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’.
AhnG. (1997). Religion I. Religionsgeschichtlich. InTheologische Realenzyklopädie. Bd. 28 (S. 513-522). Berlin: de Gruyter.
2.
BarkerE. (2007) Preface. In KosminB. A. & KeysarA. (Eds.), Secularism and Secularity. Contemporary International Perspectives Institute for the Study of Secularism in the Society and Culture. (ISSSC) http://prog.trincoll.edu/ISSSC/Book/Chapters.asp (accessed 20 Aug 2010).
3.
BensonP.L. & SpilkaB.P. (1973). God-image as a function of self-esteem and locus of control. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 297–310.
4.
Bertelsmann Foundation (Ed.) (2009). What the World Believes: Analysis and Commentary on the Religion Monitor 2008.Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann-Stiftung.
5.
BianchiU. (Ed.) (1994). The Notion of ‘Religion’ in Comparative Research. Selected Proceedings of theXVIth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Rome, 3-8 September 1990. Rom: Bretschneider.
6.
BortzJ. & DöringN. (2006) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschafter.Heidelberg: Springer.
7.
BrodyN. (1965). Psychology of the scientist. XIII. Scientific and religious experiences distinguished by their “affect”. Psychological Reports, 16, 737–744.
8.
BroughtonW. (1975). Theistic conceptions in American protestantism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 331–344.
9.
BüssingA. (2006). “Spiritualität”—Worüber reden wir? In BüssingA.OstermannT.GlöcklerM. & MatthießenP. F. (Eds.), Spiritualität, Krankheit und Heilung—Bedeutung und Ausdrucksformen der Spiritualität in der Medizin (pp. 69–84). Frankfurt/Main: Verlag für Akademische Schriften.
10.
CostaP. T. & McCraeR. R. (1985). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor-Inventory (NEO-FFI). Professional Manual.Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
11.
CraddickR. A.ThuminF. J. & BarclayA. G. (1971). A semantic differential study of the yin-yang symbol. Journal of Personality Assessment, 35, 338–343.
12.
DaiberK.-F. (2001). Christus-Pavillon und Pavillon der Hoffnung. In LukatisW. & WegnerG. (Eds.), Das Christentum auf der EXPO 2000 (pp. 213–226). Würzburg: Ergon.
13.
EmmonsR. A. (1999). The Psychology of Ultimate Concerns. Motivation and Spirituality in Personality.New York: Guilford.
14.
FowlerJ. W. (1981). Stages of Faith. The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
15.
FowlerJ. W.StreibH. & KellerB. (2004). Manual for Faith Development Research.(3rd edn.) Bielefeld/Atlanta: Research Center for Biographical Studies in Contemporary Religion/Center for Research in Faith and Moral Development, Emory University [available at: http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/religionsforschung/].
16.
FrancisL. J. (1997). The psychology of gender differences in religion: A review of empirical research. Religion, 27, 81–96.
17.
FrancisL. J.RobbinsM. & GibsonH. M. (2006). A revised Semantic Differential Scale distinguishing between negative and positive God images. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 27, 237–240.
18.
FullerR. C. (2001). Spiritual, but not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
GESIS—Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften (Ed.) (2008). ALLBUS 2008 (Vollversion). Mannheim: GESIS—Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. Online accessible at: www.gesis.org/dienstleistungen/daten/umfragedaten/allbus/.
20.
GranqvistP. (2002). Attachment and Religion: An Integrative Developmental Framework. Ph.D. Diss., Avhandlingar från Uppsala Universitet.
21.
GreenwaldD. F. & HarderD. W. (2003). The dimensions of spirituality. Psychological Reports, 92, 975–980.
22.
HaußigH. M. (1999). Der Religionsbegriff in den Religionen. Studien zum Selbst und Religionsverständnis in Hinduismus, Buddhismus, Judentum und Islam.Berlin: Philo.
23.
HeelasP.WoodheadL.SeelB.SzerszynskiB. & TustingK. (2005). The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality.Oxford: Blackwell.
24.
HeiseD. R. (2010) Surveying Cultures: Discovering Shared Conceptions and Sentiments.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
25.
HofmanJ. E. (1970). The meaning of being a Jew in Israel. An analysis of ethnic identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 196–202.
26.
HofstätterP. R. (1957). Psychologie.Frankfurt/Main: Fischer.
27.
HoodR. W. (1973). Dogmatism and opinions about mental illness. Psychological Reports, 32, 1283–1290.
28.
HoodR. W. (1974). Cognitive and affective rejection of mentally ill persons as a function of dogmatism. Psychological Reports, 35, 543–549.
29.
HoodR. W. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported mystical experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 29–41.
30.
HoodR. W. (2003). Spirituality and Religion. In GreilA. L. & BromleyD. G. (Eds.), Religion: Critical Approaches to Drawing Boundaries between Sacred and Secular (pp. 241–264). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
31.
HoodR. W.HillP. C. & SpilkaB. (2009). The Psychology of Religion. An Empirical Approach.New York: Guilford.
32.
HoodR. W.MorrisR. J.HickmanS. E. & WatsonP. J. (1995). Martin and Malcolm as cultural icons: An empirical study comparing lower class African-American and white males. Review of Religious Research, 36, 382–388.
33.
HoutmanD. & AupersS. (2007). The spiritual turn and the decline of tradition: The spread of post-Christian spirituality in 14 Western countries, 1981-2000. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 305–320.
34.
HuberS. (2002). Religiöse Selbstkonzepte im Spiegel der Repertory Grid-Technik. Wege zum Menschen, 54, 220–230.
35.
LaCourP.AuskerN. H. & HvidtN. C. (2012). Six understandings of the word ‘spirituality’ in a secular country. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 34, 63–81.
36.
McAdamsD. P. & de St AubinE. D. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Adult Development, 62, 1003–1015.
37.
MuthenB.OlssonU.PetterssonT. & StahlbergG. (1977). Measuring religious attitudes using the semantic differential technique: An application of three-mode factor analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 275–288.
38.
National Opinion Research Center (Ed.) (2009). General Social Survey 1972-2008 Data File.Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Online accessible at: www.norc.org/projects/general+social+survey.htm.
39.
OECD (2011). Education at a Glance 2011. OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
40.
OECD Factbook 2011-2012. OECD Publishing.
41.
OsgoodC. E. (1962). Studies on the Generality of affective meaning systems. American Anthropologist, 17, 10–28.
42.
OsgoodC. E. (1972). The nature and measurement of meaning. In SniderJ. G. & OsgoodC. E. (Eds.), Semantic Differential Technique: A Sourcebook (pp. 3–41). Chicago/New York: Aldine/Atherton.
43.
OsgoodC. E.MayW. H. & MironM. S. (1975) Cross-cultural Universals of Affective Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
44.
RyffC. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
45.
RyffC. D. & SingerB. H. (1998). The role of purpose in life and growth in positive human health. In WongP. T. P. & FryP. S. (Eds.), The Human Quest for Meaning. Handbook of Psychological Research and Clinical Applications (pp. 213–235). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46.
SchlehoferM. M.OmotoA. M. & AdelmanJ. R (2008). How do ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ differ? Lay definitions among older adults. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47, 411–425.
47.
SchmitzB. (1996). ‘Religion’ und seine Entsprechungen im interkulturellen Bereich.Marburg: Tectum.
48.
SniderJ. G. & OsgoodC. E. (1972). Semantic Differential Technique: A Sourcebook.Chicago: Aldine (first published in 1969).
49.
StreibH. (2008). More spiritual than religious: Changes in the religious field require new approaches. In StreibH.DinterA. & SöderblomK. (Eds.). Lived Religion—Conceptual, Empirical and Practical-Theological Approaches (pp. 53–67). Leiden: Brill.
50.
StreibH. (in press). Deconversion. In RamboL. R. & FarhadianC. E. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook on Religious Conversion.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
StreibH. & HoodR. W. (2011). “Spirituality” as privatized experience-oriented religion: Empirical and conceptual perspectives. Implicit Religion, 14(4), 433–453.
52.
StreibH.HoodR. W.KellerB.CsöffR.-M. & SilverC. (2009). Deconversion. Qualitative and Quantitative Results from Cross-Cultural Research in Germany and the United States of America. Research in Contemporary Religion 5, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
53.
StreibH.HoodR. W. & KleinC. (2010). The Religious Schema Scale: Construction and initial validation of a quantitative measure for religious styles. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 20, 1–22.
54.
StreibH. & KellerB. (2007). Spirituality and Deconversion: Cross-Cultural Research Results. Paper for the International Conference on Spirituality, Prague 2007-IX-21.
55.
UtschM. & KleinC. (2011) Bestimmungsversuche für komplexe Begriffe. In KleinC.BerthH. & BalckF. (Eds.), Gesundheit—Religion—Spiritualität. Konzepte, Befunde und Erklärungsansätze (pp. 25–45). Weinheim/Munich: Juventa.
56.
WoodB. T.WorthingtonE. L.Jr.ExlineJ. J.YaliA. M.AtenJ. D. & McMinnM. R. (2009). Development, refinement, and psychometric properties of the Attitudes toward God Scale (ATGS-9). Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 148–167.
57.
WoodheadL. (2007) Gender differences in religious practice and significance. In BeckfordJ. A. & DemerathN. J.III (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of the Sociology of Religion (pp. 566–586). Los Angeles: Sage.
58.
WulffD. M. (2009). Something Old, Something New …: The Faith Q-Sort. Paper for the Congress of the International Association for the Psychology of Religion, Vienna 2009-VIII-26.
59.
ZinnbauerB. J.PargamentK. I.ColeB.RyeM. S.ButterE. M.BelavichT. G.HippK. M.ScottA. B. & KadarJ. L. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36: 549–564.
