This document is a query form from a journal editor to an author regarding an article submission. It contains two queries for the author to clarify statements in the article. The editor thanks the author for their time and effort and asks them to assist by clarifying the queries when submitting changes to the production editor.
Institute of Interfaith Dialog - Prison Conversion to Islam - Christianityrigsbyml
In prison many inmates turn to religion for a novel world-view fostering belonging, identity, and management of life. Religious conversion may reinforce anti-social, radical identity or it may encourage pro-social conformity. This study focuses on the role of conversion in prisoner rehabilitation and the potential for the radicalization of prisoners in context of religious conversion. Given the relative dearth of research on either of the above subjects, this study examines conversion in prison and the potential tendencies for, the inclusivist, or the exclusivist, the incorporationist, or the rejectionist trajectories of conversion.
The striking conclusion of this research is that religious conversion is a much nuanced pathway for both Islam and Christianity. In each religion no definitive process of radicalization emerged to prove radicalization. What is found in both religions were many forks in the road during the conversion process and transforming of identities. These forks were evidenced in both the inclusivist and exclusivist religious community identity and in the incorporationist and rejectionist world-view identity. The narratives provided evidence that religion is just one alternative for gaining knowledge of self and belonging. The narratives defined other alternatives for gaining knowledge of self that included education, counseling, and gangs. What emerged from the analysis is that not all who experience religious conversion and exhibit exclusivist identity also become rejectionist. Conversely most became become incorporationist. In the analysis of this data only two participants, one Muslim and one Christian, coded both exclusivist and rejectionist. Of the exclusivists that are rejectionist, some may be nonviolent isolationists while others may be violent. It is these that may have the greatest tendency toward terrorism. In supporting the call of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2008) for sound academic study of radicalization in America’s prisons this research supports a major policy issue. It supports the finding that isolating one religion as a radicalization source may unduly burden the free practice of religion while failing to recognize that other religions may have the same tendencies to lead to radicalization and even terrorism.
Rigsby, Malcolm L. 2012. "Religious Conversion in Prison and its Directions: Community Identity, Religious Dogma, and Exclusivist Or Inclusivist Religiosity in American Prisons." Texas Woman's University, United States -- Texas.
Personal Identity: A Multidisciplinary InquiryMelanie Swan
Overview of personal identity from a philosophical perspective as conceived traditionally and disputed by Derek Parfit (Reasons and Persons; ‘personal identity is not required for the survival of the person’). An account of personal identity per philosophers Hume, Derrida, Deleuze, and Simondon. The evolutionary biological case for personal identity in humans. There is a large literature on the ability of members of many animal species (wasps for example) to distinguish specific individual others. I consider why and how personal identity might have evolved to bring adaptive fitness to humans, if the adaptation is still serving, and what forces might cause this to be different in the future.
Institute of Interfaith Dialog - Prison Conversion to Islam - Christianityrigsbyml
In prison many inmates turn to religion for a novel world-view fostering belonging, identity, and management of life. Religious conversion may reinforce anti-social, radical identity or it may encourage pro-social conformity. This study focuses on the role of conversion in prisoner rehabilitation and the potential for the radicalization of prisoners in context of religious conversion. Given the relative dearth of research on either of the above subjects, this study examines conversion in prison and the potential tendencies for, the inclusivist, or the exclusivist, the incorporationist, or the rejectionist trajectories of conversion.
The striking conclusion of this research is that religious conversion is a much nuanced pathway for both Islam and Christianity. In each religion no definitive process of radicalization emerged to prove radicalization. What is found in both religions were many forks in the road during the conversion process and transforming of identities. These forks were evidenced in both the inclusivist and exclusivist religious community identity and in the incorporationist and rejectionist world-view identity. The narratives provided evidence that religion is just one alternative for gaining knowledge of self and belonging. The narratives defined other alternatives for gaining knowledge of self that included education, counseling, and gangs. What emerged from the analysis is that not all who experience religious conversion and exhibit exclusivist identity also become rejectionist. Conversely most became become incorporationist. In the analysis of this data only two participants, one Muslim and one Christian, coded both exclusivist and rejectionist. Of the exclusivists that are rejectionist, some may be nonviolent isolationists while others may be violent. It is these that may have the greatest tendency toward terrorism. In supporting the call of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2008) for sound academic study of radicalization in America’s prisons this research supports a major policy issue. It supports the finding that isolating one religion as a radicalization source may unduly burden the free practice of religion while failing to recognize that other religions may have the same tendencies to lead to radicalization and even terrorism.
Rigsby, Malcolm L. 2012. "Religious Conversion in Prison and its Directions: Community Identity, Religious Dogma, and Exclusivist Or Inclusivist Religiosity in American Prisons." Texas Woman's University, United States -- Texas.
Personal Identity: A Multidisciplinary InquiryMelanie Swan
Overview of personal identity from a philosophical perspective as conceived traditionally and disputed by Derek Parfit (Reasons and Persons; ‘personal identity is not required for the survival of the person’). An account of personal identity per philosophers Hume, Derrida, Deleuze, and Simondon. The evolutionary biological case for personal identity in humans. There is a large literature on the ability of members of many animal species (wasps for example) to distinguish specific individual others. I consider why and how personal identity might have evolved to bring adaptive fitness to humans, if the adaptation is still serving, and what forces might cause this to be different in the future.
How Blockchain Technology is Reshaping Personal IdentityMelanie Swan
A multidisciplinary summary of personal identity, the individual, and subjectivation in the fields of biology, psychology/sociology, philosophy, evolutionary biology, and blockchain technology. In short, there are no grounds for these concepts beyond their use as convenient human constructs. Philosopher Derek Parfit vociferously contested the notion of personal identity (Reasons and Persons), claiming that "personal identity is not required for the survival of the person." Hume, Derrida, Deleuze, and Simondon agree. What is especially interesting and relevant is the status of the individual and personal identity as we progress into new eras of digital reality, and the evolutionary biological case for personal identity in humans. Personal identity may have evolved to bring adaptive fitness to humans, but there is evidence that the adaptation may no longer be serving as well, and could be different in the future per the new connected world computing paradigm and blockchain technology.
How Blockchain Technology is Reshaping Personal IdentityMelanie Swan
A multidisciplinary summary of personal identity, the individual, and subjectivation in the fields of biology, psychology/sociology, philosophy, evolutionary biology, and blockchain technology. In short, there are no grounds for these concepts beyond their use as convenient human constructs. Philosopher Derek Parfit vociferously contested the notion of personal identity (Reasons and Persons), claiming that "personal identity is not required for the survival of the person." Hume, Derrida, Deleuze, and Simondon agree. What is especially interesting and relevant is the status of the individual and personal identity as we progress into new eras of digital reality, and the evolutionary biological case for personal identity in humans. Personal identity may have evolved to bring adaptive fitness to humans, but there is evidence that the adaptation may no longer be serving as well, and could be different in the future per the new connected world computing paradigm and blockchain technology.
Copyright 1999 by Rosemead School of Psychology Biola Univ.docxbobbywlane695641
Copyright 1999 by Rosemead School of Psychology
Biola University, 0091-6471/410-730
Journal o f Psychology and Theology
1999, Vol. 27, N o . 1, 20-32
A n t e c e d e n t s t o t h e C o n f l i c t
B e t w e e n P s y c h o l o g y a n d R e l i g i o n
i n A m e r i c a
than not, studies dealing with the conflict between psy-
chology and religion limit their analyses to 20th century
personages who symbolize antireligious bias, as in Sig-
mund Freud and Albert Ellis (Goering, 1982; Neele-
man & Persaud, 1995; Quackenbos, Privette, & Klentz,
1986). Although Freud and Ellis have certainly con-
tributed to the acrimonious character of the relation-
ship, their commentary—far from being an eccentric or
peculiar feature of modem life—has roots that stretch
back to the late 19th century “divorce” of science from
religion.1 The object of this article is to show that mod-
em expressions of discord between psychologists and
religionists are meaningfully related to this historic dis-
agreement. This thesis will be developed over three sec-
tions. Section one will entail a description of the sundry
factors contributing to the amiable character of antebel-
lum science and religion. The second section, by con-
trast, will highlight the dissolution of this relationship
by describing the many challenges to religion that
emerged during the 19th century. The third and final
section will examine the negative impact of the divorce
of science and religion upon certain psychological tra-
ditions, which have, in the 20th century, caricatured
religious belief and practice as either illusory, pathologi-
cal, or deleterious to health.
1It is important to understand the current discord between psy-
chology and religion in its historical context. Without denying
other (modern) sources for the conflict, an historical understand-
ing of current antireligious psychologists enables us to properly sit-
uate their rhetoric and better interpret their commentary. Other
historians, however, stress other factors. Vande Kemp (1996), for
instance, argued that, following more general changes in society
and culture, the study of psychology, historically linked to the liber-
al arts curriculum, shifted away from “the truths of revelation” and
the person of Jesus Christ toward an empirical, rational, and seien-
tifie basis. In the tradition of Averoes’s two-truths doctrine, mod-
ern (secular) psychologists turned away from the integrationist
model, originated by Aquinas, and adopted a dichotomist under-
standing in which truth is self-refuting and knowledge fragmented.
Á n g e l d e J e s ú s C o r t é s
R ed Rocks Community College
Conflict models persist in the modern study of psychol-
ogy and religion. The antireligious sentiments of Sig-
mund Freud and Albert Ellis symbolize this interpretive
tradition best. Yet few researchers concern themselves
with examining the historical and intellectual
antecedent.
Essay 1 generally good content; but some issues with content as n.docxYASHU40
Essay 1: generally good content; but some issues with content as noted and some writing issues
Essay 2: good content, but writing issues in several places
Essay 3: good content, but lots of writing issues
Religion and Society
1. What is the “sociological perspective” and how does it impact the way we study religion? How is it different from non-social scientific (philosophical, theological) approaches to the study of religion? From other social scientific (psychological, anthropological) approaches?
The sociological perspective is a way of looking at religion that focuses on the human especially social aspects of religious belief and practice. It has two characteristics that separate it from non-scientific approaches to religion. It is empirical and objective. Sociologists usually try as much as possible to base their interpretations on empirical evidence. “They verify their images and explanations of social reality by experimental or experienced evidence. The objectivity in the sense that they do not attempt to evaluate accept or reject the content of religious beliefs .In the sociological perspective there is no religion that is superior to the other. One religion is not superior to another. Indeed the perspective does not presume the merits of religious over non-religious approaches. But if a religion has ideas on these subjects, it examines them and tries to understand them.
There are two central sociological perspectives which are: substantative and functional. Substantative tries to establish what religion is. It attempts to establish categories of religious content that qualify as religion and other categories specific as non-religion. Functional describes what religion does. It emphasizes what religion does for individual and social group. Accordingly religion is defined by the social functions it fulfills in the society
It emphasizes on the provision of meaning because the establishing of shared meaning is an essentially social event.
The sociological perspective impacts on the way we study religion in various ways. The aspects of the sociological perspective on religion may create elude a bad feeling to students who find their cherished beliefs and practices dispassionately treated as object of study as stipulated in (http://fasnafan.tripod.com/religion.pdf).Normal human beings due to their nature tend to feel bad when they find their religion becoming the subject of discussion and study. They feel that those people are abusing and disregarding their religion. It may be disturbing to have one’s own religion treated as comparable to other religions and not as superior or uniquely true.maybe maybe not---you need proof to make this claim--not just ideas
Also true, but awkward writingwhat the sociologist and the believer hold about a certain religion may be contradicting. What is central to the sociologist may be irrelevant and uninteresting to th ...
A presentation created to look at whether there is any truth to the idea that religion, in particular Biblical Inerrancy (Christian Fundamentalism), is a barrier to the Public's Acceptance of Scientific Knowledge.
2LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY Research Pap.docxrhetttrevannion
2
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Research Paper Proposal
Submitted to Professor Dr. Robert Wetmore
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
THEO-525-B07 LUO
Systematic Theology 1
by
Avery Clementin
September 24 , 2018
Sinning is not a normal lifestyle for those people who believe in God. When we commit sin there is always an effect on us and the people around us. Sin takes away our ability to understand the truth in spirit. Christians always depend upon the Holy Spirit so that they may expect to learn permanent values of the spirit. Many believers assume that God loves them so much that He overlooks their indiscretions, lapses and little faults. However, in the eyes of the Lord regardless of how small it is, sin is sin. Eventually sin will always find you out.
In the beginning, there was no sin or evil in the earth. The entire earth was perfect (Koslowski, 2017). However, a time came when sin entered the world and their immediate consequences were catastrophic. Sin is a form of slavery to mankind (peels,2018). It is therefore important to study on how sin enslaves people. We also need to know the effects of our personal relationships with God when we sin. This would help us explore ways in which we can manage and maintain good relationships with our father. The study would also explain how sin causes death and how mankind can avoid it.
In this paper we will analyze the different forms of sin and its origin. We will also outline the Bibles’ view on sin and how it impacts our normal way of living and our relationship with God. There will be a section in this paper for the discussion of the wages of sin and provide numerous examples from the bible. Later, we will come up with ways in which mankind can manage to live a life without sin. We will then come up with a conclusion based on our topics of discussion listed above.
Bibliography
Koslowski, Peter. "Baader: The Centrality of Original Sin and the Difference of Immediacy and Innocence." In Volume 6, Tome I: Kierkegaard and His German Contemporaries-Philosophy, pp. 19-34. Routledge, 2017.
Uecker, Jeremy E., Christopher G. Ellison, Kevin J. Flannelly, and Amy M. Burdette. "Belief in human sinfulness, belief in experiencing divine forgiveness, and psychiatric symptoms." Review of Religious Research 58, no. 1 (2016): 1-26.
Oei, Amos Winarto. "Reformed Virtue after Barth: Developing Moral Virtue Ethics in the Reformed Tradition by Kirk J. Nolan." Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 37, no. 2 (2017): 213-214.
Peels, Rik, Hans van Eyghen, and Gijsbert van den Brink. "Cognitive Science of Religion and the Cognitive Consequences of Sin." In New Developments in the Cognitive Science of Religion, pp. 199-214. Springer, Cham, 2018.
Vorster, Nico. "Assessing the consistency of John Calvin's doctrine on human sinfulness." HTS Theological Studies 71, no. 3 (2015): 01-08.
Venter, Dirk J. "Romans 8: 3-4 and God's resolution of the threefold problems of.
Ahmed Khoshaim01192017RELS 3345.ONLDr. Joseph DeLeon.docxnettletondevon
Ahmed Khoshaim
01/19/2017
RELS 3345.ONL
Dr. Joseph DeLeon
Why creating one universal definition of religion is so difficult? Comment by Dr. Joseph DeLeon: This is a statement, not a question. In American English, questions usually begin with a verb, in the case of your title, if you wanted to frame the title as a question, you should have written it as:
“Why is creating one universal definition of the notion of religion so difficult? Notice that I highlighted the verb “is” to show its location at the beginning of the sentence.
If you have issues with writing in English, I would highly recommend visiting the Writing Center. There you will find a wonderful group of individuals who are very good at helping students do well with their writing assignments so that they can earn the high grades that they may deserve.
Religion is the most difficult word to define it meaning primarily to various individuals from diverse communities. Every community views the word religion in a clear manner, making it believe the real meaning of the word. The term is usually utilized globally by various individuals asserting own meaning according to their belief. It is an argument that the religion power has to bind a person to a community, course of action in their daily life, culture ideology among other activities that the community undertakes believing that they are religious. Besides this argument, there are different individuals with their arguments that try to elaborate religion, making it difficult to understand the real meaning of the word. Religion is a word with no data or environment that tries to prove its purpose, making it is considered as the creation of many scholar’s study search as Rudolf Otto, James Martineau, Antony Wallace, and James Frazer among others. Comment by Dr. Joseph DeLeon: Your sentence should have been written so that it would read something like this:
Religion is a difficult term to define because it has a different meaning to different individuals around the world. Comment by Dr. Joseph DeLeon: Again, your sentence should have read:
Most communities interpret the term “religion” from their own particular point of view and sincerely believe that their perspective is the most valid.
It would also help if you had identified your source of information regarding this statement. Supporting your opinions and assertions is a requirement in this class. Comment by Dr. Joseph DeLeon: You’ve already asserted this – you are merely repeating yourself. Comment by Dr. Joseph DeLeon: This is not English and I would recommend that you have someone review your entire paper and help you re-write it. I will allow you to have a one-time opportunity to resubmit this MOD ONE assignment. However, all of your other assignments will be checked to make sure that your submissions the University’s college level quality standards and will be graded accordingly.
These individuals have used their life experiences and thoughts to explain the real me.
ASSESSMENT-2 OVERVIEWWrite a 3–4-page assessment in which yo.docxpetuniahita
ASSESSMENT-2
OVERVIEW
Write a 3–4-page assessment in which you examine the relationship between behavior and attitude and apply one theory to support your position.
Attitudes help guide behavior, although sometimes people act in ways that contradict their attitudes (Baumeister & Bushman, 2014). Some have said that attitudes are directly related to behavior; others say there is no strong relationship between attitude and behavior. Examining theories of how people develop attitudes and perceptions can lead to heightened self-awareness.
CONTEXT
The self is a complex and marvelous participant in the social world. There are three main components of the self: self-knowledge, interpersonal self, and agent self. The self is a vital means of gaining social acceptance and for participation in culture. But is there such a thing as a "true self"?
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
To deepen your understanding, you are encouraged to consider the questions below and discuss them with a fellow learner, a work associate, an interested friend, or a member of the business community.
•
Does your level of self-esteem change depending on the situation? In what types of situations have you noticed a change?
What self-defeating behaviors have you noticed in others or identified in yourself? How does this behavior relate to theory?
RESOURCES
Suggested Resources
The following optional resources are provided to support you in completing the assessment or to provide a helpful context. For additional resources, refer to the Research Resources and Supplemental Resources in the left navigation menu of your courseroom.
Library Resources
The following e-books or articles from the Capella University Library are linked directly in this course.
Note
: some of the articles included here are fairly old but are included because they are considered seminal works in the field of social psychology.
•
Burnette, J. L., O'Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013).
Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation
.
Psychological Bulletin, 139
(3), 655–701.
•
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010).
Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition
.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95
(1), 132–144.
•
Hu, H., & Driscoll, M. P. (2013).
Self-regulation in e-learning environments: A remedy for community college?
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16
(4), 171–184.
•
Crabb, P. B. (2003).
Technology and self-regulation: The case of alarm clock use
.
Social Behavior and Personality, 31
(4), 343–348.
•
Schmitz, B., Schmidt, M., Landmann, M., & Spiel, C. (2007).
New developments in the field of self-regulated learning
.
Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215
(3), 153–156.
•
Mischel, W., Ayduk, O., Berman, M. G., Casey, B. J., Gotlib, I. H., Jonides, J., . . . Shoda, Y. (2011).
'Willpower' over the life span: Decomposing self-regulation.
''Princess alice'' is watching you (piazza et al. 2011)
Why does religiosity persist (sedikides 2010)
1. AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Journal title: PSPR
Article Number: 352323
Dear Author/Editor,
Greetings, and thank you for publishing with SAGE. Your article has been copyedited, and we have a few queries for you. Please
respond to these queries when you submit your changes to the Production Editor.
Thank you for your time and effort.
Please assist us by clarifying the following queries:
No Query
1 PLEASE CLARIFY IF THIS STATEMENT IS CORRECT
2 PLEASE CLARIFY IF THIS STATEMENT IS CORRECT
3. 2 Personality and Social Psychology Review XX(X)
this topic to the discretion of those few highly religious or strengthening one’s faith in God in the presence of
highly antireligious researchers. This pattern, in turn, may suffering.
have tainted the study of religion and religiosity as poten- The next five articles take a functional approach to religios-
tially biased and as jeopardizing the objectivity of scientific ity. They argue in favor of specific motive or need driving
scrutiny (Stark & Bainbridge, 1985). religious belief and practice. Sedikides and Gebauer (IN
In the past few years, however, there have been clear signs PRESS) meta-analytically test the idea that the self-enhancement
that psychology, and in particular social and personality psy- motive underlies religiosity (intrinsic, extrinsic, religion-as-
chology, is abandoning this somewhat insular attitude. Now, quest). They show that both macro-level culture (countries
an increasing number of researchers are conducting cutting- varying in religiosity) and micro-level culture (U.S. universities
edge research on religiosity. Recent world events (e.g., 9/11), varying in religiosity) moderate the self-enhancement–religios-
the positive psychology movement, and the intensification of ity link. The positive relation between self-enhancement and
the age-long debate between religious and secular circles have intrinsic religiosity is stronger, and the low or negative relation
all contributed to this change of hearts. Religiosity—an orien- between self-enhancement and extrinsic religiosity or religion-
tation, behavioral set, and lifestyle considered important by as-quest is stronger (i.e., more negative), the higher the culture
the large majority of people worldwide—cannot be neglected is on religiosity. Kay, Gaucher, McGregor, and Nash (IN
by social and personality psychology any longer. PRESS) zero in on the motive for control. They propose that
This special issue attempts to capture the zeitgeist of this religion serves as a means for preserving the belief in an orderly
explosion of interest in religiosity by providing a vibrant world, especially when other relevant structures fail to satisfy
forum for an exchange of ideas and, thus, greater participa- the motive for control. They demonstrate that experimentally
tion of social and personality psychology in an ongoing and induced low levels of personal control elevate belief in God or
societally relevant debate. The special issue explores the spiritual forces. They also review evidence showing that, when
potential of social and personality psychology theories to the stability of external control structures (e.g., government) is
account for the phenomenon of religiosity (including, but not threatened, religious belief increases. Granqvist, Mikulincer,
limited to, belief in supernatural agency). Social and person- and Shaver (IN PRESS) maintain that religious beliefs satisfy
ality psychologists have a reputation as theory builders. relational concerns and in particular attachment needs. The rela-
What is it that all those years of powerful theorizing have to tionship with God is an attachment relationship and is especially
offer? What do the data have to say? The objective of the beneficial to individuals who are insecurely attached. Ysseldyk,
special issue, then, is to use existing and well-established Matheson, and Hymie (IN PRESS) and Hogg, Adelman, and
theory, coupled with supportive empirical evidence, to Blagg (IN PRESS) view religion as a group phenomenon.
explain the phenomenon of religiosity in all its complexity Ysseldyk et al. propose the motive for a positive social identity
and heterogeneity. All aspects of religiosity (e.g., different as an explanation for religiosity. Identification with social
religions as practiced by different cultures) are fair targets groups entails benefits but also costs, as when it is threatened by
for dispassionate analysis, debate, and inclusion. intergroup conflict. Hogg et al. posit that uncertainty reduction
Special issue articles share four commonalities. First, not only underpins religiosity but also influences conformity
they ask “why” questions. Why is religiosity so important to with religious leaders, which may culminate in immoral behav-
so many people? Why is religiosity important to some people ior. Vail et al. (IN PRESS) emphasize the terror management
and not to others? What are the functions that religiosity functions of religiosity. It reduces death anxiety, as it serves to
serves? Second, they take a theoretical approach. Contribu- provide people with psychological equanimity in the face of
tions draw from established theories to understand and death awareness.
explain diverse aspects of religiosity. Third, they focus on Koole, McCullough, Kuhl, and Roelofsma (IN PRESS)
social and personality psychological approaches to religios- grapple with a paradox. How can religious persons have rela-
ity. Finally, they try to accomplish several specific tasks: tively high levels of emotional well-being when they often
(a) to outline the theory that underlies their argument, (b) to endure aversive experiences or forsake pleasurable ones?
provide selected empirical demonstrations of the theory’s Their answer is that religion facilitates an implicit form of
veracity from the social/personality psychological literature, self-regulation that allows both striving for high standards
(c) importantly, to discuss empirical findings that are directly and maintaining emotional well-being. Their theoretical
linked to the phenomenon of religiosity, and (d) to draw framework and empirical evidence address a related para-
implications for future empirical pursuits. dox, namely, the tenacity of irrational aspects of religion.
Gray and Wegner (IN PRESS) open up by examining This irrationality, though, is more seeming than real, as it
perceptions of a supernatural agency. They argue that people confers vital psychological benefits in promoting implicit
perceive God as possessing agency but not experience. God self-regulation.
is seen as the ultimate moral agent, the entity that people In a meta-analysis and a narrative review, Saroglou (IN
blame for their misfortunes and praise for their fortune. Their PRESS) sketches the religious personality: Religious individu-
theoretical analysis explains such curious phenomena as als are high on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness but low
4. Sedikides 3
on Openness to Experience. These findings contextualize the Burkert, W. (1960). Creation of the sacred: Tracks of biology in
contributions by D. Hall, Matz, and Wood (IN PRESS) and early religions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Graham and Haidt (IN PRESS). In a meta-analysis, Hall et al. Crabtree, S. (2009). Analyst insights: Religiosity around the world.
show that religious individuals are racist to the extent that the Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http://www.gallup.com/
belief systems of religiosity and racism share the values of video/114694/Analyst-Insights-Religiosity-Around-World.aspx
social conformity and respect for tradition. Graham and Haidt Darwin, C. (1859). On the origins of species by means of natural
highlight the social side of religiosity by suggesting that reli- selection. London: John Murray.
gion is mainly founded on the group-focused values of in-group Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
or loyalty, authority or respect, and purity or sanctity. Their Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on earth: The evidence for
theoretical proposals can explain such rather puzzling phenom- evolution. London: Bantam.
ena as why most people are religious worldwide, why religious Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon
persons are more charitable than nonreligious ones, and why & Schuster.
religious individuals are happier than nonreligious ones. Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phe-
Religiosity is a complex, multiply determined phenome- nomenon. London: Viking.
non. Capitalizing on social and personality psychology Durkheim, E. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life. New
theory, the special issue offers a nonexhaustive but fairly York: Free Press. (Original work published 1912)
representative portrait of the landscape featuring social and Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as “other”:
personality psychology and religiosity. The special issue Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society.
emphasizes process-oriented explanations of religiosity that American Sociological Review, 71, 211-234.
take into account individual differences. This emphasis Emmons, R. A. (1999). Religion in the psychology of personality:
promises to strengthen the coherence of theorizing and An introduction. Journal of Personality, 67, 873-888.
research on religiosity. It is hoped that the special issue will Emmons, R. A., & Palouzian, R. F. (2003). The psychology of reli-
elucidate the phenomenon of religiosity per se, challenge gion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 377-402.
and expand social and personality psychology theories in Exline, J. J. (2002). Stumbling blocks on the religious road: Frac-
novel ways, bring social and personality psychology to the tured relationships, nagging vices, and the inner struggle to
forefront of explanations for religiosity, and build bridges believe. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 182-189.
and a healthy dialogue between social and personality psy- Freud, S. (1961a). Civilization and its discontents (J. Strachey,
chology perspectives and other approaches to religiosity. Trans.). New York: Norton. (Original work published 1930)
The ultimate hope is that each article will prove generative, Freud, S. (1961b). The future of an illusion (J. Strachey, Trans.).
provide fodder for future empirical directions, and spark New York: Norton. (Original work published 1927)
research on religiosity. Gallup. (2009). Religion. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Glaeser, E. L., & Sacerdote, B. I. (2008). Education and religion.
The author declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
to the authorship and/or publication of this article. [AQ: 1] Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of
Psychology, 39, 201-221.
Financial Disclosure/Funding Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (IN PRESS). Beyond beliefs: Religions
The author received no financial support for the research and/or bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and
authorship of this article. [AQ: 2] Social Psychology Review.
Granqvist, P., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (IN PRESS). Religion
References as attachment: Normative processes and individual differences.
Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Macmillan. Gray, K., & Wegner, D. (IN PRESS). Blaming God for our pain:
Atran, S. (2002). In Gods we trust. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Human suffering and the divine mind. Personality and Social
Press. Psychology Review.
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Religion and psychology: Introduction to Hall, D., Matz, D., & Wood, W. (IN PRESS). Why don’t we prac-
the special issue. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 165-167. tice what we preach? Social-cognitive motives behind religious
Berring, J. M. (2006). The folk psychology of souls. Behavioral racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
and Brain Sciences, 29, 453-498. Hall, G. S. (1917). Jesus, the Christ, in the light of Psychology
Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford, UK: Oxford (2 vols.). New York: Appleton.
University Press. Harris, S. (2004). The end of faith: Religion, terror and the future of
Bloom, P. (2005). Is God an accident? Atlantic Monthly, 296, 105-112. reason. New York: Norton.
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained. London: Heinemann. Hinde, R. A. (1999). Why Gods persist: A scientific approach to
Boyer, P. (2008). Religion: Bound to believe? Nature, 455, 1038-1039. religion. London: Routledge.
5. 4 Personality and Social Psychology Review XX(X)
Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons every- Saroglou, V. (IN PRESS). Religiosity as a cultural adaptation of
thing. New York: Twelve. basic traits: A five-factor model perspective. Personality and
Hogg, M. A., Adelman, J. R., & Blagg, R. D. (IN PRESS). Reli- Social Psychology Review.
gion in the face of uncertainty: Uncertainty-identity theory of Sedikides, C., & Gebauer, J. E. (IN PRESS). Religiosity as self-
religiousness and religious extremism. Personality and Social enhancement: A meta-analysis of the relation between socially
Psychology Review. desirable responding and religiosity. Personality and Social
James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience: A study in Psychology Review.
human nature. New York: Random House. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York:
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., McGregor, I., & Nash, K. (IN PRESS). Macmillan.
Religious belief as compensatory control. Personality and Sloan-Wilson, D. (2002). Darwin’s cathedral: Evolution, religion,
Social Psychology Review. and the nature of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Attachment, evolution, and the psychol- Smith, T. B., McCullough, M. E., & Poll, J. (2003). Religiousness
ogy of religion. Portland, OR: Guilford. and depression. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 614-636.
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Starbuck, E. D. (1899). Psychology of religion. London: Walter Scott.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportu- Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1985). The future of religion: Secu-
nities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General larization, revival, and cult formation. Berkeley: University of
Psychology, 10, 302-317. California Press.
Koole, S., McCullough, M., Kuhl, J., & Roelofsma, P. (IN PRESS). Vail, K., III, Rothchild, Z., Weise, D., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T.,
Why religion’s burdens are light: From religiosity to implicit & Greenberg, J. (IN PRESS). A terror management analysis of
self-regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review. the psychological functions of religion. Personality and Social
Leuba, J. H. (1925). The psychology of religious mysticism. New Psychology Review.
York: Harcourt Brace. Ysseldyk, Y., Matheson, K., & Hymie, A. (IN PRESS). Religiosity
Marx, K. (1843). Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Rozin, P. (2006). Domain denigration and process preference in Zuckerman, P. (2005). Atheism: Contemporary rates and patterns.
academic psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, In M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism
1, 366-376. (pp. 47-67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.