This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Spirituality is the core value of humans. Spirituality can be assessed in a number of ways. One of the traditional definitions of spirituality is its link to religion, its connection to the divine spirit, and lastly, a humanistic school of thought approach that does not include religion. It suggests that mental health is also an integral part of spirituality (Fisher, 2011). Similarly, mental health has various aspects. A lot of studies have been reported that provide evidence of the relationship between spirituality and physical, mental, emotional, social, and vocational well-being (Fisher, 2011).
Spiritual Well-being is the outcome an individual incurs from satisfaction level within the relationships and connectedness with God, self, others and the environment. It is derived from the subjective interpretation of experience related to spirituality and/or religion. It is a broader more comprehensive construct than religiousness within this explanation (Ellison, 1983). Spirituality is a fruit from a gardener self grown garden within himself, he waters, feeds and spits out weeds in order to make his harvest healthy, similarly a human takes care of his spiritual life by first making a decision whether he wishes to follow this path. A person can seek wisdom; by nourishing himself from within its like strengthening and feeding one’s own spirit and by making peace within himself and with the souls living next to him, as in living at peace and justly with his environment (Smith, 2010).
A strong bond between two or more people refers to interpersonal relationship. Attraction between individuals brings them close to each other and eventually results in a strong interpersonal relationship (Heider, 2013). Social and interpersonal relationships have long been considered one of the strongest and most important predictors of well-being (Argyle, 2001; Myers, 2000). Many scholars have attempted to study the importance of communal life and interpersonal relationships in shaping human development (Taylor et al., 2000). Relationships are never a one way road, which is why a phenomenon of give and take is important. Time and energy needs to be invested in order to harvest a healthy relationship only then can a person get something out of it. (Emerson, 1976).
The present study aims to further analyze the relationship between the spiritual well-being of an individual and his interpersonal relationship satisfaction with friends, close relatives, or loved ones. Important relationships, such as marriage, kinship relations, or long-lasting friendships, are especially important because they play a very important role in subjective well-being. Some ignored issues, such as the roles of gender, age, and culture in the relation of relationships to well-being, will be measured as well. In this study, the role of gender, marital status, and age differences will be measured through statistical analysis, and the findings will reveal the empirical significance of the stance. The study of interpersonal relations and resilience among youth also links spiritual well-being and interpersonal relationships (Smith et al., 2013). The importance of social relationships is revealed by the primary functional argument, which focuses on social support relationships and well-being and their useful effects on mental and physical health (Taylor et al., 2000).
Although much of the research on relationships and Spiritual well-being has been devoted to greater measures of overall relationship quality in relationships such as intimate relationships, marriage, and subjective well-being, the mere fact of being married has been linked to high spiritual well-being a number of times, but the quality or length of the relationship is not awarded ultimate importance (Wan et al., 1996). To explore this association, this study will focus on the correlation between healthy interpersonal relationships with relatives, friends, or loved ones and their effective spiritual well-being within themselves through properly selected scales or questionnaires.
Rationale of the Study
A lot of studies have been reported that provide evidence of the relationship between spirituality and physical, mental, emotional, social, and vocational well-being (Fisher, 2011). Social and interpersonal relationships have long been considered one of the strongest and most important predictors of well-being (Argyle, 2001; Myers, 2000). The study of interpersonal relations and resilience among youth also links spiritual well-being and interpersonal relationships (Smith et al., 2013). However this study was designed in order to assess the importance of the spiritual well-being of individuals for their healthy interpersonal relationships and to help them maintain a balance between their own personalities and their social relationships.
Method
Objectives of the Study
To find a correlation between the spiritual well-being of an adult and his interpersonal relationships. Its aim was to study and find out a positive relationship between two variables. If a person is spiritually sound, then his relationships around him should also be in a healthy state. And simultaneously, for a person who is not in accord with his own inner self, his interpersonal relations will also not be satisfactory. Therefore, it may not be possible that if a person’s spiritual well-being is inadequate, then his relationships with relatives, family, or friends would be healthy. Both variables had to be in accordance with each other to live a healthy life.
Hypotheses
There would be a positive correlation between spiritual well-being and healthy interpersonal relationships.
Spiritual well-being and interpersonal relationships would be stronger in married individual than in unmarried.
Spiritual well-being and interpersonal relationship would be stronger in females than in males.
Spiritual Well-being and Interpersonal relation strength would be higher in upper ages than in lower ages.
Research Design
This is a Quantitative research and a correlational study was used in this research to gather data from different institutes and organizations.
Sampling Technique
Data were collected through purposive sampling technique from different institutes and organizations. Purposive sampling was selected because specifically individuals from institutes and organizations needed to be assessed on the research instruments, and these were the most relevant and most suitable samples.
Population Sample
The study samples were 200 adults from different institutes or organizations. Age range was 20–35 years. All the questionnaire were filled by the adults themselves and were distributed with consent forms. The ethical guideline such as individual’s anonymity and confidentiality were followed and individuals were assured of these.
Procedure
The study investigates the correlation analysis between interpersonal relationship satisfaction and spiritual well-being in adults. Different institutions and organizations in Islamabad were selected for data collection. Participants were given the relationship assessment scale along with spirituality index of well-being. All the questionnaire were filled by the adult themselves and distributed with consent forms. The forms were then gathered and statically analyzed.
Instruments
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS-G)
The RAS-G is a seven-item Likert-type Scale. A 7-item scale designed to measure general relationship satisfaction. Each item was on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (low satisfaction) to 5 (high satisfaction) (Renshaw et al., 2011).
Spirituality Index of Well-Being (SIWB)
The SIWB was designed to measure the effect of spirituality on subjective well-being. The SIWB contains 12 items that measures one’s perceptions of their spiritual quality of life. The scale is divided into two subscales: (1) self- efficacy subscale and (2) life-scheme subscale. Each item is answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree) (Daaleman & Frey, 2004).
Results
Table 1 shows the complete demographic details of participants participated in the study. 200 participants participated in this study, in which 100 were male and 100 were females. Age range of participants was between 20 to 35 years. 56% of participants were of 20–25 years of age. 28% participants were of 26–30 years of age and 16% participants’ age laid between 31–35 as shown in Table 1. 50.5% participants were students whereas, 49.5% participants were in working category. When it comes to marital status, 62.5% participants were single, 12% were engaged and 25.5% participants were married.
Table 1
Demographic Variables of Study
| S.no | Variable | f | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Gender | ||
| Male | 100 | 50 | |
| Female | 100 | 50 | |
| 2. | Age | ||
| 20–25 | 112 | 56 | |
| 26–30 | 56 | 28 | |
| 31–35 | 32 | 16 | |
| 3. | Student/Working | ||
| Student | 101 | 50.5 | |
| Working | 99 | 49.5 | |
| 4. | Marital Status | ||
| Single | 125 | 62.5 | |
| Engaged | 24 | 12 | |
| Married | 51 | 25.5 | |
Table 2 shows that the internal reliability of questionnaire is highly reliable. At first the internal reliability of relationship assessment scale was checked which was 0.742 and laid between reliability ranges of Cronbach Alpha. On the other hand remaining elements in questionnaire e.g. Spiritual Index of Well-Being, Self-efficacy and life domain values also laid between reliability ranges of Cronbach alpha. Hence, the scales and sub-scales used in the study are highly reliable as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Alpha Coefficient and Descriptive Statistics of the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS-G), Spirituality Index of Well-Being (SIWB) and its Subscales (N = 200)
| Scale | No.of Items | a | Min | Max | M | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAS-G | 7 | .74 | 14 | 35 | 26.45 | 4.69 | -.32 | -.31 |
| SIWB | 12 | .86 | 12 | 60 | 41.78 | 8.96 | -.20 | .14 |
| Self-Efficacy | 6 | .72 | 6 | 30 | 20.19 | 4.44 | -.18 | .21 |
| Life-Domain | 6 | .84 | 6 | 30 | 21.59 | 5.41 | -.37 | .17 |
Note. Reliability Ranges (> 0.7 ≤ 1); Reference ranges Skewness and kurtosis (±2); RAS-G = Relationship assessment scale-General; SWB = Spirituality Index of Wellbeing; Self-efficacy= sub scale of SIWB; Life domain= sub-scale of SIWB.
Descriptive analysis was applied on collective data of 200 participants. Moreover, to check the symmetry in data skewness and kurtosis analysis was performed on collected data. Table 2 shows that the collected data was well skewed and kurtosis values also laid between reference ranges. Skewness of the data showed that data is symmetric. On the other hand, kurtosis values left tailed in case of RAS-G (-.312) and right tailed in terms of SIWB, self- efficacy and life domain .139, .210 and .171 respectively.
To check the correlation between different scale and sub-scales of SWB, this research analyzed that these factors positively correlate with each other as shown in Table 3. The correlation value of SIWB and self-efficacy is .889 which is in between the reference ranges of Pearson correlation. Correlation between SIWB and self-efficacy was also positive as the extracted values were in between references ranges. Furthermore, SIWB was correlated with RAS-G and extracted values show that these two factors also positively correlated with each other. However, we have also checked the correlation between other scales and sub-scales and they all show that they have positive correlation with each other.
Table 3
Bivariate Correlation Between Study Variables
| S.no | Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | SIWB | — | .889** | .926** | .340** |
| 2. | Self-Efficacy | — | .650** | .312** | |
| 3. | Life-Domain | — | .307** | ||
| 4. | RAS-G | — |
Note. Pearson correlation reference range -1.0 to 1.0; RAS-G Relationship Assessment Scale-General; SIWB = Spirituality index of wellbeing; Self-efficacy = sub scale of SIWB; Life domain = sub-scale of SIWB.
**p = 0.01 (2-tailed).
Table 4 analyzes the values of mean and standard deviation on RAS and SIWB Tests. Data of males and females was separately analyzed; the values received against each category were within the reference ranges. The t-test values received reconcile with the hypothesis that there is a positive relationship and spiritual well-being and relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, Table 4 shows not significant differences in any variables in male and female.
Table 4
Mean, Standard deviation and t-values of Males and Females on Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS-G), Spirituality index well-being scale (SIWB) and its subscales (N = 200)
| Variable | Male | Female | t (197) | p | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | LL | UL | |||
| RAS-G | 26.43 | 4.69 | 26.47 | 4.73 | -.07 | .95 | -1.36 | 1.27 |
| SIWB | 41.42 | 9.05 | 41.97 | 8.79 | -.43 | .66 | -3.05 | 1.95 |
| Self-Efficacy | 20.03 | 4.38 | 20.26 | 4.48 | -.37 | .71 | -1.47 | 1.01 |
| Life- Domain | 21.39 | 5.73 | 21.71 | 5.05 | -.41 | .68 | -1.83 | 1.19 |
Note. RAS-G = Relationship Assessment Scale-General; SIWB = Spirituality Index of Wellbeing; Self-efficacy = Sub scale of SIWB; Life domain= sub-scale of SIWB.
One-way Anova test was applied on the reference ages of selected sample. Table 5 shows that there is a slightly mean difference between scales and sub-scales when one-way Anova was applied in terms of age. According to Hypothesis 4 upper ages participants showed slightly higher scores than lower ages participants.
Table 5
Mean, Standard Deviation and f-Value for Age Ranges Among Study Variable (N = 200)
| Variable | 20–25 (n = 112) | 26–30 (n = 56) | 31–35 (n = 32) | f | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |||
| SIWB | 41.01 | 8.62 | 41.86 | 8.12 | 44.31 | 11.11 | 1.71 | .18 |
| Self-Efficacy | 19.82 | 4.54 | 20.41 | 3.49 | 21.06 | 5.48 | 1.07 | .34 |
| Life-Domain | 21.19 | 5.12 | 21.45 | 5.48 | 23.25 | 6.08 | 1.85 | .15 |
| RAS-G | 26.75 | 4.59 | 25.29 | 4.75 | 27.41 | 4.69 | 2.66 | .07 |
Note. RAS-G = Relationship Assessment Scale-General; SIWB= Spirituality Index of Wellbeing; Self-efficacy= sub scale of SIWB; Life domain= sub-scale of SIWB.
Table 6 shows that there is a slightly higher means difference between married and other mentioned marital status in case of SIWB. Whereas, minimum mean difference in RAS and other scales and sub-scales when one-way ANOVA was applied in terms of marital status.
Table 6
Mean, Standard Deviation and f-Value for Marital Status Among Study Variable (N = 200)
| Variable | Single (n = 124) | Married (n = 52) | Engaged (n = 24) | f | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |||
| SIWB | 40.94 | 8.49 | 44.67 | 9.28 | 39.83 | 9.50 | 3.94 | .21 |
| Self-Efficacy | 20.12 | 4.54 | 21.02 | 4.19 | 18.71 | 4.21 | 2.28 | .11 |
| Life-Domain | 20.81 | 4.90 | 23.65 | 5.77 | 21.13 | 6.10 | 5.38 | .01 |
| RAS-G | 26.56 | 4.75 | 26.27 | 4.75 | 26.21 | 4.37 | 0.11 | .89 |
Note. RAS-G = Relationship Assessment Scale-General; SIWB= Spirituality Index of Wellbeing; Self-efficacy= sub scale of SIWB; Life domain= sub-scale of SIWB.
Discussion
The present study aimed to assess a positive relationship between the spiritual well-being and interpersonal relationships of individuals. Several studies have measured the relationship between inner peace and outward serenity. However, only a limited number of studies have examined the relationship between spiritual well-being and its impact on the social and interpersonal relations of any person. Spirituality is a fundamental attribute of the personality in many communities. The study involved two hundred randomly selected participants across three age ranges (20–25, 26–30, and 31–35) with an equal gender distribution. The results revealed an increasing trend with age, indicating that as individuals grow older, their relationships become stronger. This finding aligns with past research, suggesting that older individuals tend to connect more with their families and establish sound relationships, potentially due to the perceived hazards of loneliness (Ajrouch et al., 2001; Lansford et al., 1998). The hypothesis 4 showed spiritual well-being and interpersonal relation strength is higher in upper ages then in lower ages.
Studies have revealed that depression and personal growth emerge as spiritual well-being outcomes within obvious age-group differences. These studies find that people who are religious throughout their lives, from young age to old, are less prone to depression. But people who come closer to religion in growing age or later years have beliefs that are not much stronger and are more prone to depression or uncertainty (Bailey & McLaren, 2005; Bishop, 2018; Calderon, 2001; Menec, 2003; Pinquart, 2001; Siegrist et al., 2004). This research is from the present study, which shows that age does matter when it comes to the assessment of spiritual well-being and sound interpersonal relationships. Despite our initial hypothesis, Table 4 showed that there is no significant difference in terms of gender.
Table 6 supported our Hypothesis 2 that married individuals exhibited higher mean values in both the Spiritual Well-being and Relationship Assessment scales. Thus, proving the hypothesis that the higher the spiritual well-being, the stronger the relationship, this positive hierarchy in the married group underscores the belief that in intimate relationships, such as marriage, subjective well-being positively influences overall relationship quality (Wan et al., 1996).
The main hypothesis (1) of the study under discussion was that there would be a positive correlation between spiritual well-being and healthy interpersonal relationships, which was well-supported to a great extent. Table 3 results confirmed a positive correlation between spiritual well-being and healthy interpersonal relationships. This correlation extended to sub-scales, including self-efficacy and Relationship Assessment Scales (RAS-G). The hypothesis was that the greater the spiritual or subjective well-being, the healthier the interpersonal relations of any individual. Moderate evidence of the effects of spiritual and social sources on well-being was found. Friendship levels were identified as a mediator, mitigating the effects of stress on loneliness. Attachment to God had a negative independent influence on loneliness, indicating that in older age, the more you socialize in religious or spiritual gatherings, the more you go away from the negative effects of loneliness (Dykstra, 1995). The study supports this fact in the sense that spiritual well-being and healthy interpersonal relationships have a reciprocal effect. If interpersonal relationships are sound and healthy, individuals are likely to experience inner peace, contributing to a fuller and healthier life in both body and soul.
Limitations and Future Directions
The study faced limitations due to the limited time and resources; it could not be conducted on a wider range. Reference age ranges should have been selected on a wider scale to correctly assess the difference between Spiritual well-being and healthy interpersonal relationships, which amount to a variably higher age range. The sample size could have been larger. In the future, the same research can be conducted on a relatively larger scale. Problematic areas can be highlighted especially and can be worked upon for their betterment. As there is a vast area of research in the fields of spiritual well-being and healthy interpersonal relationships, these fields can be analyzed from broader perspectives. A larger, more diversified sample can be selected to be analyzed and questioned. Instruments can be changed; a more detailed instrument can be used to analyze various other facets of the topic under discussion.
Implications
Spiritual well-being has a significant impact on the adult’s interpersonal relationship satisfaction. The findings of this research study can contribute to understanding the link between health interpersonal relations and a health spiritual well-being. This study helps to find out a direct relation between a person’s mental and spiritual well-being and its effect on his immediate relations. Many institutes and organizations should develop healthy relations and positive activities that enhancing relationships and spiritual well-being in adults.
Conclusion
The present study aimed to analyze the correlational analysis of interpersonal relationship satisfaction and spiritual well-being in adults. The results obtained after application of statistical procedures through SPSS proved that the hypotheses were correct and the findings were aligned with previous researches. The findings of the study revealed that there is the positive correlation between spiritual well-being and healthy interpersonal relationships in adults. The analysis of the study explored that married adults have strong spiritual well-being and interpersonal relationships than unmarried adults. The analysis of the study explored that the spiritual well-being and interpersonal relation strength is higher in upper ages then in lower ages. Spiritual well-being and stronger interpersonal relationships were in accord with each other. Both variables are directly proportional and correlate with each other.