Abstract
This article responds to Glicksman's critique that researchers studying older adults' religiousness and spirituality employ measuring instruments that fail to recognize the theological, cultural, and historical factors affecting scale development. Reflections on the ways psychologists of religion have conceptualized and measured intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity offers additional insight into the unacknowledged tacit assumptions underlying many research tools used to study religion, spirituality, and aging. Especially problematic are efforts to measure so-called universal aspects of religiousness and spirituality without reference to the particularities of religious traditions and spiritual practices.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
