being 0.817, it can be said that all five variables of belief in a just world, spiritual intelligence, self-compassion, persistence in long-term goals, and attachment to God are 81.7. It explained the percentage of changes in spiritual well-being. In evaluating the internal model, the effect size (F2) indicates the change in the value (R2) after removing a certain exogenous hidden variable from the model. According to Cohen’s index, the variable of belief in a just world had the greatest effect on spiritual well-being (37.5%). The variables of self-compassion with an effect intensity of 20.4%, persistence in long-term goals with an effect intensity of 15.8%, and attachment to God with an effect intensity of 4% were ranked second and third. The variable of spiritual intelligence has a very insignificant effect. As a result, in general, and the evaluation of most indicators of structural equations and path analysis, the results have shown that spiritual well-being is based on attachment to God and spiritual intelligence with the mediation of persistence in long-term goals, belief in a just world, and self-compassion is predictable.

Table 4.

Structural equation results

Assumptions		Beta		t		Level of significance		R2		R2adj		F2		Collinear		Hypothesis status
Attachment to God↔spiritual intelligence		0.165		–		0.001		–		–		–		–		Approval
Attachment to God -> belief in a just world		0.771		38.585		0.001		0.59		0.588		1.407		1.03		Approval
Spiritual intelligence -> Belief in a just world		1.723		1.251		0.001						0.053		1.03		Approval
Spiritual intelligence -> Persistence in long-term goals		−0.037		6.751		0.391		0.393		0.39		0.002		1.03		Approval
Attachment to God -> Persistence in long-term goals		0.632		22.770		0.001						0.639		1.03		Approval
Spiritual intelligence -> self-compassion		−0.021		0.566		0.572		0.521		0.518		0.001		1.03		Approval
Attachment to God -> compassion to self		0.725		28.993		0.001						1.064		1.03		Approval
Belief in a just world -> spiritual well-being		0.506		12.040		0.001		0.817		0.815		0.375		3.737		Approval
Attachment to God -> spiritual well-being		0.143		4.161		0.001						0.041		2.133		Approval
Spiritual intelligence -> spiritual well-being		6.421		2.278		0.001						0.062		3.587		Approval
Self-compassion -> spiritual well-being		0.322		7.021		0.001						0.204		1.032		Approval
Persistence in long-term goals -> spiritual well-being		1.028		3.274		0.001						0.171		2.741		Approval
Indirect effects
mediation hypothesis		beta		t		level of significance		–								Result
Attachment to God -> belief in a just world -> spiritual well-being		0.39		11.465		0.001										Approval
Spiritual intelligence -> belief in a just world -> spiritual well-being		1.271		3.278		0.001										Approval
Attachment to God -> self-compassion -> spiritual well-being		0.234		6.988		0.001										Approval
Spiritual intelligence -> self-compassion -> spiritual well-being		1.421		5.421		0.574										Approval
Attachment to God -> Persistence in long-term goals -> Spiritual well-being		1.140		6.123		0.001										Approval
Attachment to God -> Persistence in long-term goals -> Spiritual well-being		1.281		6.821		0.001										Approval

In this study, the second root of the estimation of the variance of the approximation error was used as a crucial measure to assess and fit the confirmatory factor analysis model. The limit of this index is 0.1. For the model, the value of this index equal to 0.98 is lower than the value of 0.1 [Table 5].

Table 5.

Model fit indices

Limit		Estimated value		Model fit index
less than 0.1		0.098		SRMR

Discussion

This study aimed to develop a causal model for spiritual well-being. According to the results, the model fits well. This means that the conceptual model of spiritual well-being, which is based on attachment to God and spiritual intelligence through belief in a just world, persistence in long-term goals, and self-compassion, is consistent with the experimental model. These results are consistent with the previous researches.[37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]

Bagheri Panah et al.[37] conducted research to investigate the mediating role of self-compassion in the relationship between psychological vulnerability and attachment to God. The study found a significant correlation between attachment to God and self-compassion (r = 0.61, P < 0.05) as well as psychological vulnerability (r = 0.06, P < 0.05). Attachment to God alone was able to explain 52% of changes in psychological vulnerability, while attachment to God and self-compassion combined explained 61% of the changes. A study conducted by Khodabakhshi et al.[38] showed that there is a positive and significant correlation between spiritual intelligence, critical existential thinking, personal meaning generation, transcendental awareness, and expansion of the state of consciousness with self-compassion (P < 0.01). Another study by Bagheri et al.[39] demonstrated a significant positive relationship between the life expectancy of COVID-19 patients and their spiritual intelligence, social support, and self-compassion.[40] Mohammadi et al. found that a significant positive correlation between students’ spiritual intelligence and health (P < 0.7). Also, a study by Jafari et al.,[9] revealed a positive and significant correlation between practicing religious beliefs and both spiritual well-being and general health and coping methods.

In a research by Allipour S,[41] the results showed the connection between religiousness and spirituality with psychological adjustment was established through the variable of attendant to God. Moreover, Sahebalzamani et al.[42] concluded that among the variables of attachment to God and spiritual well-being, conjugal spirituality and marital satisfaction, spiritual well-being, and marital satisfaction have an important positive direct relationship. Moreover, the variable of attachment to God by conjugal spirituality and spiritual well-being is linked to conjugal satisfaction.

Furthermore, Einy et al.[43] concluded that positive and negative religious adaptation, spiritual intelligence, and spiritual well-being were associated with perceived stress and that can explain a person’s attitude toward illness. Also the finding of Zoghibi et al.[44] showed that among the dimensions of spiritual well-being, connection to nature and connection to self were the most important predictors of learning pleasure and communicating with yourself and communicating with others predicted perseverance in effort. An effect of spiritual well-being is persistent in trying to reach long-term goals.

Also Mikaeeli et al.[45] proved that a significant relationship exists between the belief of students in a just world and social welfare. As well, gender played no effective role in any of the variables. Another survey result showed a significant and significant correlation between variables and, to a large extent, variance. It has been explained by self-compassion, mindfulness and satisfaction of staff life, social, environmental, and transcendental realms of spiritual well-being.[46] Additionally, Bradshaw et al.[47] demonstrated in research that prayer has a major impact on psychological well-being. Multiple regression hierarchical analysis further demonstrates that the meaning of life predicts mental health outcomes better than religion or spirituality.[48]

Correlational analysis showed a positive correlation between components of workplace spirituality (inner life, meaningful work, and community) and components of work engagement (attention and absorption) and between components of grit (consistency of interest and perseverance) and components of work engagement (attention and absorption). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that meaningful work, consistency of interest, and perseverance significantly predicted work engagement after controlling for gender, age, tenure, and educational qualification.[49]

The results of another study showed that R/S was significantly associated with, respectively, less depression symptoms and less anxiety symptoms. Additionally, results showed that R/S was significantly positively related to well-being. More positive feelings and less anxiety toward God/the divine predicted more subsequent mental well-being and less depression and anxiety. Furthermore, the mediating effect of self-compassion on the relationship between R/S and depression/anxiety symptoms was observed as well as the mediating effect of self-compassion on the relationship between R/S and well-being.[50]

Results of a similar study showed that attachment-related anxiety and avoidance had a significant direct effect on depressive symptoms and a significant indirect effect via self-warmth and self-coldness. The indirect effect via self-warmth appears to be of negligible magnitude. Attachment-related anxiety and avoidance had a significant direct effect on quality of life, and a significant indirect effect via self-coldness. The indirect effect via self-warmth was not statistically significant, speaking against self-warmth as a relevant mediator.[51]

According to results of another study, religiosity/spirituality might sustain older adult BJW and thereby well-being. As anticipated BJW declines with respondents’ age, correlates positively with supernatural/spiritual beliefs, and mediates the link between spirituality and well-being. Importantly, including rival explanatory variables did not nullify the mediation. Incrementally validating this distal link to the mediator increases confidence that the finding is robust. Large-scale longitudinal research exploring inter-temporal variations in religiosity/spirituality, BJW, and well-being is now planned to further understand this possible causal mechanism.[52]

In explaining this finding, it can be stated that spiritual intelligence somehow combines the structures of spirituality and intelligence in a new structure, and by searching around the sacred, semantic, and metaphysical elements, it is elevated and exalted and helps a person in the arena of social life to continue living in a rich, meaningful and wider space.[53] However, Kirkpatrick et al.[54] believed that the attachment system is one of the numerous psychological mechanisms underlying a wide range of religious phenomena. In this way, these two components lead to the awakening of the higher dimension of human existence, which is deposited in the existence of all human beings so that they can walk the path to perfection, which is closeness to God.[4] As a result, these concepts lead to the belief in a just world, a reflection of the existence of order and fairness in the world. It means a place that deserves a reward and against that sin and guilt will be punished. Belief in a just world in the eyes of the vast majority of Islamic thinkers and some Western thinkers is in line with the best system, which means that the world of existence among all the worlds that have the possibility of creation, is not only depicted as systematic, but also they consider it the best and the best in the world.[55] In recent years, psychologists have believed that there is an extraordinary force in faith in God and a religious attitude that gives a kind of spiritual strength to a person and helps him endure the hardships of life.[56] Also, by relying on God and the hadith: “There is no power except in God,” There is no strength and power except God, high-ranking and great. Like a solid mountain with stability and continuity in times of hardships, with faith and trust, it is placed in the safe fence of God. According to the interpretation of the Qur’an, ability and partiality (estaqem); that’s mean of perseverance and passion for long-term goals (grit) and not being influenced by various factors. In this process, spirituality and attachment to God through belief in a just world and stubbornness, self-compassion, contentment, love, patience, and tolerance as characteristics of the human soul are stimulated. As a result, these relationships are associated with positive psychological consequences in clinical and nonclinical situations, which lead to well-being spiritual.[56]

There was a strong positive relationship and correlation between the research variables, both in the theoretical discussions and in the results of that research and previous research. Thus, in terms of the issues raised about the relationship of variables, a theoretical model can be drawn on the structural relationships between these variables and spiritual welfare. Hence, the issue of this study is to determine the structural relationships of the causal model of spiritual well-being. Therefore, the question of the current study is to determine the structural relationships of the causal model of spiritual well-being based on attachment to God and spiritual intelligence with the mediation of persistence in long-term goals, belief in a just world, and self-compassion to achieve an integrated and predictive model, and as a result, the causal model Spiritual well-being is appropriate and acceptable.

There are limitations to generalizing the results of the present study. One limitation of the study is the lack of comparison between the two research groups in terms of gender, education level, and socioeconomic status. Other limitations include the lack of control of some variables such as the ratio of caregivers, the duration of the patient’s illness, and the psychological state of the caregivers themselves, which may have affected the results. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between exogenous and endogenous latent structures, also known as inherent variables, in the causal modeling of spiritual well-being. In other words, a more detailed investigation of the variables that affect spiritual well-being is required for a better understanding of this relationship. To gain a better understanding of the interaction and relationships, it is recommended to investigate this modeling in other samples.

Conclusion

Consequently, results have shown that spiritual well-being is associated with positive psychological outcomes in both clinical and nonclinical situations, and as a significant component of quality of life and related to health. What should be seriously considered as an inseparable dimension of the human being to ensure mental health as well as other psychological structures.

Ethical considerations

Following the principles of research ethics: This article presents a structural equation model that does not involve any samples from humans or animals. Caution is necessary due to possible biases in response to research tools and the lack of conditions to follow up on the results in data generalization.

Sponsor: This article is extracted from the doctoral thesis of the first author (Seyed kian eddin Moshashaei), in the Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj branch, which has an ethics code IR.IAU.NAJAFABAD.REC.1400.055 from Sanandaj Azad University ethics committee.

Contribution of authors

The authors have contributed equally to this research.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

Nil.