Culturally different connotations of basic concepts challenge the comparative study of religion. Do persons in Germany or in the United States refer to the same concepts when talking about ‘spirituality’ and ‘religion’? Does it make a difference how they identify themselves? The Bielefeld-Chattanooga Cross-Cultural Study on ‘Spirituality’ includes a semantic differential approach for the comparison of self-identified “neither religious nor spiritual”, “religious”, and “spiritual” persons regarding semantic attributes attached to the concepts ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ in each research context. Results show (...) that ‘spirituality’ is used as a broader concept than ‘religion’. Regarding religion, semantics attributed by self-identified religious persons differ significantly from those of the spiritual persons. The ‘spiritual’ and the ‘religious’ groups agree on semantics attributed to spirituality but differ from the ‘neither spiritual nor religious’ group. Qualifications of differences and agreements become visible from the comparison between the United States and Germany. It is argued for the semantically sensitive study of culturally situated ‘spiritualities’. (shrink)

Culturally different connotations of basic concepts challenge the comparative study of religion. Do persons in Germany or in the United States refer to the same concepts when talking about ‘spirituality’ and ‘religion’? Does it make a difference how they identify themselves? The Bielefeld-Chattanooga Cross-Cultural Study on ‘Spirituality’ includes a semantic differential approach for the comparison of self-identified “neither religious nor spiritual”, “religious”, and “spiritual” persons regarding semantic attributes attached to the concepts ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ in each research context. Results show (...) that ‘spirituality’ is used as a broader concept than ‘religion’. Regarding religion, semantics attributed by self-identified religious persons differ significantly from those of the spiritual persons. The ‘spiritual’ and the ‘religious’ groups agree on semantics attributed to spirituality but differ from the ‘neither spiritual nor religious’ group. Qualifications of differences and agreements become visible from the comparison between the United States and Germany. It is argued for the semantically sensitive study of culturally situated ‘spiritualities’. (shrink)

Faith development theory has evolved as a prominent theoretical perspective during the past three decades to explain different ways of relating to religious beliefs and worldviews. Recent revisions of the theory have elaborated on these characteristic ways as religious styles namely the fundamentalist, mutual, individuative-systemic, and dialogical. The present study developed an Urdu version of its principal measure, i.e., Faith Development Interview, to analyze twelve cases of Muslims of various religious affiliations within Islam in Pakistan. Four case studies representative of (...) each faith style are presented in detail. The cases are compared to analyze Islamic faith in terms of faith development theory and to understand fundamentalism in a Muslim context. The findings support faith development theory as a comprehensive paradigm to address the varieties of faith orientations in Islam. Implications for future research with larger samples in highly religious and collectivistic cultures are discussed. (shrink)

The goals of the study were to examine whether fundamentalism and authoritarianism could be distinguished by the Big Five factors of personality in American, Romanian and German samples, and to determine whether fundamentalism and authoritarianism could be distinguished by factor analysis in any of the three cultures. The results in all three cultures indicate that fundamentalism and authoritarianism have virtually identical personality correlates. In all three cultures, the two constructs were indistinguishable via exploratory factor analysis and could only be distinguished (...) via confirmatory factor analysis, although direction-of-wording effects dwarfed the differences between fundamentalism and authoritarianism. The findings suggest that researchers should view fundamentalism as religious authoritarianism, and should therefore be cautious when making inferences about religiosity from research on fundamentalism. (shrink)

The goals of the study were to examine whether fundamentalism and authoritarianism could be distinguished by the Big Five factors of personality in American, Romanian and German samples, and to determine whether fundamentalism and authoritarianism could be distinguished by factor analysis in any of the three cultures. The results in all three cultures indicate that fundamentalism and authoritarianism have virtually identical personality correlates. In all three cultures, the two constructs were indistinguishable via exploratory factor analysis and could only be distinguished (...) via confirmatory factor analysis, although direction-of-wording effects dwarfed the differences between fundamentalism and authoritarianism. The findings suggest that researchers should view fundamentalism as religious authoritarianism, and should therefore be cautious when making inferences about religiosity from research on fundamentalism. (shrink)

This article presents an outline of historical and situational arguments which suggest a focus on deconversion, an outline of conversion research and its consequences for deconversion, and a discussion of extant empirical research on deconversion. The discussion then focuses on the conceptualization of deconversion and compiles the features from which a comprehensive concept of deconversion may emerge. The core features of the deconversion concept which is suggested in this article are complemented by dimensions of diversity which also include a developmental (...) perspective . This has implications for future research. (shrink)

The positive role of religion in reducing prejudice has remained a neglected theme in Psychology of religion, concerning itself mostly with prejudice and fundamentalism. Recently, noting the absence of a positive antithesis to prejudice and fundamentalism, faith development theory presents xenosophia as going beyond mere tolerance to a creative engagement with other religious faiths to develop new insights and broaden one’s own worldview. The current research undertakes a study of Muslim faith contents to get insights into how these beliefs shape (...) construction of self in relation to other faith communities. Conducting inductive thematic analysis of faith development interviews from 12 Muslim participants from three major religious affiliations in Pakistan in an earlier research, the research analyzes a range of xenological patterns from xenophobia to xenosophia with associated potentials for inter-faith dialogue. Focusing on residents of a country with a dense Muslim population, the study carries implications for religious socialization and religious education in a globalized world. (shrink)