Integrating psychological science and religion.

Comments on S. L. Jones's (see record 1994-29392-001) assertion that psychology and religion cannot be considered to be categorically separated and that there should be a constructive, dialectic, and dialogical relationship between them. Aguinis and Aguinis suggest that the fundamental differences between the science of psychology and religion may not be as easily bridged as Jones indicated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can religion be used as a science in psychotherapy?

Applauds S. L. Jones's (see record 1994-29392-001) efforts to rediscover and elucidate the underlying tenets that bind, at the root level of basic humanity, the seemingly diverse principles of religion with the science and practice of psychology. Uniting religion and science at this psychological depth has demonstrated to Weiss and his colleagues an efficacious psychotherapy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Belief versus faith.

Commends S. L. Jones (see record 1994-29392-001) for his delineation of a practicable interface between religion and psychology. However, Cox argues that the integration of science and religion must ultimately go beyond Jones's "perhaps boldest model yet." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology of religion: A call for a broader paradigm.

In commenting on the article by R. L. Gorsuch (see record 1985-02900-001) concerning the measurement of religion, the author calls for a broader paradigm than that now dominating the psychology of religion. Is is argued that the underlying measurement view of science that pervades the psychology of religion is limited and inaccurate. The insistence in this view that only quantifiable data can be a part of science prevents the personological and comparative approaches from assuming their proper complementary roles and retards the development of the discipline. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Religion and science are mutually exclusive.

Contends that S. L. Jones's (see record 1994-29392-001) proposed similarities between religion and science rested, in large part, on superficial similarities. Furthermore, Ward argues that Jones ignored the fundamental distinctions that separate scientific endeavors from religious beliefs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology, religion, and the family: It's time for a revival.

Comments on the articles by A. Mahoney et al (see record 2001-05578-002), B. H. Fiese and T. J. Tomcho (see record 2001-05578-003), K. T. Sullivan (see record 2001-05578-004), and D. L. Flor and N. Flanagan Knapp (see record 2001-05578-005). Despite some occasional efforts to link psychology, religion, and the family, psychological research has largely ignored the topic. Three fundamental psychological questions about the role of religion in the family are raised. The publication of the 4 studies in this issue represents a watershed in this area, and these articles provide a model for future research. However, several pitfalls in this area of research are identified. These pitfalls are primarily due to the complexity of religion and heterogeneity associated with it. Four research directions are then recommended. It is concluded that this area is ripe for a research revival. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sacred cows and straw men.

Responds to the article by L. S. Brown (see record 84-26142) regarding managed care and false memory movement issues in social justice-oriented psychology, specifically in regard to the Biblical metaphors utilized. Dineen argues that psychology is shifting from a science to a religion. Consequently, with this shift has come imposed morality, bigotry, and demand for conformity within the garb of justice and salvation. Dineen argues that under this new religion, insured clients should have unlimited access to the therapy of their choice and that those claiming recovered memories should be protected from questions that might cause them to stop and think. What Brown's religion fails to do, is respect those individuals outside of the fold. It ignores the unbelieving and the uninsured. It fails to acknowledge the cold reality that there is not enough money available to pay for everybody's unlimited psychotherapy. In addition, it disregards a basic human fault (that people lie), and a basic human right (that people deserve the right to defend themselves). Dineen contends that these essential aspects of social justice are overlooked in Brown's article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology of religion: Placing paradigm in a historical and metatheoretical perspective.

Comments that R. L. Gorsuch (see record 1985-02900-001) cogently discussed both the current status and the prospects for future success of the measurement paradigm in psychology of religion. S. McFarland (see record 1985-02927-001) criticized Gorsuch's measurement paradigm as being too narrow and proposed that personological and comparative approaches be added to form a more encompassing paradigm. It is suggested that there are historical forebears to McFarland's call and that a broader paradigm must be based on a conceptual framework. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Spirituality, Health, and the Discipline of Psychology.

Replies to comments by D. J. McCormick (see record 2004-10043-013), L. J. Richmond (see record 2004-10043-014), C. A. Rayburn (see record 2004-10043-015), and F. J. Kier and D. S. Davenport (see record 2004-10043-016) on the special section on spirituality, religion, and health in the January 2003 issue of American Psychologist (2003, Vol 58, 24-74). Each of the comments is addressed in turn. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On Garfield, Hatch, and psychology's values.

Comments on an article by S. L. Garfield (see record 1984-07792-001), which was a reply to an article written by the US Senator, O. G. Hatch (see record 1983-11524-001), that cautioned psychologists not to alienate certain segments of society by threatening values about religion, marriage, and family life. It is contended that Garfield's references to censorship and freedom of expression are not relevant to the issues raised by Hatch and that psychology's loss of objectivity that has resulted from its involvement in politics is an unfortunate trend. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sperry's emergent interactionism.

In attempting to resolve the mind–body problem and the split between science and humanism/religion, R. W. Sperry (see record 1989-00022-001) proposed the concept of "emergent interactionism" and concluded that individuals can do whatever they subjectively choose, decide, or want to do. Not only is this conclusion at odds with reality, but the paradigm appears to be untestable and heuristically sterile. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Abilities, motives, and personal styles: Reply.

Responds to the comments of P. L. Ackerman (see record 2006-12925-012), D. Y. Dai (see record 2006-12925-013), and M. C. Gridley (see record 2006-12925-014) on E. S. Spelke's original article "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review" (see record 2005-15840-001). Here, the current authors first consider Ackerman's criticism of IQ measures of cognitive sex differences, as well as his suggestion that Advanced Placement tests be used as a second measure. Next, the authors discuss Dai's suggestion that cognition and motivation, abilities and strategies, are inseparably bound in any meaningful measure of aptitude for mathematics and science. Finally, the authors address Gridley's suggestion that differences in men's and women's thinking styles and preferences explain gender disparities in math and science fields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology's ethics of belief.

Comments on S. L. Jones's (see record 1994-29392-001) attempt to steer away from conventional habits of discourse toward a discussion of metaphysical and moral issues in general and of the relationship between religion and psychology in particular. Hoshmand contends that what Jones failed to address fully are individual differences in the epistemic styles, and personal–developmental and cultural influences on the ethics of belief. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Implications for psychology: Reply to comments.

Replies to the comments of D. E. Leary (see record 1986-07955-001), S. A. Mulaik (see record 1986-07961-001), D. N. Robinson (see record 1986-07966-001), and W. L. Stroud (see record 1986-07976-001) on the earlier presentation of the present authors (see record 1984-00037-001) about the new philosophy of science. The present authors are pleased with what they have been able to communicate and discuss what they feel has been misunderstood. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Advancing “the boldest model yet”: A commentary on psychology, religion, and spirituality.

Following O’Donahue’s (1989) consideration of the psychologist as metaphysician-scientist-practitioner, Jones (1994) proposed, “the boldest model yet” in which “religion could participate as an active partner with psychology as a science and as an applied discipline” (p. 184). Lisa Miller goes a step farther in her call for a spiritual psychology, which extends “a map of human experience beyond the material” and offers “the vast possibility of the science of psychology...to generate new methods beyond materialism” (see record 2010-09501-001). Each of the articles in this section illustrates what can be gained in reaching beyond materialism to meaning. Len Sperry (see record 2010-03251-006) advocates for a holistic, postmaterialist perspective to health, which de-emphasizes pathology and symptom reduction as the singular focus. Embedded in his thesis is the intricate connection between mind and body, yet he resists the unified model of scientific naturalism on the grounds that it “represents a biologization of spirituality.” The final article in this special section calls into question the fundamental assumptions of materialist psychology. Bruce Greyson’s study (see record 2010-03251-005) of near-death experiences challenges the assumption that the mind and the brain are identical and that psychological phenomena can be readily explained by existing physiological models. Will such challenges be embraced and will more fundamental questions be taken up, though it means that certain truth claims may need to be put aside? (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Selected views of family assessment: A commentary.

Comments on articles concerning family assessment by H. D. Grotevant (see record 1990-12120-001); R. B. Hampson et al (see record 1990-12122-001); D. C. Bell and L. G. Bell (see record 1990-12106-001); C. I. Carlson (see record 1990-12110-001); and T. L. Huston and J. K. Rempel (see record 1990-12126-001). It is suggested that theory needs to be related to research and practice more consistently. It would be useful to identify the principle theories in family science and critically examine the unique assessment issues raised by each perspective. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Natural science and unnatural technology.

L. D. Smith responds to comments by P. A. Lamal (see record 1993-35767-001) and J. W. Kimball and W. L. Heward (see record 1993-35766-001) on Smith's (see record 1992-21952-001) article on the contemplative and technological orientations to science. Smith emphasizes that the article was not meant to suggest that technology be abandoned in favor of helpless passivity, but to urge that large-scale applications of behavioral technology be grounded in comprehensive models that afford a systematic understanding of the short- and long-term effects of behavioral interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Religion, Spirituality, and Health: A Topic Not So New.

Comments on (1) the article by W. R. Miller and C. E. Thoresen (see record 2003-02034-003), which states that the area of spirituality, religion and health is seen as an emerging field; and (2) the article by P. C. Hill and K. I. Pargament (see record 2003-02034-006), which states that conceptualization and measurement of religion as spirituality neglect to consider any of the definitional work that has been completed and reported at the summit conferences of the Association for Spiritual, Ethical, and Religious Values in Counseling. Richmond asserts that the authors limited their search for resource material. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Religion's influence on culture and psychology.

Comments on E. Sampson's (see record 2001-16333-002) linking individualism and collectivism to religious origins. The author provides examples of cultures which are both Christian and collectivist, in contrast to what is predicted by Sampson's theory. The author draws upon comments made by L. S. Vygotsky on the culture of precommunist Russia to highlight the difficulty with abstracting the influence of religion on individualism and collectivism from the traditional East-West framework. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Data, theory, and meta-analysis: Response to Hoyle.

Responds to R. H. Hoyle's (see record 1994-08178-001) comments on F. L. Schmidt's (see record 1993-04195-001) distinction between meta-analysis and single-study data on the practice of science in psychology. Schmidt asserts that when using meta-analysis methods, rather than single-study data, sampling error that causes effect size estimates to vary can be overcome. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)