Religious Experience Episodes Measure (REEM)

Abstract

The Religious Experience Episodes Measure (REEM) is an objective, self-report psychometric instrument developed by Ralph W. Hood Jr. (1970) and subsequently adapted by John Rosegrant (1976) to assess the phenomenology and incidence of reported religious and mystical experiences. Designed to overcome the interpretive ambiguities and reductionist biases inherent in single-item or abstract operationalizations of religious phenomena, the REEM implements an innovative literary exemplar methodology. Rather than asking respondents to endorse abstract doctrinal tenets or decontextualized self-descriptions, the instrument presents extended first-person experiential vignettes adapted from William James’s classic treatise, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902/1985). The original REEM (Hood, 1970) comprises 15 narrative episodes evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 15 to 75), whereas the widely utilized Form 2 revision (Rosegrant, 1976) contains 10 modernised, de-dogmatized vignettes rated on a 9-point similarity continuum.

Psychometrically, the REEM demonstrates solid reliability and construct validity across diverse experimental and non-experimental designs. Hood (1970) established a 2-week test-retest reliability coefficient of r = .93 and an internal consistency coefficient of .84, while Rosegrant’s 10-item Form 2 achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .73. Construct validity is supported by consistent positive correlations with intrinsic religious orientation and noetic mystical awareness, an absence of correlation with extrinsic religious orientation, and documented sensitivity to quasi-experimental manipulations involving psychological stress, anticipatory mindsets, and nature settings. Cross-cultural adaptations, such as Nils Holm’s (1982) Scandinavian studies, reveal that while the literary exemplar method successfully captures profound unitive and affective states, the instrument’s cultural origins in North American Protestant narratives necessitate deliberate contextual adjustments when deployed in non-Western or non-Christian populations.

Keywords

Religious Experience Episodes Measure, REEM, Ralph W. Hood Jr., William James, Religious Experience, Mysticism Scale, Psychology of Religion, Literary Exemplars, Intrinsic Religiosity, Spiritual Experiences

Authors

The primary architect of the Religious Experience Episodes Measure is Ralph W. Hood Jr., Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Dr. Hood is an internationally recognized authority in the psychology of religion, former editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, and a recipient of the William James Award from Division 36 (Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality) of the American Psychological Association (APA). His foundational work on operationalizing mystical and intense religious states culminated in both the REEM (1970) and the widely utilized Mysticism Scale (Hood, 1975).

The revised 10-item Form 2 was developed by John Rosegrant, Ph.D. (1976), who conducted extensive empirical investigations into the effects of environmental context, solitary wilderness isolation, and cognitive set and setting on experiential reports, while affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of North Carolina. Cross-cultural and thematic expansions were subsequently advanced by scholars including James R. Hall (Hood & Hall, 1977) and Nils G. Holm (1982) of Åbo Akademi University in Finland.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Experience Episodes Measure is to provide a standardized, psychometrically grounded operationalization of subjective religious, mystical, and transcendent experiences without collapsing them into institutional affiliation, theological dogma, or superficial self-identification. Historically, empirical research in the psychology of religion was severely constrained by measurement paradigms that either asked simplistic binary questions (e.g., “Have you ever had a religious experience?”) or conflated personal spiritual encounters with frequency of church attendance, ritual participation, or doctrinal orthodoxy. Hood (1970) argued that such measures suffer from acute interpretational ambiguity, as the semantic boundary of “religious experience” varies widely depending on an individual’s sectarian background, intellectual sophistication, and linguistic habits.

To eliminate these confounding factors, the REEM introduces concrete phenomenological referents through the literary exemplar approach. Instead of defining the construct in abstract terms, the measure provides respondents with rich, narrative case descriptions drawn from William James’s empirical archives. Participants are instructed to bracket semantic or theological preferences and evaluate the degree of experiential resonance between their own subjective history and the affective, perceptual, and cognitive states described in the text. This technique serves several key research and clinical purposes:

• Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research: The REEM serves as a sensitive dependent measure capable of detecting shifts in subjective awareness prompted by experimental manipulations of anticipatory set, psychological stress, environmental immersion (e.g., solitary wilderness contexts), and sensory deprivation (Hood, 1978a; Rosegrant, 1976).
• Differential Personality Assessment: The instrument facilitates the investigation of personality correlates of profound experiential capacity, including hypnotic susceptibility (Hood, 1973), openness to experience, ego boundary permeability, and psychological strength (Hood, 1974).
• Construct Differentiation: The REEM provides a critical empirical mechanism to disentangle genuine experiential commitment from defensive, conventional, or socially desirable religious self-presentation, differentiating individuals who genuinely report intense experiential episodes from those whose religious adherence is purely extrinsic or socio-normative (Hood, 1978b).
• Cross-Tradition and Cross-Cultural Exploration: Modified versions permit researchers to examine how phenomenological reports diverge across ethnic and subcultural groups when cultural and denominational jargon is systematically controlled (Hood & Hall, 1977).

Psychological Construct

The construct operationalized by the REEM is reported religious experience, conceptualized as a multi-layered, affectively intense, and cognitively transformative state of consciousness characterized by profound shifts in self-perception, environmental integration, and perceived contact with an ultimate reality, transcendent presence, or divine agency. Rather than treating religious experience as a single monolithic variable, the underlying construct spans several distinct phenomenological dimensions documented in the classic psychology of religion literature:

1. Oceanic Unitive Consciousness and Nature Mysticism

This dimension encompasses states in which interpersonal boundaries dissolve and the individual experiences an intimate, sympathetic communion with the natural world and the cosmos. As exemplified by Episode 1 of Form 2 (adapted from Henry David Thoreau’s reflections at Walden Pond), the subjective state involves an overwhelming realization that the physical universe is imbued with benevolence, kinship, and meaning, dissipating feelings of loneliness and existential estrangement.

2. Transcendent Noetic Illumination and Ineffability

Reflecting William James’s criteria of noetic quality and ineffability, this facet captures sudden, unbidden flashes of intellectual insight that defy verbal articulation. As represented in Episode 2 (drawn from Richard Maurice Bucke’s concept of “Cosmic Consciousness”), the individual undergoes a sudden internal illumination—often symbolized subjectively as an internal flame or radiant light—accompanied by an immense sense of exultation, moral certitude, and universal comprehension that permanently reshapes cognitive frameworks.

3. Ego-Dissolution and Absolute Consciousness

This core mystical dimension, represented in Episode 5, involves the systematic stripping away of space, time, sensory perceptions, and autobiographical memory, culminating in the emergence of an underlying, essential awareness or “pure consciousness.” The construct here aligns directly with Walter T. Stace’s introversive mystical category, where normal waking consciousness is temporarily suspended, yielding an absolute, unconditioned selfhood devoid of empirical content.

4. The Dark Night and Existential Disruption

Unlike purely affirmative or euphoric operationalizations of spirituality, the REEM construct encompasses acute negative or crisis experiences characterized by profound spiritual despair, moral disintegration, and the loss of existential meaning. Episode 7 (culled from Leo Tolstoy’s A Confession) embodies this catastrophic psychic collapse, wherein the individual’s psychological foundations crumble, evoking an irresistible suicidal crisis that precedes radical transformation or surrender.

5. Felt Personal Presence and Affective Awe

Represented in Episodes 6, 8, and 9, this dimension taps into classic theistic communion, defined by a distinct, vivid sense of the personal reality and immediate presence of the divine. The experiential state combines profound awe with intense serenity, emotional harmony, and an overwhelming conviction of personal reconciliation with the creator.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the REEM is rooted in the functionalist and radical empirical psychology of William James (1842–1910), articulated in his landmark Gifford Lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (1902/1985). James posited that personal religious experience constitutes the primary, original datum of religion, whereas theological dogmas, institutional hierarchies, and liturgical rites are secondary, derivative institutionalizations. James formulated four definitive marks of mystical experience that directly underpin the episodic vignettes of the REEM:

• Ineffability: The experience is immediately negative in terms of discursive communication; it defies precise verbal formulation and must be directly experienced to be fully comprehended.
• Noetic Quality: Mystical states are perceived as robust states of knowledge, insights into depths of truth unplumbed by discursive intellect, carrying a persistent, overwhelming sense of authority.
• Transiency: These states are brief in physical duration (rarely persisting for more than an hour or two), yet their cognitive and emotional impressions remain indelible throughout life.
• Passivity: Although voluntary techniques (e.g., contemplation, prayer, sensory isolation) may prepare the individual, the definitive onset is experienced as an involuntary suspension or capture of personal volition by a superior power.

In translating James’s philosophical insights into modern psychometrics, Hood (1970) merged Jamesian phenomenology with the psychometric theories of Gordon W. Allport and J. Michael Ross (1967). Allport categorized religious commitment into two primary orientations: Intrinsic Religiosity, where religion is embraced as an ultimate end in itself and internalized as the master motive of existence, and Extrinsic Religiosity, where religious adherence is treated instrumentally for social status, comfort, or personal utility. Hood theorized that genuine religious experience, as captured by James’s literary exemplars, should correlate robustly with an intrinsic religious orientation because both reflect an authentic, internalized encounter with existential realities, whereas extrinsic religiosity should demonstrate no empirical association with reported experiential intensity.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the REEM have been empirically verified across numerous empirical investigations:

Construct and Convergent Validity

In his initial validation study, Hood (1970) administered the 15-item REEM alongside the Allport and Ross (1967) Religious Orientation Scales to 51 undergraduate students. As predicted theoretically, REEM scores correlated positively and significantly with intrinsic religious orientation (r = .41, p < .01). In contrast, REEM scores showed virtually zero correlation with extrinsic religious orientation (r = .02, non-significant). This pattern of discriminant divergence was subsequently replicated by Hood (1978b), who demonstrated that the REEM accurately differentiates individuals exhibiting genuine, integrated religious commitments from those exhibiting superficial, socially defensive, or indiscriminately pro-religious response sets.

Further convergent evidence emerged from cross-instrument validations with Hood’s (1975) Mysticism Scale (M-Scale). Nils Holm (1982), utilizing a Swedish translation of the REEM, examined its structural convergence with the multidimensional factors of the Mysticism Scale. Holm demonstrated that the explicitly theistic and Christian-derived episodes of the REEM loaded strongly onto the Religious/Noetic dimension of the M-Scale, while the nature-based, pantheistic, and ego-dissolving episodes correlated with the General/Phenomenological/Unitive dimension, confirming that the REEM systematically samples both introversive and extroversive mystical domains.

Experimental and Predictive Sensitivity

The REEM has repeatedly proven sensitive as an experimental dependent variable. In an influential field study, Rosegrant (1976) administered REEM Form 2 to 91 participants enrolled in an intensive outdoor wilderness program in North Carolina to determine the impact of environmental setting and cognitive expectation on subjective experience. Participants in solitary wilderness environments reported significantly higher congruence with REEM nature-mystical episodes than those in structured, non-solitary settings.

Similarly, Hood (1978a) deployed the REEM in a quasi-experimental design investigating the interactive effects of psychological stress and cognitive expectancy on reported religious experience in solitary nature settings. Hood established that incongruity between stress levels and setting-appropriate expectations significantly influenced REEM endorsement, demonstrating the scale’s diagnostic capacity to reflect contextual shifts rather than merely static retrospective memory.

Discriminant Validity Across Psychological Correlates

Hood investigated the scale’s independence from psychopathology. In a 1974 investigation involving the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI), Hood demonstrated that individuals with high REEM scores displayed significantly higher levels of self-actualization, autonomy, and psychological strength, directly refuting psychoanalytic assertions that intense religious experiences represent regressive, infantile, or psychotic decompensation. Furthermore, Hood (1973) established that REEM scores were moderately related to hypnotic susceptibility as measured by the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, confirming that experiential reporting is mediated by cognitive flexibility and the capacity for absorbed attention without being reducible to baseline compliance.

Reliability

The psychometric stability and internal consistency of the REEM have been established across several independent research settings:

• Test-Retest Stability: In the initial validation study, Hood (1970) administered the 15-item REEM to undergraduate psychology students at South Dakota State University across a 2-week test-retest interval. The resulting Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was r = .93 (p < .001), indicating high temporal stability of experiential recall.
• Internal Consistency (Original 15-Item Form): Hood (1970) reported a Kuder-Richardson formula reliability coefficient of .84, confirming high item homogeneity despite the qualitative variety of the literary vignettes.
• Internal Consistency (Form 2 Revision): For the 10-item shortened version, Rosegrant (1976) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .73 among a non-student sample of 91 participants in an outdoor setting. While slightly lower than the 15-item version, this coefficient remains fully acceptable for research scales involving multidimensional narrative vignettes.

Factor Analysis

Although the original REEM (Hood, 1970) and Rosegrant’s Form 2 (1976) were primarily scored and interpreted as unidimensional composite measures of overall reported religious experience, subsequent exploratory and comparative structural analyses have clarified their latent factor composition:

Exploratory Factor Analyses

Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of the 15-item and 10-item instruments consistently reveal a robust primary general factor accounting for the bulk of common variance, supporting the aggregation of total composite scores. However, multidimensional extraction with oblique rotation (e.g., Promax, Direct Oblimin) reveals three clear, interpretable latent dimensions that parallel Stace’s (1960) and Hood’s (1975) frameworks:

• Factor 1: Nature / Extroversive Mysticism: Defined by high factor loadings (> .60) on vignettes depicting profound unity with the surrounding physical environment, communion with nature, and the perception of an underlying life-force in natural objects (e.g., Episode 1 [Thoreau’s Walden woods] and Episode 10 [the flower vision]).
• Factor 2: Theistic / Personal Communion: Dominated by items describing explicit communion with God, the felt reality of a personal creator, and noetic assurance (e.g., Episode 4 [Tolstoy’s search for God], Episode 8 [felt presence of God in sunshine and rain], and Episode 9 [fleeting flashes of divine presence]). Item loadings on this factor typically range between .65 and .82.
• Factor 3: Introversive / Pure Ego-Dissolution: Anchored by vignettes portraying the total cessation of time, space, and sensory consciousness (e.g., Episode 5 [trance-like disappearance of selfhood] and Episode 3 [mountain summit communion with temporary loss of identity]).

Cross-Cultural Structural Dynamics

Nils G. Holm (1982) conducted structural investigations in Northern Europe using a literal Swedish translation alongside indigenous Scandinavian experiential accounts. Holm noted that when non-Protestant or secular Nordic respondents encountered literal Jamesian prose, the items fractured into two distinct empirical clusters: a Dogmatic-Christian factor comprising traditional pietistic language, and a General-Phenomenological factor comprising broad aesthetic and nature experiences. This structural divergence led Hood et al. (1996) to emphasize that the REEM operates as a cohesive, single-factor instrument primarily when administered within populations familiar with the literary and spiritual heritage of Anglo-American Protestantism.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The primary clinical and research specifications for the Religious Experience Episodes Measure (Form 2; Rosegrant, 1976) are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Religious Experience Episodes Measure (REEM) – Form 2.
• Developer / Adaptor: Original scale by Ralph W. Hood Jr. (1970); revision by John Rosegrant (1976).
• Administration Type: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16+); requires standard reading comprehension due to extended narrative vignettes.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Item Count: 10 narrative episodes (Form 2); original Form 1 contains 15 episodes.
• Response Scale: 9-point similarity rating scale, where respondents evaluate the degree of congruence between the episode and their own lived experiences:
• 1: Indicates that your experience was not at all like the experience described.
• 3: Indicates that your experience was vaguely similar to the experience described.
• 5: Indicates that your experience was similar to the experience described.
• 7: Indicates that your experience was quite similar to the experience described.
• 9: Indicates that your experience was almost identical to the experience described.
• Note: Even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8) represent intermediate response ratings.
• Scoring Protocol:
• All 10 items are positively scored along the 1 to 9 continuum.
• Total Composite Score: Sum the individual ratings across all 10 items. Total scores range from 10 to 90. Higher scores reflect greater frequency, depth, and subjective resemblance to intense religious, mystical, and unitive experiences.
• Item Mean Score: Calculate the average score across items by dividing the total sum by 10 (range: 1.0 to 9.0).
• Normative Reference Values: In Rosegrant’s (1976) normative sample (N = 91), the average item mean was approximately 3.4. In Hood’s (1970) original 15-item scale (scored 1 to 5), the mean total score was 31.5 (SD ≈ 8.4; range: 15 to 75).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Religious Experience Episodes Measure was formulated and published by Ralph W. Hood Jr. in 1970. The modernized 10-item version, REEM Form 2, was developed and published by John Rosegrant in 1976. Subsequent cultural and empirical extensions appeared throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s (Hood & Hall, 1977; Holm, 1982).

The REEM is an open-access, non-commercial psychological assessment instrument developed for academic, scientific, and educational research purposes. Neither Hood nor Rosegrant established a commercial copyright fee for scholarly utilization. Researchers and clinicians are free to reproduce and administer the instrument for non-commercial research, provided appropriate scholarly attribution and citation are given to the original publications (Hood, 1970; Rosegrant, 1976). Individuals conducting clinical trials or cross-cultural adaptations are advised to consult Dr. Ralph W. Hood Jr.’s academic archives or institutional department at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga for historical documentation.

References

• Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212
• Holm, N. G. (1982). Mysticism and intense experiences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21(3), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385893
• Hood, R. W., Jr. (1970). Religious orientation and the report of religious experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 9(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384572
• Hood, R. W., Jr. (1973). Hypnotic susceptibility and reported religious experience. Psychological Reports, 33(2), 549–550. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1973.33.2.549
• Hood, R. W., Jr. (1974). Psychological strength and the report of intense religious experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385311
• Hood, R. W., Jr. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported mystical experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384454
• Hood, R. W., Jr. (1978a). Anticipatory set and setting: Stress incongruity as elicitors of mystical experience in solitary nature situations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17(3), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385750
• Hood, R. W., Jr. (1978b). The usefulness of the indiscriminately pro and anti categories of religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17(4), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385483
• Hood, R. W., Jr., & Hall, J. R. (1977). Comparison of reported religious experience in Caucasian, American Indian, and two Mexican American samples. Psychological Reports, 41(2), 657–658. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1977.41.2.657
• Hood, R. W., Jr., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (1996). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• James, W. (1985). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1902). https://doi.org/10.1037/10004-000
• Rosegrant, J. (1976). The impact of set and setting on religious experience in nature. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15(4), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385633
• Stace, W. T. (1960). Mysticism and philosophy. J. B. Lippincott Company.

Items of the Scale