613 Copyright 2002 by The Gerontological Society of America The Gerontologist Vol. 42, No. 5, 613–620 Vol. 42, No. 5, 2002 Rowe and Kahn’s Model of Successful Aging Revisited: Positive Spirituality—The Forgotten Factor Martha R. Crowther, PhD, MPH, 1 Michael W. Parker, DSW, 2 W. A. Achenbaum, PhD, 3 Walter L. Larimore, MD, 4 and Harold G. Koenig, MD 5 Purpose: We explain a new concept, positive spirituality, and offer evidence that links positive spirituality with health; describe effective partnerships between health professionals and religious communities; and summa- rize the information as a basis for strengthening the exist- ing successful aging model proposed by Rowe and Kahn. Design and Methods: A missing component to Rowe and Kahn’s three-factor model of successful aging is identified, and we propose strengthening the model with a fourth factor, positive spirituality. Results: We devel- oped an enhanced model of successful aging based on Rowe and Kahn’s theoretical framework. Evidence pre- sented suggests that the addition of spirituality to interven- tions focused on health promotion has been received positively by older adults. Implications: Leaders in ger- ontology often fail to incorporate the growing body of sci- entific evidence regarding health, aging, and spirituality into their conceptual models to promote successful aging. The proposed enhancement of Rowe and Kahn’s model will help health professionals, religious organizations, and governmental agencies work collaboratively to pro- mote wellness among older adults. Key Words: Religion, Faith-based interventions, Churches, Older adults The spiritual dimension of older adults has not been integrated into promising intervention models that promote successful aging. The lack of interest in issues of spirituality and aging may be analogous to the unwillingness of older people to act upon or com- ply with prescribed treatments. “As we find ways to improve the lives of older people and ameliorate the diseases which afflict them, we are also confronted by the reality that we are often unable to successfully uti- lize these discoveries” (Antonucci, 2000, p. 5). As a means of consolidating knowledge and prac- tice, the MacArthur Foundation offered a promising set of studies on successful aging. In summarizing the findings, Rowe and Kahn’s (1998) model provided scientifically grounded parameters for understanding health across the life course and goals for construct- ing a framework for interventions. However, despite the advantages of their model, it does not incorporate research in the area of spirituality and health that would strengthen it as a framework for promoting successful aging interventions. This article has two aims. First, to assert that spirituality is an important component of health and well-being outcomes among older adults. Second, to argue for interventions which incorporate spirituality with underserved populations as a guide to health professionals, religious organiza- tions, and governmental agencies. Clarifying Concepts Part of the problem with incorporating spirituality into scientific thinking has been the confusion associ- ated with the terms religion and spirituality (Krause, 1993). When descriptive adjectives like intrinsic or extrinsic are added, the problem is compounded. Re- ligious variables in early research were typically lim- ited to declarations of nominal religious affiliation or were totally excluded from consideration (Larson, Pattison, Blazer, Omran, & Kaplan, 1986). There is a need to define and distinguish spirituality and religion so that research can proceed with greater clarity and consistency. In support of this clarification, we use definitions offered by Koenig and colleagues (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2000), and we define a new term—positive spirituality . The distinctions between Although the views expressed in this article are the exclusive opinions of its authors, we gratefully acknowledge the assistance of The John A. Hartford Foundation’s Geriatric Social Work Faculty Scholars Program. Address correspondence to Martha R. Crowther, PhD, MPH, The Uni- versity of Alabama, Department of Psychology, Box 870348, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0348. E-mail: crowther@bama.ua.edu 1 Department of Psychology, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 2 Department of Social Work, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 3 College of Humanities, Fine Arts and Communication, The University of Houston, TX. 4 Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO. 5 Duke University Medical Center, and GRECC, VA Medical Center, Durham, NC.