User:MercyCAT211/sandbox

Overview[edit]

The challenge for the psychology of religion is essentially threefold: (1) to provide a thoroughgoing description of the objects of investigation, whether they be shared religious content (e.g., a tradition's ritual observances) or individual experiences, attitudes, or conduct; (2) to account in psychological terms for the rise of such phenomena; and (3) to clarify the outcomes—the fruits, as William James put it—of these phenomena, for individuals and for the larger society.[1]

The first, descriptive task naturally requires a clarification of one's terms, above all, the word religion. Historians of religion have long underscored the problematic character of this term, noting that its usage over the centuries has changed in significant ways, generally in the direction of reification.[2] The early psychologists of religion were fully aware of these difficulties, typically acknowledging that the definitions they were choosing to use were to some degree arbitrary.[3] With the rise of positivistic trends in psychology over the course of the 20th century, especially the demand that all phenomena be measured, psychologists of religion developed a multitude of scales, most of them developed for use with Protestant Christians.[4] Factor analysis was also brought into play by both psychologists and sociologists of religion, in an effort to establish a fixed core of dimensions and a corresponding set of scales. The justification and adequacy of these efforts, especially in the light of constructivist and other postmodern viewpoints, remains a matter of debate.

In the last several decades, especially among clinical psychologists, a preference for the terms "spirituality" and "spiritual" has emerged, along with efforts to distinguish them from "religion" and "religious." Especially in the United States, "religion" has for many become associated with sectarian institutions and their obligatory creeds and rituals, thus giving the word a negative cast; "spirituality," in contrast, is positively constructed as deeply individual and subjective, as a universal capacity to apprehend and accord one's life with higher realities.[5] In fact, "spirituality" has likewise undergone an evolution in the West, from a time when it was essentially a synonym for religion in its original, subjective meaning.[6] '''Pargament (1997) suggests that rather than limiting the usage of “religion” to functional terms, a search for meaning, or substantive terms, anything related to the sacred, we can consider the interplay of these two vantage point. He proposes that religion can be considered the process of searching for meaning in relationship with the sacred.''' Today, efforts are ongoing to "operationalize" these terms, with little regard for their history in their Western context and with the apparent realist assumption that underlying them are fixed qualities identifiable by means of empirical procedures.[7]

Religion and prayer[edit]

'''Religious practice oftentimes manifests itself in some form of prayer. Recent studies have focused specifically on the effects of prayer on health. It must be understood that measures of prayer and measures of spirituality include evaluate different characteristics and should not be considered synonymous.'''

Prayer is fairly prevalent in the United States. About 75% of the United States reports praying at least once a week.[46] However, the practice of prayer is more prevalent and practiced more consistently among Americans who perform other religious practices.[47] There are four primary types of prayer in the West. Poloma and Pendleton,[48][49] utilized factor analysis to delineate these four types of prayer: meditative (more spiritual, silent thinking), ritualistic (reciting), petitionary (making requests to God), and colloquial (general conversing with God). Further scientific study of prayer using factor analysis has revealed three dimensions of prayer.[50] Ladd and Spilka’s first factor was awareness of self, inward reaching. Their second and third factors were upward reaching (toward God) and outward reaching (toward others). This study appears to support the contemporary model of prayer as connection (whether to the self, higher being, or others). '''Dein and Littlewood (2008) suggest that an individual’s prayer life can be viewed on a spectrum ranging from immature to mature. A progression on the scale is characterized by a change in the perspective of the purpose of prayer. Rather than using prayer as a means of changing the reality of a situation, a more mature individual will use prayer to request assistance in coping with immutable problems and draw closer to God or others. This change in perspective has been shown to be associated with an individual’s passage through adolescence.[1]'''

Prayer appears to have health implications. Empirical studies suggest that mindfully reading and reciting the Psalms (from scripture) can help a person calm down and focus.[51][52] Prayer is also positively correlated with happiness and religious satisfaction (Poloma & Pendleton, 1989, 1991). '''A study conducted by Franceis, Robbins, Lewis, and Barnes (2008) investigated the relationship between self-reported prayer frequency and measures of psychoticism and neuroticism according to the abbreviated form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A). The study included a sample size of 2306 students attending Protestant and Catholic schools in the highly religious culture of Northern Ireland. The data shows a negative correlation between prayer frequency and psychoticism. The data also shows that, in Catholic students, frequent prayer has a positive correlation to neuroticism scores.[3] Ladd and McIntosh (2008) suggest that prayer-related behaviors, such as bowing the head and clasping the hands together in an almost fetal position, are suggestive of “social touch” actions. Prayer in this manner may prepare an individual to carry out positive pro-social behavior after praying, due to factors suchas increased blood flow to the head and nasal breathing.[4]''' Overall, slight health benefits have been found fairly consistently across studies. Three main pathways to explain this trend have been offered: placebo effect, focus and attitude adjustment, and activation of healing processes.[54] '''Breslan and Lewis (2008) have identified five pathways of mediation between prayer and health for consideration: physiological, psychological, placebo, social support, and spiritual. The spiritual mediator is a departure from the rest in that its potential for empirical investigation is not currently feasible. Although the conceptualizations of chi, the universal mind, divine intervention, and the like breach the boundaries of scientific observation, they are included in this model as possible links between prayer and health so as to not unnecessarily exclude the supernatural from the broader conversation of psychology and religion.''' (However, whether the activation of healing processes explanation is supernatural or biological, or even both, is beyond the scope of this study and this article.) References

Breslin, Michael J., and Christopher Alan Lewis. "Theoretical Models of the Nature of Prayer and Health: A Review." Mental Health, Religion & Culture 11.1 (2008): 9-21. Print.

Dein, Simon, and Roland Littlewood. "The Psychology of Prayer and the Development of the Prayer Experience Questionnaire." Mental Health, Religion & Culture 11.1 (2008): 39-52. Print.

Francis, Leslie J., Mandy Robbins, Christopher Alan Lewis, and L. Philip Barnes. "Prayer and Psychological Health: A Study among Sixth-form Pupils Attending Catholic and Protestant Schools in Northern Ireland." Mental Health, Religion & Culture 11.1 (2008): 85-92. Print.

Ladd, Kevin L., and Daniel N. Mcintosh. "Meaning, God, and Prayer: Physical and Metaphysical Aspects of Social Support." Mental Health, Religion & Culture 11.1 (2008): 23-38. Print.

Pargament, Kenneth I. The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford, 1997. Print.