We report psychometric properties, correlates, and underlying theory of the 15 Spiritual Modeling Index of Life Environments (SMILE), a measure of perceptions of spiritual models, defined as everyday and prominent people who have functioned for respondents as exemplars of spiritual qualities, such as compassion, self-control, or faith. Demographic, spiritual, and personality correlates were examined in an ethnically diverse sample of college students 20 from California, Connecticut, and Tennessee (N ¼ 1010). A summary measure of model influence was constructed from perceived models within family, school, religious organization, and among prominent individuals from both tradition and media. The SMILE, based on concepts from Bandura's (1986) Social Cognitive Theory, was well-received by respondents. The summary measure demonstrated 25 good 7-week test-retest reliability (r ¼ 0.83); patterns of correlation supporting convergent, divergent, and criterion-related validity; demographic differences in expected directions; and substantial individual heterogeneity. Implications are discussed for further research and for pastoral, educational, and health-focused interventions. 30 Keywords: spirituality; religion; social cognitive theory; measurement; validity; health promotion; education Introduction Throughout history, religious traditions have emphasized the importance of keeping company and attending to the example of good or holy persons, arguing that people tend 35 to become more like those with whom they associate. The power of example is also recognized and documented in modern scientific psychology, in which Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (SCT, Bandura, 1986) Improved understanding of spiritual modeling processes would be of obvious interest in pastoral psychology. Such understanding would also be of interest to education, health psychology, medicine, nursing, social work, public health, and other fields in which spiritual factors have been found to predict or cause outcomes of significant interest This article reports on an initial psychometric evaluation of the Spiritual Modeling Inventory of Life Environments (SMILE), a multidimensional inventory of perceptions 65 about spiritual models and their availability and influence. Validated measurement instruments are vital for scientific progress in any field, and spiritual modeling measures have not previously been available. As described later, the SMILE follows in operationally defining spirituality with reference to a respondent's perceived ''ultimate concerns.'' 1 In the study reported here, the SMILE was administered to a geographically 70 and ethnically diverse sample of US college students drawn from both religious and statesupported public universities (N ¼ 1010). Besides providing psychometric information, these findings offer a solid initial view of the contours of spiritual modeling perceptions in contemporary US college students. We present theoretical background and a conceptual framework that specifies 75 key features of spiritual modeling perceptions and processes as experienced in daily life. We then report and discuss empirical findings, including implications for interventions. Conceptual background and model According to Social Cognitive Theory, social learning processes are influenced both by environmental factors, such as the availability of suitable behavioral models, and by intra-80 individual factors, such as motivations and self-efficacy perceptions Interpersonal factors, such as the nature, closeness, and psychic ''investment'' in one's personal relationship with a model, may also affect social learning processes . Intra-individual factors (represented in the center oval) are viewed as potentially 90 changeable and evolving, either conscious or unconscious, and closely related to social learning processes that include attention, retention, and motivation. . Social environments (the outer semicircle), including family, school, and religious or spiritual organizations, are a potential source of spiritual models. They help guide investments of attention and behavior by both individuals and groups, and may either facilitate or impede spiritual modeling learning processes. The framework represented in 105 Multiple levels for intervention The spiritual modeling framework presented in 150 Assessment strategy Constructing the SMILE demanded resolving two main challenges: conveying what we meant by spiritual, and conveying what we meant by model. Failing to offer any explanation of these constructs could create confusing findings due to idiosyncratic understandings of these terms. But asking participants to use a rigid definition of spiri-155 tuality could risk undermining our intended inclusiveness. Thus, in the final SMILE questionnaire, we addressed these challenges through a combination of three main techniques: First, we defined spirituality and spiritual models with reference to Tillich's (1951) notion of ultimate concerns, sometimes expressed in the SMILE simply as ''what's most important in life,'' a notion that does not require specific theological or ontological beliefs 160 (Emmons, 1999). The term spirituality was then introduced as a convenient word to describe skills or qualities viewed as ''helpful for what's most important/consequential in life.'' Second, we included substantial introductory text that used diverse examples to explain how people experience and respond to ultimate concerns, and how they learn from other people (models) how to respond to those concerns (spirituality). To illustrate 165 the concept, some specific everyday and prominent models were mentioned as examples from whom ''some people feel they have learned wise daily living.'' 2 Third, the SMILE was structured to allow earlier questions to set a context for later questions. This feature is analogous to a semistructured interview, in which earlier questions provide a context for understanding the intent and vocabulary of later questions. 170 The SMILE also included several opportunities for respondents to express their own conceptions and definitions of important constructs, which not only helped convey the inclusive intent, but also provided useful feedback. Later, we present evidence suggesting that these communication strategies were reasonably successful for engaging and representing the views of most survey participants. social environments, perceived efficacy for learning from models, and the perceived impact on other life tasks of learning from spiritual models. Scoring As an inventory, the SMILE is not intended to produce a single overall score reflecting all items. However, one can distinguish a meaningful continuum between respondents who 195 report no models in Part II, at one extreme, vs. respondents who report influential models in every major environment. As described later, SMILE scoring quantifies this particular dimension of variability as an interval-level summary measure of perceived influence from spiritual models. sections of the SMILE may be obtained on request from the corresponding author. Research questions The present empirical studies of the SMILE focus on psychometric evaluation of its foundational questions in a college student sample. Our diverse sample also supplies useful reference values for US college students, a population of major educational and 210 health related concern . We examined the following primary research questions: (1) What qualities do students view as important for spirituality (operationalized here as ultimate concerns)? What dimensions of variability (i.e., underlying factors) can be detected in their views? 215 (2) What spiritual models are most commonly recognized (1) within everyday life environments (family, school, religious organization) and (2) among prominent people known from tradition or from contemporary sources? (3) How are the perceived existence and influence of spiritual models associated with demographic and spiritual factors within various environments? 220 (4) Does a summary index of spiritual models across major life environments possess adequate psychometric reliability and validity? Methods We first describe methods used for a multisite cross-sectional study (N ¼ 1010), and then for a smaller single-site test-retest study (N ¼ 66). All surveys in both studies were admin-22
