Research In Psychology Of Religion Research Articles

Quantitative Research in Psychology of Religion in Brazil

Although in Brazil Psychology of Religion historically has a tradition in qualitative research, in recent years it has been possible to observe a significant growth of quantitative publications. Thus, this paper aims to present an analysis of quantitative studies in Psychology of Religion in Brazil, published in Portuguese. For this, we surveyed indexed studies in the CAPES Bank of Theses and Dissertations (Coordination of Higher Education Personnel Training) and ScieLO Journal Portal (Scientific Electronic Library Online), using several search terms such as “psychology and religion”, “psychology and quantitative research”, “religion and validation”, “religion and scale”, “religiosity and scale”, “spirituality and scale”, “spiritual/religious well-being scale”, “spiritual/religious coping scale”, “psychiatry and religion”, “psychiatry and quantitative research”, “psychology and validation” and “psychiatry and validation”. We selected 70 studies for analysis. The results show that studies on “Psychology and religion” come from different areas of knowledge, raising the question of the specificity of “Psychology of Religion”. The quantitative research indicates a trend of growth, especially in the use of scales. Studies indicate the need for further reflection on the role of religiosity and spirituality on health, on meaning construction and meaning in life processes, on feelings of spiritual well-being and promotion of mental health. Considering that these issues have been addressed from diverse fields, in order to strengthen Psychology of Religions a field of knowledge, we suggested the conduction of studies of qualitative and quantitative nature in the theoretical and empirical perspective of this discipline itself.

Religion, Religiosity, and Research in Psychology of Religion in Turkey: An Assessment of Locality and Universality Problem

Religion, Religiosity, and Research in Psychology of Religion in Turkey: An Assessment of Locality and Universality Problem

Pionierin der Religionspsychologie: Marianne Beth (1890-1984)

This article deals with the contributions to the psychology of religion made by Dr. Marianne Beth (1890-1984), an almost totally forgotten pioneer of the psychology of religion. The article especially contextualizes her initiative to turn “unbelief” into a topic for research in psychology of religion, and describes the tragic end the Nazi reign made to her development and career. Born as the daughter of a prominent Austrian Jewish lawyer living in Vienna, Marianne von Weisl received excellent intellectual training. Initially, her wish to become active in the same field as her father was frustrated by the injunction against women studying law. When this injunction was lifted, she went for a second doctorate in law, her first doctorate having been in the humanities. Marianne Beth became very active in public life (serving on the boards of many organizations, including international ones); she travelled and gave lectures and developed a large radius as a prolific author in newspapers and periodicals. Although clearly committed women's rights, she did not belong to any feminist movement. Her interest in psychology was certainly stimulated by her husband Karl Beth (1872-1959), a professor of systematic theology, who developed an increasing interest in both history and the psychology of religion. In fact, psychology of religion seems to have become the field in which the couple collaborated intellectually most. They were both involved in the founding of a “research institute” for the psychology of religion, of an international society for the psychology of religion, and of a journal for the psychology of religion. All these activities took place from the apartment of the Beths in Vienna, where the preparations for the First International Congress for the Psychology of Religion also occurred. That congress had as its theme; “the psychic causes of unbelief”. Even earlier than her husband, Marianne Beth had published on the topic of unbelief. Her interest may have been triggered by a call for papers by the internationally renowned KantSociety. The Society issued a prize for a treatise on “the psychology of belief” in 1928, which Marianne Beth then won. It is also possible, however, that the call for papers had been triggered after her initial publications on the subject. Her paper was published in the well-known journal Kant-Studien. There was a plan to publish the contributions to the 1931 congress in Vienna in book form in a series of three volumes, but only one was published, probably due to financial problems. The rest of the papers presented were published in the Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie, edited by the Beths. (Marianne Beth's paper was also published in this journal.) As her publications since then show, she grew increasingly interested in empirical topics and approaches, and was broadly read in contemporary psychology. She authored numerous contributions to the Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie. However, when Nazi-Germany annexed Austria in 1938, she left the country for the United States, taking both her children with her. Shortly afterwards, Karl Beth was also obliged to follow his family into exile. In the US, neither had any opportunity to pursue their interests in the psychology of religion; Marianne taught sociology briefly and German; Karl taught “comparative theology”. Nevertheless, Marianne Beth's impulse to turn “unbelief” into a research topic in the psychology of religion did have some lasting influence: the work of better-known psychologists of religion such as Rümke, Pruyser and Vergote are indebted to her, at least indirectly, as this article tries to show.

Religionspsychologie: Ein Forschungsüberblick

In five steps gives this research report insights to the current research fields psychology of religion with special regard to the situation in Germany. The author first analyses reasons for the lack of interest in these questions from both scientific perspectives, psychology and religious sciences/theology. In a second step he describes the sociological findings forming the context for the research in psychology of religion, mentioning especially the theories concerning individualisation and secularisation. The question which term would be the best to describe what one is talking about when trying to do research on the issues of psychology of religion is in the focus of the third part. The author shows that the concept of spirituality is the one seeming to have the most conceptual advantages than other terms like religion or religiosity. The final two steps are dealing with more specific issues, the effect of religiosity on illness and health, where a large number of researches are presented, and the upcoming school of transpersonal psychology. In all parts the Christian-theological point of view is made explicit.

Whither the Roots? Achieving Conceptual Depth in Psychology of Religion

Should psychology of religion undergo a disciplinary renaissance and, if so, what might it look like? In this paper we explore that question by discussing the benefits of a better grounding of the field within mid-level theories from general psychology that provide it with greater conceptual depth. Such discussion will focus on three already existing and variously productive lines of research as case studies: attribution processes, attachment styles, and religious coping. These case studies represent lines of research at three developmental stages: 1) infancy, with little visible return but with signs of promise (attribution), 2) adolescence, with dividends already yielded but also with promise not yet fully realized (attachment), and 3) maturity, where a fruitful harvest has already been experienced but yet without decline (coping). Regardless of developmental position, it is argued that research in psychology of religion will be enhanced to the extent that it achieves conceptual depth by being framed in terms of mid-level theories.

Revising Method in Psychological Studies of Religious Matters: From Repeating to Remembering and Working-Through

Fundamental criticisms of research in psychology of religion are recurrently leveled by scholars—including psychologists of religion themselves: the character, intention, and validity of many studies are suspect; approaches are parochial; findings are often insubstantial. These valid critiques betray a neglected root cause: a problem of method. This essay examines method and method change, considers why inadequate methods persist as well as how operative methods are corrected. It identifies tacit problematic commitments and outlines contours of a revised method.

Personality and Religion

The aim of this paper is to explore whether and how the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality – also known as the Big Five – may be relevant to psychology of religion. First, we review empirical research which has used Eysenck's taxonomy. Second, after a brief presentation of the FFM, we hypothesize, on the basis of research in the Eysenck framework as well as on the basis of research in psychology of religion generally, how each of the five factors may be related to religiosity. Third, we insist on the necessity of including gender differences when studying the association between personality and religion. Fourth, we discuss the results from an exploratory study on religiousness and the FFM (Saroglou, 1998) and we compare the results of this study with the few studies on Big Five to have used religious variables. Finally, the discussion focuses on the importance of personality taxonomies when studying religiosity and on the usefulness of the FFM for this purpose.

The Status of Psychology of Religion: An Interview with Raymond F. Paloutzian

Maureen P. Hester (MPH) is Professor of Psychology at Holy Names College (Oakland, CA). She has published research in humor, history, and group process. She teaches psychology of religion at Holy Names College and has also explored the relation between psychology and religion at local and national psychology teaching conferences. Raymond F. Paloutzian (RFP) is Professor of Psychology at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, CA. His original research in psychology of religion was on the conversion experience. In 1992–1993, he served as President of APA Division 36 (Psychology of Religion). Besides publishing articles on religious experience, he coedited a special issue of The Journal of Social Issues on the topic of “Religious Influences on Personal and Societal Well-Being.” His Invitation to the Psychology of Religion (1996) is in its second edition. In addition, Paloutzian coauthored the chapter on religion in John Santrock's Psychology (1997). He is the editor of The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.