By Stephen W. Krauss
The Commitment-Reflectivity Circumplex (CRC) version of non secular orientation is brought and the consequences from a chain of version checking out experiments are reviewed. The CRC version used to be constructed via a sequence of stories within the usa and Romania and used to be created on the way to lessen the theoretical and empirical problems linked to the normal Allportian non secular orientation types and measures. towards this finish, the problems linked to the Allportian spiritual orientation types are reviewed, besides how the CRC version makes an attempt to deal with them. subsequent, the CRC version is brought and a listing of its predictions are given and in comparison to these of the Allportian types. the result of 10 version trying out stories utilizing multidimensional scaling are then reviewed. In those reviews, the CRC version, which posits that each one non secular orientation may be positioned alongside dimensions of dedication (importance) and reflectivity (complexity), is located to be extra exact than the Allportian versions in either the U.S. and Romania. in accordance with those experiences, the that means and interpretation of the Allportian measures are reviewed and new interpretations are recommended. finally, the relationships among non secular orientation, psychological well-being, character, ideology, and prejudice are explored. In each zone, the CRC version, and the measures in line with it, exhibit more suitable predictive talents to conventional methods in either the USA and Romania.
Read or Download A New Approach to Religious Orientation: The Commitment-Reflectivity Circumplex PDF
Best religious studies books
An answer to the matter of theodicy, that's, the reconciliation of the life and impact of evil with the righteousness of the characteristically outlined Jewish or Christian God is, to my brain, easily philosophically most unlikely. the matter arises because of a definite cluster of outlined features of God.
Does it make feel - can it make feel - for somebody who appreciates the explanatory energy of contemporary technology to proceed believing in a standard non secular account of the last word nature and objective of our universe? This ebook is meant if you care approximately that question and are disillusioned with the inflexible dichotomies that dominate the modern debate.
- Christian No More: On Leaving Christianity, Debunking Christianity, And Embracing Atheism And Freethinking
- Christian Science
- In Defense of Kant's Religion (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion)
- Religious Literacy in Policy and Practice
- The God/Man/World Triangle: A Dialogue between Science and Religion
Extra resources for A New Approach to Religious Orientation: The Commitment-Reflectivity Circumplex
Intrinsic scale Since that time, several variations of the Intrinsic scale have been PDGH 7KH PRVW QRWDEOH RI WKHVH ZHUH *RUVXFK¶V modifications, in which he increased the motivational aspects of the scale (along with the E scale) through retaining only the items with obvious motivational elements. In addition, versions of the I scale have generally been considered to be unidimensional (Gorsuch, 1984). Extrinsic scale As for the Extrinsic scale, it was eventually recognized that the original Extrinsic scale was actually composed of three different components: religious as social gain (or Es), religion as personal comfort and protection (or Ep), and some reversed scored Intrinsic items (Kirkpatrick, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990; see also Gorsuch &McPherson, 1989; Leong, & Zachar, 1990).
It is also not very clear what the Quest scale is measuring. , Batson & Ventis, 1982; Darley & Batson, 1973) were subjected to much criticism suggesting that, instead of measuring an integral part of a mature religious orientation, the scales were actually measuring agnosticism, religious conflict, sophomoric doubt and a variety of other things (for a review, see Batson & Schoenrade, 1991a). However, Batson and Schoenrade (1991a, 1991b) improved the psychometrics of the scale and attempted to refute many of the earlier criticisms of the scale and the construct.
Thus, while many have focused on the loss of statiVWLFDOSRZHULQXVLQJ$OOSRUW¶VW\SRORJ\DVRSSRVHG WRUHJUHVVLRQDQDO\VHVXVLQJRQO\,DQG(LWLVDSSDUHQWWKDW$OOSRUW¶V typology was an attempt at clarifying important conceptual issues. Another often cited difference between Allport and Ross (1967) and Allport (1950) is the treatment of intrinsic and extrinsic religion as distinct dimensions in the later article. This is the result of $OOSRUW DQG 5RVV VKRZLQJ WKDW ³H[WULQVLF DQG LQWULQVLF LWHPV did not fall on a unidimensional scale but represented two independent GLPHQVLRQV´SZKLOHVLPXOWDQHRXVSUHVHQWLQJWKHWKHRU\RIDQ LQWULQVLFYHUVXVH[WULQVLFFRQWLQXXP,QRWKHUZRUGV$OOSRUW¶Vtheory of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic religion seemingly contradicted his admission that the Intrinsic and Extrinsic scales were independent of each other.